When Is Gasquet Going To Fulfill His Potential? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

When Is Gasquet Going To Fulfill His Potential?

Perfection
04-30-2009, 10:22 AM
Whenever I see Richard play, I can't help but think he is one of the most talented players I have ever seen in my life. His shot making ability and his strokes are flawless. His forehand is awkward yes, but most of the time it holds up well and is a weapon most of the time. He'll be turning 23 soon and he's only made it past the QFs of a slam ONCE, which is appalling to me. He deserves so much more, but it's all on him.

Do you think he'll ever win a slam(s)? Become #1?

Tabledott
04-30-2009, 10:23 AM
very original indeed.

richie21
04-30-2009, 12:14 PM
Whenever I see Richard play, I can't help but think he is one of the most talented players I have ever seen in my life. His shot making ability and his strokes are flawless.


I sopped reading there.
Apart from the fact he possesses one of the most bizarre rally FHs i've ever seen in my life,yes his strokes are flawless.

reggie1
04-30-2009, 01:01 PM
I'm sorry Perfection but I don't agree. I think his talent and ability has been hyped up far too much and this has led to ridiculous expectations of him. I think his game, movement, strategy and tactics leave much to be desired at times but I'm hoping to goodness that things are starting to improve. I think a lot of people on GM think Richie's fans are unrealistic but we're not. We've woken up and smelt the coffee but it doesn't mean we have completely lost hope or faith in him. He is still one of the nicest people to play on the ATP and one of the most enjoyable to watch (when his game is on!) and that's why his fans stick by him despite some crap results of late.

case
04-30-2009, 01:08 PM
. We've woken up and smelt the coffee but it doesn't mean we have completely lost hope or faith in him. He is still one of the nicest people to play on the ATP and one of the most enjoyable to watch (when his game is on!) and that's why his fans stick by him despite some crap results of late.

you summed up the gasquet fans well.
no we havent completely lost hope. i just watch him now because i like him and he still makes some incredible shots, but i am surprised when he wins now:confused:and that's not a good thing for a fan!

Collective
04-30-2009, 02:03 PM
He won't

GlennMirnyi
04-30-2009, 02:08 PM
He already has.

Jimnik
04-30-2009, 02:09 PM
It's a shame he couldn't progress. I quite like his game.

Johnny Groove
04-30-2009, 02:09 PM
When he starts to hit the gym.

Bazooka
04-30-2009, 02:15 PM
Not this week, and not against Nadal in clay if that was the timid intent of this thread.

I almost feel sorry for him if he finally faces the Monster.

leng jai
04-30-2009, 02:30 PM
Seriously I don't get why people expect great things from Gasquet. Hes got a shitty serve and a shitty forehand, the two most important shots in tennis.

Bernard Black
04-30-2009, 02:35 PM
Seriously I don't get why people expect great things from Gasquet. Hes got a shitty serve and a shitty forehand, the two most important shots in tennis.

And Nadal is unstoppable with just one of those. Poor Gasquet.

Bazooka
04-30-2009, 02:47 PM
It's because he's a youngster with a good 1h backhand and good junior results. This makes many people emmotional, mostly those that believe tennis died on last July.

ORGASMATRON
04-30-2009, 02:49 PM
He needs to man up physically thats all.

Bernard Black
04-30-2009, 02:55 PM
Unless he is an idiot, I'm sure he must have considered putting the hours in at the gym and piling on the pounds. It's pretty easy to see that's worked for some of the guys at the top, but it's not for everyone.

He's making a decent living near the very top of the game, it's perhaps too much of a gamble to completely change body shape which could in effect completely screw up his game. Yet we have the likes of Davydenko and Simon doing well, and they're smaller than Gasquet.

I think working on forehand technique and stepping in closer to the baseline to take the ball on the rise more often would pay dividends. He doesn't have the power of Nadal to play the game so far behind the baseline so he needs to play a more crafty game, but that requires quick, creative thinking, and he's not demonstrated any such mentality in the past.

Swiss Mountain
04-30-2009, 03:08 PM
I don't know if he'll become n°1 but he will sure win a slam; the french press just has been very annoying with him. Pushing him to far too soon.
His entourage isn't great either.

Har-Tru
04-30-2009, 03:17 PM
He already has.

For once, I agree.

Har-Tru
04-30-2009, 03:18 PM
I don't know if he'll become n°1 but he will sure win a slam; the french press just has been very annoying with him. Pushing him to far too soon.
His entourage isn't great either.

