who has the most spectacular game?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

who has the most spectacular game??

richie21
09-09-2006, 05:35 PM
i'll go with Baghdatis :)

Naranoc
09-09-2006, 05:36 PM
What's the point? You know that this is going to turn into a Federer worship thread. Just don't get them started on his forehand... ;)

Action Jackson
09-09-2006, 05:38 PM
Juan Ignacio Chela
The Volandri serve

richie21
09-09-2006, 05:39 PM
What's the point? You know that this is going to turn into a Federer worship thread. Just don't get them started on his forehand... ;)

being the most spectacular can be a different thing to being the most talented ;)

scarecrows
09-09-2006, 05:39 PM
Dick Norman

njorker
09-09-2006, 05:40 PM
Marat Safin If his head's in the game

Richard Gasquet If his fitness improves

El Legenda
09-09-2006, 05:42 PM
Ljubicic has better game than half the jackass' on that list...amazing serve..one of best 1handed bh...good FH

t0x
09-09-2006, 05:42 PM
Federer or Gasquet

Cristine
09-09-2006, 06:24 PM
Monfils? :lol:

DrJules
09-09-2006, 06:26 PM
What's the point? You know that this is going to turn into a Federer worship thread. Just don't get them started on his forehand... ;)

Many consider him boring.

Rogiman
09-09-2006, 06:28 PM
Nadal shouldn't be an option here.

stebs
09-09-2006, 06:28 PM
I voted for Blake. The explosion of pace with his forehand is sometimes hard to believe. He just rips the ball. Gasquet was close runner up.

stebs
09-09-2006, 06:29 PM
Nadal shouldn't be an option here.
:confused: His game is pretty spectacular. The most spectacular passing shots on tour. :)

Rogiman
09-09-2006, 06:30 PM
:confused: His game is pretty spectacular. The most spectacular passing shots on tour. :)
Right

stebs
09-09-2006, 06:32 PM
Right
Well what do you think? His game may not be spectacular in regular rallies but every now and then he does do things which make you go 'wow'. I wouldn't say it's the most spectacular game because it happens to rarely but still good enough to be in the poll.

DrJules
09-09-2006, 06:32 PM
Nadal shouldn't be an option here.

Adee gee finds him exciting compared to the boring Federer :eek:

Andre♥
09-09-2006, 06:32 PM
No Hewitt on the poll? :confused:

Rogiman
09-09-2006, 06:33 PM
Adee gee finds him exciting compared to the boring Federer :eek:
Enough said

*Viva Chile*
09-09-2006, 06:33 PM
Xristos

stebs
09-09-2006, 06:34 PM
No Hewitt on the poll? :confused:
You think his game is spectacular?

Spectacular is not the same as good. A great shot isn't always spectacular.

Cristine
09-09-2006, 06:34 PM
What's the point? You know that this is going to turn into a Federer worship thread. Just don't get them started on his forehand... ;)
No way, go Richie! :rocker2: :p :p :p

Andre♥
09-09-2006, 06:36 PM
You think his game is spectacular?

Spectacular is not the same as good. A great shot isn't always spectacular.

I find him running on the baseline replying every shot spectacular!

NeverSayDie
09-09-2006, 06:47 PM
No way, go Richie! :rocker2: :p :p :p

I second that :rocker2:

Naranoc
09-09-2006, 06:50 PM
I just noticed that Monfils is in that poll... :eek: He's possibly the most overrated player in the ATP at the moment.

Yappa
09-09-2006, 06:53 PM
Blake for me. Federer might be beautiful to watch, but my definition of "spectacular" is raw power fh like Blakes.

Jagermeister
09-09-2006, 06:57 PM
Marat!

prima donna
09-09-2006, 06:58 PM
You think his game is spectacular?

Spectacular is not the same as good. A great shot isn't always spectacular.

In the same thread where you make a case for Nadal, you discredit a 2 time GS champion.

That's logical thinking at it's best.

stebs
09-09-2006, 07:07 PM
In the same thread where you make a case for Nadal, you discredit a 2 time GS champion.
How did I discredit him? I respect Hewitt hugely and have a soft spot for him. Personally I can't say I would tag him with the label 'spectacular'. Again and again you start typing before thinking.

Bad Religion
09-09-2006, 07:27 PM
From the list

Rafa , Marato and Marquinhos .

magnoliaewan
09-09-2006, 07:30 PM
Federer by far.

richie21
09-09-2006, 08:01 PM
:confused: His game is pretty spectacular. The most spectacular passing shots on tour. :)

yeah that's the (only) reason i put his name in this poll :)

Halba
09-09-2006, 08:04 PM
pure entertainment blake or gasquet :worship:

baggy just makes too many errors the twat

cmurray
09-09-2006, 09:10 PM
Nadal shouldn't be an option here.


Not that I'm trying to start anything, but if Rafa's game is unspectacular and he routinely beats Roger....um....yeah.

I picked Safin. I dunno, I would rather watch Marat when he's playing well than anyone else. I just think the guy is brilliant.

Pea
09-09-2006, 09:18 PM
LoL@duckboy being in the poll.

lau
09-09-2006, 09:19 PM
IMHO Santoro deserves to be in that list

LCeh
09-09-2006, 09:20 PM
Why's Berdych not there? :p

Allure
09-09-2006, 09:22 PM
LoL@duckboy being in the poll.

Hey 2 ppl voted for him so he must have some merit. ;)

dorkino
09-09-2006, 09:30 PM
Master Fed. in a :cool: style.
Rafa with his own fighting style :)
Baghdatis when in mood.

Pea
09-09-2006, 09:34 PM
Hey 2 ppl voted for him so he must have some merit. ;)

Obviously his deluded obsessed teenage girl fans. :wavey:

World Beater
09-09-2006, 11:29 PM
Not that I'm trying to start anything, but if Rafa's game is unspectacular and he routinely beats Roger....um....yeah.

.

beating roger does not necessarily mean you have to hit spectacular shots.

Allure
09-09-2006, 11:31 PM
I picked Gasquet because of that mp #2 in his match against Hewitt.

cmurray
09-09-2006, 11:41 PM
beating roger does not necessarily mean you have to hit spectacular shots.


Okay... So, considering that Roger's about as close to a tennis genius as we've ever seen, how the hell else would Rafa beat him so often? What - do you think Rafa puts Roger under hypnosis every time they play or something? Rafa isn't just a guy who chases down every ball. He hits shots on the run that boggle my mind sometimes.

Sutti
09-09-2006, 11:50 PM
Nalbandian???????

Vass
09-09-2006, 11:54 PM
Federer but almost exclusively when he's pushed hard (otherwise even that 'casual' between-the-legs doesn't save his matches from being a bit boring). That doesn't happen all that often.

My vote goes to Safin because he's got the game and his matches are always... emotionaly coloured, if not exciting. His game is not always on, but even his bad matches usually have soem light patches.

Others from the list, that i like: Gasquet and Baghdatis. In case of Gasquet, it's impossible not to admire that backhand.

Others that aren't on the list: Nalbandian, Youzhny, Tursunov.

MullerGasquetFan
09-09-2006, 11:59 PM
I will go with Gasquet! That match with Hewitt, he showed that he has the talent and the heart!

cmurray
09-09-2006, 11:59 PM
Federer but almost exclusively when he's pushed hard (otherwise even that 'casual' between-the-legs doesn't save his matches from being a bit boring). That doesn't happen all that often.

My vote goes to Safin because he's got the game and his matches are always... emotionaly coloured, if not exciting. His game is not always on, but even his bad matches usually have soem light patches.

Others from the list, that i like: Gasquet and Baghdatis. In case of Gasquet, it's impossible not to admire that backhand.