Comedy value.

richie21
04-30-2009, 04:57 PM
Not this week, and not against Nadal in clay if that was the timid intent of this thread.

I almost feel sorry for him if he finally faces the Monster.

To think he almost beat him in MC 4 years ago.......

richie21
04-30-2009, 04:59 PM
Unless he is an idiot, I'm sure he must have considered putting the hours in at the gym and piling on the pounds. It's pretty easy to see that's worked for some of the guys at the top, but it's not for everyone.

He's making a decent living near the very top of the game, it's perhaps too much of a gamble to completely change body shape which could in effect completely screw up his game. Yet we have the likes of Davydenko and Simon doing well, and they're smaller than Gasquet.

I think working on forehand technique and stepping in closer to the baseline to take the ball on the rise more often would pay dividends. He doesn't have the power of Nadal to play the game so far behind the baseline so he needs to play a more crafty game, but that requires quick, creative thinking, and he's not demonstrated any such mentality in the past.

Or unless he is lazy.......
I mean,he and his coach can say he trains very hard as many times as they want,the fact is that on the court,the guy remains one of the least fit players in the top 50.
The best example of that was actually and paradoxally his match against Gonzalez in last AO: people might say that this match proved the contrary as he pushed Gonzalez in a very long fifth set but the fact was that after just 2 sets,he was almost walking on the court.
A good question is: does he care enough about tennis?

Clay Death
04-30-2009, 05:05 PM
potential is nothing. results are everything.

ImmzB
04-30-2009, 05:06 PM
This Year Inshallah!!

richie21
04-30-2009, 05:07 PM
potential is nothing. results are everything.

But the fact is that he had some great results when he was still very very young.
Contrary to Gulbis for instance,Gasquet has achieved some great results which could justify the hype a litte bit.
Anyway,my opinion hasn't changed: considering how his career has gone in the last few years,the only big tournament i can see him winning in the future is Wimbledon(or a MS on grass,if ATP decides to create a MS on grass).

Clay Death
04-30-2009, 05:21 PM
But the fact is that he had some great results when he was still very very young.
Contrary to Gulbis for instance,Gasquet has achieved some great results which could justify the hype a litte bit.
Anyway,my opinion hasn't changed: considering how his career has gone in the last few years,the only big tournament i can see him winning in the future is Wimbledon(or a MS on grass,if ATP decides to create a MS on grass).


dont think so. he cant even win a masters event, let alone something like Wimbledon.

no can do old sport. when you are useless, you are useless. its just that simple.

its the lack of talent and very little testicular fortitude. literally a deadly combination if you want to fail.

he also doesnt have the right arsenal. that single hander is usless in the modern game of tennis.

Schu
04-30-2009, 05:42 PM
Just what IS his potential? (I know I'm asking for some smart ass comments here) but just because some French tennis magazine claims him the next great hope for French tennis at age 9, he had very good results in juniors and he beat Jesus Fed at MC once doesn't mean his flair and shotmaking will translate into great success with the big boys. Whoever decided to make him a cover boy at age 9 really did a disservice to him and not just because it put an unrealistic burden on his shoulders for the past 12 years but because it enabled he and those who coached and counseled him to ignore/dismiss his flaws.

He has the ability to hit almost any shot, a backhand with the potential to do damage (despite what some two handed backhand diehards will say), good touch and an improving serve (yes Richie21, I said IMPROVING) but he certainly has flaws in his game and it's not only his FH. I think it is just recently that he and his coaches MAY be seeing what needs to be done to make it to the next level.

When he's on and the stars are all aligned right, there isn't anything better to watch and he can pull off some good wins but when he's off it is prue frustration but shouldn't be unexpected at this point.

I doubt he'll ever win a GS although he may have a crack at Wimbledon if he gets his head screwed on right (and it's NOT too late for that). But no matter what, he is pure magic to watch when he is "on" and when he off he still remains a nice, classy guy who is pretty damn nice to look at even if he is spraying forehands everywhere. Allez Richie!

Har-Tru
04-30-2009, 06:20 PM
Gasquet winning Wimbledon... what else?

tennisfan444
04-30-2009, 06:33 PM
It'll happen soon

Cloudygirl
04-30-2009, 06:38 PM
I don't think he will be number 1 ever. he just isn't solid enough but he is brilliant when he is on and I would rather watch a set of on Gasquet than a match from anyone else on the tour.