Agreed. There is something fascinating about watching Marat play. I heard him say one time that he sees the perfect shot in his head and he goes for THAT shot. There is no such thing as high percentage tennis with him. And when you watch him, you KNOW that if he all of a sudden starts hitting his shots, you are going to see truly spectacular tennis. That match he played against Sampras in 2000 at the US Open was freaking amazing.

zimzim
09-10-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally Posted by Berdych Fan
No way, go Richie! I second that :rocker2:I third that :rocker2:

World Beater
09-10-2006, 12:22 AM
Okay... So, considering that Roger's about as close to a tennis genius as we've ever seen, how the hell else would Rafa beat him so often? What - do you think Rafa puts Roger under hypnosis every time they play or something? Rafa isn't just a guy who chases down every ball. He hits shots on the run that boggle my mind sometimes.

i didnt say that rafa does not hit spectacular shots. but i would say he is imo less spectacular than a select few players. ;)

rafa hits huge topspin fh to rogi' bh and uses great defense to beat federer. rafa is a great player and i never said otherwise.

spectacular shots rarely win matches in general for all players. firstly because they rarely happen(an obvious thing for great shots) and secondly because they have to happen on a huge point. the so-called great shots for rafa dont win him the match against federer. the same thing goes for federer and roddick when federer has won in the past. its the matchup the counts more than the talent or capability to hit great shots.

cmurray
09-10-2006, 12:38 AM
i didnt say that rafa does not hit spectacular shots. but i would say he is imo less spectacular than a select few players. ;)

rafa hits huge topspin fh to rogi' bh and uses great defense to beat federer. rafa is a great player and i never said otherwise.

spectacular shots rarely win matches in general for all players. firstly because they rarely happen(an obvious thing for great shots) and secondly because they have to happen on a huge point. the so-called great shots for rafa dont win him the match against federer. the same thing goes for federer and roddick when federer has won in the past. its the matchup the counts more than the talent or capability to hit great shots.

At last we agree. ;) I actually voted for Safin....my point is that Rafa is talented enough to belong on the list. I think both Roger and Marat are naturally more talented tennis players, whereas Rafa is the more talented athelete. Do you know what I mean?

World Beater
09-10-2006, 01:21 AM
At last we agree. ;) I actually voted for Safin....my point is that Rafa is talented enough to belong on the list. I think both Roger and Marat are naturally more talented tennis players, whereas Rafa is the more talented athelete. Do you know what I mean?

well it depends on what you call spectacular...andy roddick fans may think a the serve or the power game is the most spectacular thing.whereas a murray fan might appreciate the point construction a little more.

also, i think rafa being a better athlete has nothing to do with his wins over roger. Roger is exceptionally fit, fast and strong. Nadal simply has a more dependable game on slower surfaces and roger is unsure of how to play him.

marat's tennis can be spectacular but it happens so rarely these days. i think roger's game is spectacular but to see something besides the standard fh and bh winners, he does need to be pushed. so nadal imo is the best thing to happen to federer. i also think that many of the shots that roger has hit, are not textbook, whereas for other players their 'spectacular' game is hitting standard fh and bh winners. But i am probably biased here considering i appreciate fed's game more than some others.

leng jai
09-10-2006, 01:44 AM
Wheres Tommy Haas?

cmurray
09-10-2006, 01:55 AM
well it depends on what you call spectacular...andy roddick fans may think a the serve or the power game is the most spectacular thing.whereas a murray fan might appreciate the point construction a little more.

also, i think rafa being a better athlete has nothing to do with his wins over roger. Roger is exceptionally fit, fast and strong. Nadal simply has a more dependable game on slower surfaces and roger is unsure of how to play him.

marat's tennis can be spectacular but it happens so rarely these days. i think roger's game is spectacular but to see something besides the standard fh and bh winners, he does need to be pushed. so nadal imo is the best thing to happen to federer. i also think that many of the shots that roger has hit, are not textbook, whereas for other players their 'spectacular' game is hitting standard fh and bh winners. But i am probably biased here considering i appreciate fed's game more than some others.


I'm not sure how i got the label of a Federer hater. I'm not. You will never hear me utter a single disparaging remark about his tennis. It is exquisite and every time I see him play, I'm fully aware that I am seeing tennis genius. I've seen him play live on numerous occaisions. Believe me, I appreciate that I'm seeing probably the best player ever. I voted for Marat because I believe that as far as raw talent he nearly equals Roger. Consistency is (of course) a different matter all together. :)

As for Rafa and his athletecism....I wasn't trying to suggest that this was the reason he beats Roger. I think there is a different dynamic there that has more to do with psychology (and which utterly and completely fascinates me). I was talking more in general. Rafa's the kind of guy who would have excelled at any sport. He's a jock. :)

Radek Stepanek
09-10-2006, 02:00 AM
Stepanek, Ljubcic, Ancic, and Berdych, where are they?

cmurray
09-10-2006, 02:02 AM
Stepanek, Ljubcic, Ancic, and Berdych, where are they?