He has tons he could improve, forehand, fitness, and serve and I hope he realises that and develops. I think he could win a big tournament one day but I just don't ever see him winning week in week out.

marcRD
04-30-2009, 07:39 PM
My question is when Davydenko is going to fullfill his potential?

ORGASMATRON
04-30-2009, 07:45 PM
If he beats Nando he has fulfilled his potential :cool:

MalwareDie
04-30-2009, 07:52 PM
Beating Verdasco is meaningless.

ORGASMATRON
04-30-2009, 07:56 PM
Beating Verdasco is meaningless.

Fail

Perfection
04-30-2009, 08:02 PM
I agree with the few posters that say he needs to hit the gym. His body looks like mine and all I do is sit at a computer and work for 8 hours a day, then come home and sleep. So thats not good. He needs to do what Andy Murray did and really get into peak shape, then I think he could really be a threat to all the players. But will he? I dunno.

Roddickominator
04-30-2009, 09:07 PM
Some were built to hunt....with the heart of a lion and ravenous intensity....so that they could stalk and kill.

Some were built to mind the village. This is Gasquet....like the village elder, or perhaps the ladies of the village....who warms the water and gets the broth ready for when the hunters come home with their fresh game.

He wasn't made to "fulfill his potential" in a competitive, man's game. Richard would be much more effective in picking out the furniture of a loft....or designing clothing.

richie21
04-30-2009, 09:12 PM
Those who says he lacks talent should watch those 2 videos of a 18 year old Gasquet almost beating the greatest clay court player ever on clay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNMRF6mF2Ts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UB4qZpgl68

Funnily enough,his FH was much better back then.

Johnny Groove
04-30-2009, 09:17 PM
Some were built to mind the village. This is Gasquet....like the village elder, or perhaps the ladies of the village....who warms the water and gets the broth ready for when the hunters come home with their fresh game.

He wasn't made to "fulfill his potential" in a competitive, man's game. Richard would be much more effective in picking out the furniture of a loft....or designing clothing.

:lol: :lol:

I think Richie can take some good things from this week and giving Verdasco a good battle.

heya
04-30-2009, 09:18 PM
Ironically, Roddick has as little heart as Richard.

richie21
04-30-2009, 09:20 PM
dont think so. he cant even win a masters event, let alone something like Wimbledon.

no can do old sport. when you are useless, you are useless. its just that simple.

its the lack of talent and very little testicular fortitude. literally a deadly combination if you want to fail.

he also doesnt have the right arsenal. that single hander is usless in the modern game of tennis.

He would have probably already won a MS if there was one on Grass.
Behind Federer and Nadal,he's been probably the third best grass court player in the last 3 years.

Matt01
04-30-2009, 09:20 PM
Some were built to hunt....with the heart of a lion and ravenous intensity....so that they could stalk and kill.

Some were built to mind the village. This is Gasgay....like the village elder, or perhaps the ladies of the village....who warms the water and gets the broth ready for when the hunters come home with their fresh game.

He wasn't made to "fulfill his potential" in a competitive, man's game. Richard would be much more effective in picking out the furniture of a loft....or designing clothing.


I don't know what I find more ridiculous, your posts or your username :tape:

Roddickominator
04-30-2009, 09:25 PM
Ironically, Roddick has as little heart as Richard.

Roddick has plenty of heart. He is just lacking in athleticism, skill, and intelligence(at least in comparison to the top players of the game).

ossie
04-30-2009, 09:31 PM
Some were built to hunt....with the heart of a lion and ravenous intensity....so that they could stalk and kill.

Some were built to mind the village. This is Gasquet....like the village elder, or perhaps the ladies of the village....who warms the water and gets the broth ready for when the hunters come home with their fresh game.

He wasn't made to "fulfill his potential" in a competitive, man's game. Richard would be much more effective in picking out the furniture of a loft....or designing clothing.couldnt have said it better myself :haha:

heya
04-30-2009, 09:58 PM
Roddick has plenty of heart. He is just lacking in athleticism, skill, and intelligence(at least in comparison to the top players of the game).Anyone looks smarter when they have good physical genes.
-He has bad athleticism and little emotional intelligence outside of tennis. That's a genetic problem. His mother and brothers have the same deficiencies. They like avoiding changes and debates to keep their family life "quiet". Even his mother refused to show facial expressions when he won his '03 US Open matches.

“We’ll go down and see Andy to wish him luck, without showing any emotion,” she said. “Then we’ll see him when he comes off the court, and I’ll get his sweaty kiss.” http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/09/08/030908ta_talk_ross
http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Roddick_Andy.html

But, he is better in comedy and radio shows. He denies it...but he jokes that he can be on radio.

http://twitter.com/andyroddick
i want bobby to give me a job when i am retired.... cant be that hard6:32 AM Apr 29th from web

nkhera1
04-30-2009, 09:59 PM
He would have probably already won a MS if there was one on Grass.
Behind Federer and Nadal,he's been probably the third best grass court player in the last 3 years.

no way. Fed and Nadal would have eaten those up as well.

fred perry
04-30-2009, 10:00 PM
he's the kind of player that could win one slam. you know the type...

Gasquetno.1
04-30-2009, 10:12 PM
Richie21 are you sticking up for Richard :eek:

sammy01
05-01-2009, 12:22 AM
he has more holes in his game than a colander, loopy weird forehand, passive mindset, no fight, average serve, no sense of what to do. yes he has a very nice backhand but a backhand alone doesn't make a great player.

nastoff
05-01-2009, 12:29 AM
He has already fullfilled it by beating Federer at RG and Roddick from 2 to 0 sets down at Wimbledon. What is his potential supposed to be anyway, top 3? Spare us, please, the guy is a one backhand pony.
He's nowhere near top 3 imvho.

Bazooka
05-01-2009, 12:37 AM
He would have probably already won a MS if there was one on Grass.
Behind Federer and Nadal,he's been probably the third best grass court player in the last 3 years.

2 MM grass titles, the last 3 years ago, makes someone the third best grass courter in the last 3 years?

So Only Nadal and Fed top him on grass, yet in the past two years he got owned in grass not only by Nalby and Murray, but also by legends like Gicquel, Clement, and Qureshi, someone from Pakistan ranked #304.

Gasquet couldn't win a MS on grass if he was the last man on earth.

nastoff
05-01-2009, 01:00 AM
The Qureshi loss is legendary, was it by 2 sets to love? :haha:
We remember that one, Gas-mug, don't you forget.

Bazooka
05-01-2009, 01:01 AM
The Qureshi loss is legendary, was it by 3 sets to love? :haha:

Yeah, was on straights. :o

Now that I think about it, and given the grass season short duration, it's not easy to be defeated by so many people on grass in just two years. This Gasquet is good.

nkhera1
05-01-2009, 01:01 AM
He should run around his forehand to hit his backhand. That's one way he can start fulfilling his potential.

richie21
05-01-2009, 01:21 AM
he has more holes in his game than a colander, loopy weird forehand, passive mindset, no fight, average serve, no sense of what to do. yes he has a very nice backhand but a backhand alone doesn't make a great player.

What about his incredible volley skills and his great touch,as well as his amazing ability to produce extraordinary shots out of nowhere(cf his FH passing shot against Hewitt while cramping in USO 2006)?
His forehand and his fitness are crap,i'm the first to say that but to say he only has a BH is ridiculous.

richie21
05-01-2009, 01:22 AM
2 MM grass titles, the last 3 years ago, makes someone the third best grass courter in the last 3 years?

So Only Nadal and Fed top him on grass, yet in the past two years he got owned in grass not only by Nalby and Murray, but also by legends like Gicquel, Clement, and Qureshi, someone from Pakistan ranked #304.

Gasquet couldn't win a MS on grass if he was the last man on earth.


That + the fact he made a Wimbledon 1/2 final in 2007 and the fact it needed Federer and Murray to stop him at Wimbledon in the last 3 years.
Bar Nadal and Federer,again name me a player who has performed overall better than Gasquet on grass in the last 3 years.
And the "got owned by Murray" part is just :lol: :lol:
I guess he got beat 6-1 6-0 6-2 by Murray....
Has Murray ever won a grass tournament to begin with?
Has he ever went further than a 1/4 final at Wimbledon?

leng jai
05-01-2009, 01:24 AM
Gasquet will reach his potential when richie21 stops being a whiny little bitch. AKA, never.