I'm not sure about the others, but Berdych should have been included.

World Beater
09-10-2006, 02:08 AM
I'm not sure how i got the label of a Federer hater. I'm not. You will never hear me utter a single disparaging remark about his tennis. It is exquisite and every time I see him play, I'm fully aware that I am seeing tennis genius. I've seen him play live on numerous occaisions. Believe me, I appreciate that I'm seeing probably the best player ever. I voted for Marat because I believe that as far as raw talent he nearly equals Roger. Consistency is (of course) a different matter all together. :)

As for Rafa and his athletecism....I wasn't trying to suggest that this was the reason he beats Roger. I think there is a different dynamic there that has more to do with psychology (and which utterly and completely fascinates me). I was talking more in general. Rafa's the kind of guy who would have excelled at any sport. He's a jock. :)

if you really want to know why you are being labelled as that, it has to with the fact that it seems you cheer for the player against roger even if that players is not among your faves. i am not talking about his tennis.

in another thread a few days back, i saw you pull up some quotes to prove his arrogance. just like that i can pull something up about one of your faves nadal. I just think that every player has said something that is honest at least and arrogance at best. to conclude that federer is arrogant because of sth he said, imo is silly when there are countless instances when he has displayed the characteristic opposite to the one you suggest.

I dont despise nadal or anyone because of a comment or two he might made off the court. But i will refrain trying to convince you that fed isnt the arrogant ass that some people tend to portray him as.

also "I" mentioned the fact that rafa's physicality is not something that other top players lack. Hence i dont think it is the major reason for his success. i wasn't anticipating anything from you in this regard :) i raised the issue myself.

for me marat is not as talented as roger. He doesnt have all the shots roger has(the offensive slice, the major one), but he has more than enough shots to beat roger or anybody else on any given day. roger has an overabundance of talent imo and this can be a bad thing esp when trying to decide what shot to hit.

spencercarlos
09-10-2006, 02:14 AM
i'll go with Baghdatis :)
Badgatis is really talented too he remmembers me a lot of Kuerten with his attude on court, really enjoying every minute of it (at least the Guga without the injury).
But Federer, Rios and Agassi have played the most impressive tennis i have ever seen at some point of their carreer they did (and Roger is right now).

World Beater
09-10-2006, 02:16 AM
Badgatis is really talented too he remmembers me a lot of Kuerten with his attude on court, really enjoying every minute of it (at least the Guga without the injury).
But Federer, Rios and Agassi have played the most impressive tennis i have ever seen at some point of their carreer they did (and Roger is right now).

call me crazy, but i think baghdatis is more talented than richie.

federer and rios
:worship:

cmurray
09-10-2006, 02:27 AM
if you really want to know why you are being labelled as that, it has to with the fact that it seems you cheer for the player against roger even if that players is not among your faves. i am not talking about his tennis.

in another thread a few days back, i saw you pull up some quotes to prove his arrogance. just like that i can pull something up about one of your faves nadal. I just think that every player has said something that is honest at least and arrogance at best. to conclude that federer is arrogant because of sth he said, imo is silly when there are countless instances when he has displayed the characteristic opposite to the one you suggest.

I dont despise nadal or anyone because of a comment or two he might made off the court. But i will refrain trying to convince you that fed isnt the arrogant ass that some people tend to portray him as.

also "I" mentioned the fact that rafa's physicality is not something that other top players lack. Hence i dont think it is the major reason for his success. i wasn't anticipating anything from you in this regard :) i raised the issue myself.

for me marat is not as talented as roger. He doesnt have all the shots roger has(the offensive slice, the major one), but he has more than enough shots to beat roger or anybody else on any given day. roger has an overabundance of talent imo and this can be a bad thing esp when trying to decide what shot to hit.

I suppose that's where we differ. You don't cheer for Rafa - that doesn't mean you despise him. I don't cheer for Roger. That doesn't mean I despise him.