Bazooka
05-01-2009, 01:28 AM
What about his incredible volley skills and his great touch,as well as his amazing ability to produce extraordinary shots out of nowhere(cf his FH passing shot against Hewitt while cramping in USO 2006)

Even I can make a good passing shot every 5 years, pal. And passing 2006 Hewitt? I mean, making a passing shot at him is not like passing Rod Laver with a wooden Slazenger. He's a baseliner and was ranked 17. Relax.

luie
05-01-2009, 01:29 AM
He has already fullfilled it by beating Federer at RG and Roddick from 2 to 0 sets down at Wimbledon. What is his potential supposed to be anyway, top 3? Spare us, please, the guy is a one backhand pony.
He's nowhere near top 3 imvho..
Monte Carlo is not RG.:wavey:

Bazooka
05-01-2009, 01:44 AM
That + the fact he made a Wimbledon 1/2 final in 2007 and the fact it needed Federer and Murray to stop him at Wimbledon in the last 3 years.
Bar Nadal and Federer,again name me a player who has performed overall better than Gasquet on grass in the last 3 years.
And the "got owned by Murray" part is just :lol: :lol:
I guess he got beat 6-1 6-0 6-2 by Murray....
Has Murray ever won a grass tournament to begin with?
Has he ever went further than a 1/4 final at Wimbledon?

Are you kidding? this guy has been beaten in grass by everyone, he made a SF and that makes him better than others like Djokovic, which also reached one, plus a Queens final? crap, even Schuettler and Safin are in that exclusive "club".

He reached a semi and won 2 MM's long ago. Real men go to Halle and Queens.

bobbynorwich
05-01-2009, 02:26 AM
When he stops wearing his ball cap backwards, like an adolescent. He needs to grow up and join the adult world.

vidanhv
05-01-2009, 02:34 AM
He already did the best he could.

r3d_d3v1l_
05-01-2009, 02:42 AM
Weak service and forehand, awesome backhand. The backhand itself doensn´t make miracles.

the graduate
05-01-2009, 02:50 AM
when he comes out of the closet

Har-Tru
05-01-2009, 03:11 AM
when he comes out of the closet

:lol: that's nasty

Arkulari
05-01-2009, 05:08 AM
maybe if the french media stops calling him the second coming :shrug:
BTW: wtf with french players lately? no decent results :eek:

Baghdatis#1
05-01-2009, 05:08 AM
never:sad:

Hendu
05-01-2009, 07:27 AM
I will never understand people who act like the only relevant factor to determine the potential of a player are his technical skills.

What if given the mental strength he has, he already fulfilled his potential?

FlavorNuts
05-01-2009, 07:59 AM
Gasquet reminds me of Gaudio. Killer backhand, awkward in every other department.

heya
05-01-2009, 08:38 AM
He was gifted a lucky grass semifinal with a trainwrecked, fat opponent and Gasquet is crowned Wimbledon 3rd place winner.

Action Jackson
05-01-2009, 08:53 AM
When he stops wearing his ball cap backwards, like an adolescent. He needs to grow up and join the adult world.

Borrowing lines from TV commentators, poor form.

superslam77
05-01-2009, 09:08 AM
when he wins the Y.M.C.A cup and the :umbrella: let's call it "olympics" :devil:

if not just change to figure skating ritchie ;)

HattonWBA
05-01-2009, 09:33 AM
Another one of these threads

reggie1
05-01-2009, 02:01 PM
Why do all these threads about Richard descend into jibes about him being gay. We get it, some of you think he is gay, so bloody what?!

eck
05-01-2009, 02:28 PM
Unfortunately, I think he's peaked, and slipped.


I'd love to be wrong though.

Mateya
05-01-2009, 03:22 PM
He has already fulfilled his mug potencial and can now retire.
:wavey:

Har-Tru
05-01-2009, 03:28 PM
I will never understand people who act like the only relevant factor to determine the potential of a player are his technical skills.

What if given the mental strength he has, he already fulfilled his potential?

bingo

sammy01
05-01-2009, 04:15 PM
What about his incredible volley skills and his great touch,as well as his amazing ability to produce extraordinary shots out of nowhere(cf his FH passing shot against Hewitt while cramping in USO 2006)?
His forehand and his fitness are crap,i'm the first to say that but to say he only has a BH is ridiculous.

you have to be able to do it on a regular basis to have touch or great net play as a weapon. to refrence one match from 3 years ago isn't exactly proving your point. i can pick matches from most of the top 30 players when a aspect of their game worked well thats not normaly a weapon, doesn't mean when picking apart their games is its listed as one of their go to shots or plays.

the only think he has that consistently is a weapon for him is his backhand, so yes i can say he only really has a great backhand and average rest of his game (apart from his mental side which is well bellow average).

Schu
05-01-2009, 04:58 PM
you have to be able to do it on a regular basis to have touch or great net play as a weapon. to refrence one match from 3 years ago isn't exactly proving your point.