I notice that you forget to mention all of the times I compliment Roger, which number MANY more than my complaints. The only thing you remember is that I called him arrogant. Those quotes you're talking about were specifically asked for. Somebody asked me to show them why I thought Roger was arrogant. I did so. Perhaps I'm a little more sensitive to it because a lot of times it is Rafa who is the target of Roger's "honesty".

Just because my perception of his comments differs from yours doesn't make me a hater. I would imagine that you perceive Rafa differently than I do. Does that make you a hater?

I don't hate Roger. I think he's an amazing tennis player. Peace. :wavey:

World Beater
09-10-2006, 02:43 AM
I suppose that's where we differ. You don't cheer for Rafa - that doesn't mean you despise him. I don't cheer for Roger. That doesn't mean I despise him.

I notice that you forget to mention all of the times I compliment Roger, which number MANY more than my complaints. The only thing you remember is that I called him arrogant. Those quotes you're talking about were specifically asked for. Somebody asked me to show them why I thought Roger was arrogant. I did so. Perhaps I'm a little more sensitive to it because a lot of times it is Rafa who is the target of Roger's "honesty".

Just because my perception of his comments differs from yours doesn't make me a hater. I would imagine that you perceive Rafa differently than I do. Does that make you a hater?

I don't hate Roger. I think he's an amazing tennis player. Peace. :wavey:

actually, i dont cheer against him. in a neutral match, i dont care too much for either player but only want to see good tennis. i also dont cheer for roger, but more that i appreciate his tennis and what to see more of it. i cheer for the shotmaking and the strokes but not so much about who is holding the racket.

i get the feeling that you cheer against roger precisely because you think he is arrogant. complimenting roger's tennis is not the issue i was talking about. my point is that if you think roger is arrogant because of some comments he made, then i can give more players to perceive as arrogant than the ones you currently claim to be, including one of your faves.

if you still think he is arrogant, its ok, because i dont really know myself. however, i dont think what he has said in the media is proof of his arrogance any more than what others have said...this is my perception. if you disagree, fine. anyways, i hope we have a good final, preferably five sets and preferably the best of both players.

cmurray
09-10-2006, 02:53 AM
actually, i dont cheer against him. in a neutral match, i dont care too much for either player but only want to see good tennis. i also dont cheer for roger, but more that i appreciate his tennis and what to see more of it. i cheer for the shotmaking and the strokes but not so much about who is holding the racket.

i get the feeling that you cheer against roger precisely because you think he is arrogant. complimenting roger's tennis is not the issue i was talking about. my point is that if you think roger is arrogant because of some comments he made, then i can give more players to perceive as arrogant than the ones you currently claim to be, including one of your faves.

if you still think he is arrogant, its ok, because i dont really know myself. however, i dont think what he has said in the media is proof of his arrogance any more than what others have said...this is my perception. if you disagree, fine. anyways, i hope we have a good final, preferably five sets and preferably the best of both players.

We can DEFINITELY agree on that. I hate it when Andy rolls over for Roger. Although NOTHING can be worse than that final with Lleyton Hewitt. That was HORRIBLE.

I admit, those things he said about Rafa after the claycourt season put me off a bit. It came off as sour grapes. On the other hand, I'd probably have been pissed too if I kept getting beat. I probably should have given him the benefit of the doubt. You made a good point. I don't know him, so I have no idea if he was just having a rotten day or if his comments were taken out of context.

Cristine
09-10-2006, 02:57 AM
call me crazy, but i think baghdatis is more talented than richie.

federer and rios
:worship:
Crazy. :p
:hug:

Pfloyd
09-10-2006, 03:00 AM
I cannot find the article in ESPN, thus I delete this post. The ESPNDEPORTES Tennis News archives dosent go "back in time" enough to be able to watch that article.

World Beater
09-10-2006, 03:03 AM
We can DEFINITELY agree on that. I hate it when Andy rolls over for Roger. Although NOTHING can be worse than that final with Lleyton Hewitt. That was HORRIBLE.