Take a look at any of his 3 matches from Rome and you should see he STILL has great touch and a very good volley... and damn in the Verdasco match he even had a forehand that produced some winners. Not saying that means his forehand is now a weapon but his touch and volley are and have been almost what you would call "go to" shots, in fact they WERE in Rome as he went to them (and was successful) often on the big points.

sammy01
05-01-2009, 05:25 PM
Take a look at any of his 3 matches from Rome and you should see he STILL has great touch and a very good volley... and damn in the Verdasco match he even had a forehand that produced some winners. Not saying that means his forehand is now a weapon but his touch and volley are and have been almost what you would call "go to" shots, in fact they WERE in Rome as he went to them (and was successful) often on the big points.

and still lost ;)

Schu
05-01-2009, 06:15 PM
and still lost ;)

Well that's whole different story ...

vamosinator
05-01-2009, 06:35 PM
Gasquet doesn't have mental potential, he never had it.

Cloudygirl
05-01-2009, 08:20 PM
you have to be able to do it on a regular basis to have touch or great net play as a weapon. to refrence one match from 3 years ago isn't exactly proving your point. i can pick matches from most of the top 30 players when a aspect of their game worked well thats not normaly a weapon, doesn't mean when picking apart their games is its listed as one of their go to shots or plays.

the only think he has that consistently is a weapon for him is his backhand, so yes i can say he only really has a great backhand and average rest of his game (apart from his mental side which is well bellow average).

His net play is above average most of the time too.

richie21
05-01-2009, 10:31 PM
Gasquet doesn't have mental potential, he never had it.

The likes of Roddick,Federer
and even Murray(cf TMC's qualifying match in Paris 2 years ago) would probably agree with you.

Renaud
05-01-2009, 10:33 PM
The likes of Roddick,Federer
and even Murray(cf TMC's qualifying match in Paris 2 years ago) would probably agree with you.

Isn't your job to bash Gasquet ?

richie21
05-01-2009, 10:34 PM
Isn't your job to bash Gasquet ?

I bash him for the right reasons

Bazooka
05-01-2009, 10:42 PM
His net play is above average most of the time too.

Given the current craptastic net play, yes, it's sad to admit but it may be above average nowadays. Only 3-4 top 30 are decent volleyers.

Hendu
05-02-2009, 12:03 AM
Given the current craptastic net play, yes, it's sad to admit but it may be above average nowadays. Only 3-4 top 30 are decent volleyers.

Just out of the top of my head: Stepanek, Federer, Murray, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Cilic...

Hugh Jaas
05-02-2009, 01:18 AM
when he comes out of the closet

correct

Sallydaisy
05-02-2009, 02:36 AM
"When is Gasquet going to fulfil his potential?"

He won't - it's too late.
Not enough consistency against the top 10; losing ground continually against his peers in age and experience.
Lots of other younger players gradually coming through the rankings.

Shame, 'cos I like watching him play.

Elena.
05-02-2009, 10:14 AM
Never.

Cloudygirl
05-02-2009, 10:42 AM
"When is Gasquet going to fulfil his potential?"

He won't - it's too late.
Not enough consistency against the top 10; losing ground continually against his peers in age and experience.
Lots of other younger players gradually coming through the rankings.

Shame, 'cos I like watching him play.



Right cos Gilles Simon is 24 and not long reached his best ranking this time last year he was ranked 35.

Fernando Verdasco has just reached his at 25 and this time last year he was ranked 29

Andy Murray was ranked 19/20ish this time last year I think (can't check cos the atp site keeps crashing on me).

Sexy bless him is creeping up the rankings this year. If the race was still running he would be quite high I believe. He is in his thirties.

Richie is unpredictable granted but it is way too early to write him off. he might have been on the tour for what seems like forever but he is still only 22.

Serenidad
05-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I think the Gasquet serve is above average actually.

Bazooka
05-02-2009, 11:31 AM
Just out of the top of my head: Stepanek, Federer, Murray, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Cilic...

Murray in the net I would rate similar to Nadal, skilled, good reflexes, smart, and being very large can win many points there, but really not a volleyer. So if there're only about 5 good volleyers in the top 30, it's fair to say that Gasquet is above average in volleying. However, having a small brain makes your volley skills not very useful nowadays. Someone with a quarter of your small brain will pass you easily.

Cloudygirl
05-02-2009, 11:53 AM
He actually has a good result at net points won though