I admit, those things he said about Rafa after the claycourt season put me off a bit. It came off as sour grapes. On the other hand, I'd probably have been pissed too if I kept getting beat. I probably should have given him the benefit of the doubt. You made a good point. I don't know him, so I have no idea if he was just having a rotten day or if his comments were taken out of context.

i will say that what roger said certainly did seem like sour grapes to me, but when another journo asked him about the incident later on, he said that the alleged coaching had started way before this years clay season, to last years miami final. the one dimensional comment while possibly true wasn't warranted. I think he was pissed off that everyone was saying that he would be no match for nadal on clay, and he made the mistake of coming off as cocky with that comment. nadal also made a silly comment about the coaching because everyone started pointing fingers about him breaking the rules, so he felt defensive...all in all it was an interesting day.

in comparison some of the stuff andre and pete have said in their careers, now that warrants its own thread.

also, sometimes players will say things precisely because they are trying to answer a question...frequently i hear the complaint from others that roger is always talking about his greatness. but in reality he is just answering the journo's question. its not like he choses the topics to discuss.

World Beater
09-10-2006, 03:06 AM
True, but lets take a look at the definition of "spectacular":

dramatically daring or thrilling.

now daring is a word not apt for tennis. Most of the times, most tennis players aren't daring. They go for shots they know they can make (or think they can make), to win the point.

Now, lets go to the word that defines "spectacular" in tennistic terms: thrilling. Thrilling is something that makes you go "wow" thats awsome and exciting and fun to watch. In this sense, thrilling is a word more apt for Nadal. He quite simply makes saves and passing shots that no one else in the world can make, plus his style draws in the crowd more than Federer. Take the U.S Open as an example. He was the player most people wanted to watch.

Nadal is "spectacular"

"


you have no evidence for this. if you find nadal more spectacular, thats ok. but to come up with a dictionary definition and make some blanket statements about what the crowds appreciate...now thats :cuckoo:

Skyward
09-10-2006, 03:07 AM
Take the U.S Open as an example. He was the player most people wanted to watch.

Do you have numbers?

World Beater
09-10-2006, 03:09 AM
Do you have numbers?

rafatard alert :p

Pfloyd
09-10-2006, 03:10 AM
Do you have numbers?

Unfortunatley, I don't.

However, I saw three articles that mad the claim that the crowd thought Nadal was the most fun player to watch. One was ESPN, the other ESPNDEPORTES (latin america), the other was MARCA (spanish press).

Yes, Marca is biased, so one might discard them as a reliable source of information regarding spanish athletes.

However, ESPN, is quite reliable. Im sure they have some sort of numbers to back up that article, otherwise, they're just lying.

Pfloyd
09-10-2006, 03:11 AM
If that Article is wrong, then I take back what I say.

silverarrows
09-10-2006, 03:19 AM
No doubt about this. If you want to see a "spectacular" shots and game, It's Roger Federer. His shots are not in the books of tennis. He's just simply amazing. He's a genius in the court. :cool:

Skyward
09-10-2006, 03:26 AM
Unfortunatley, I don't.

However, I saw three articles that mad the claim that the crowd thought Nadal was the most fun player to watch.

How do they know? Did they run a poll? How many people were asked?

Without numbers it's promotional garbage.

Ferrero Forever
09-10-2006, 03:42 AM
I had to vote for Federer, but I love watching everyone on that list, with the exception of Monfils, Malisse and Gasquet because their games are so good.

Allure
09-10-2006, 04:10 AM
I had to vote for Federer, but I love watching everyone on that list, with the exception of Monfils, Malisse and Gasquet because their games are so good.

So you don't like to watch Gasquet but you would watch Roddick because his game is "so good''? :confused:

guy in sf
09-10-2006, 06:18 AM
Federer or Gasquet

I totally agree. Federer's game is beautiful to watch, I know we're all tired of him but if you saw him for the first time playing the way he's playing right now, you'd be in awe.

Gasquet game is also spectacular to watch, as evident in his match VS Hewitt, there were some point I don't even think Federer could have done better. If this boy can last in long matches and really hone all his skills, his game can only be more stunning! That backhand!

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 06:23 AM
being the most spectacular can be a different thing to being the most talented ;)
Most people here are too dumb to see a difference.