True all court players of the game left? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

True all court players of the game left?

leng jai
09-17-2006, 09:50 AM
Seems to be a dying breed these days, which is a shame since they are probably the most entertaining styles to watch. The only players that I can think of are Roger Federer, Tommy Haas, Ivan L., Lletyon Hewitt and possibly Marat Safin. I hate watching players like Davydenko, Ferrer and Nadal who just stay back at the baseline and wear their opponents down. Theres probably a few players I've missed, so please enlighten me

David Kenzie
09-17-2006, 10:25 AM
Lleyton isn't more "all court" than Nadal in my book.

Halba
09-17-2006, 10:28 AM
Seems to be a dying breed these days, which is a shame since they are probably the most entertaining styles to watch. The only players that I can think of are Roger Federer, Tommy Haas, Ivan L., Lletyon Hewitt and possibly Marat Safin. I hate watching players like Davydenko, Ferrer and Nadal who just stay back at the baseline and wear their opponents down. Theres probably a few players I've missed, so please enlighten me

Ivan L. an all court player? He's a grass court gimp, and he lost in the 1st round of the USO. if thats "all court" more like no court. His FO was a fluke.

Richard Gasquet will be of of the better all court players in 2 years time, if he improves his fitness. His game is well suited to all surfaces, especially grass and hard court. Again not a grand slam contender, as it is 5 sets buddy.

Marcos Baghdatis also shows some signs of being able to play on all courts- again fitness an issue (somehow with these youngsterS?). He just needs to stop playing from the baseline, and attack the net more. Less UEs the better MArcos!

Andy murray won't be a contender for GS anytime soon as he needs to grow a brain and can't duke it out over many 5 set matches (which all champions inevitably need to do to win Grand Slams). He has the game for all court, with the exception of clay (no real results), but may be fast clay OK.

All 3 players will break into top 10 as they will train hard for the next 6 months to improve fitness, and as their bodies grow older they will develop natural all body strength.

I see by end of the 2007 year the top 10 will be:

"The real top 10"

1. ROGER FEDERER
2. RAFAEL NADAL
3. ANDY RODDICK
4. JAMES BLAKE
5. N. DAVYDENKO
6. MARIO ANCIC
7. MARCOS BAGHDATIS
8. RICHARD GASQUET
9. ANDY MURRAY
10. TOMAS BERDYCH/ Tommy haas


I see robredo, nalby, ljubo's game's declining/deteriorating. Davydenko will remain top 5 due to sheer volume of tournaments played, whereas these youngsters aren't as fit as him.

stebs
09-17-2006, 10:29 AM
Ivan L. an all court player? He's a grass court gimp, and he lost in the 1st round of the USO. if thats "all court" more like no court. His FO was a fluke.
He's still an all court player. You don't have to be a great player to be all court.

leng jai
09-17-2006, 10:39 AM
Yeah, I put Ivan there cause he has a pretty good volley and also a solid baseline game. That doesn't mean I think he is any good though. In my opinion Hewitt has one of the better volleys in the game but he rarely does it, and often comes in behind weak approach shots.

Xristos
09-17-2006, 10:42 AM
Add my name to the list....

MisterQ
09-17-2006, 02:51 PM
add Roddick to the list

RickDaStick
09-17-2006, 02:57 PM
Ivan L. an all court player? He's a grass court gimp, and he lost in the 1st round of the USO. if thats "all court" more like no court. His FO was a fluke.

.



2006 Season
Clay: 15-6, Roland Garros SF, 1 QF, 1 title (WTC)
Grass: 3-2 ( served for match at Wimbledon in 3rd round :) )
Indoor: 7-0 1title, 2-0 Davis Cup
HC: 24-7 (2loses to Roger) 1 title, 1 Final, 4 QF,


One of few, i believe less than 5 to make it to QF or better at all AMS events CLAY and Roland Garros

Xristos
09-17-2006, 03:21 PM
add Roddick to the list
Since when did Roddick know how to volly?

DrJules
09-17-2006, 05:41 PM
Top 5 all court players:

1) R. Federer - only player who looks comfortable all over court.
2) M. Ancic - seems capable of serve & volley and baseline games. If remains fit expect in top 5 next year.
3) R. Gasquet - comfortable all over the court. Probably too defensive most of the time although at grass court event at Nottingham (won last 2 years) used serve and volley a lot. If fit expect in top 10 next year.
4) D. Nalbandian - can play from anywhere in court. Needs to improve serve to fully utilise all court game.
equal 5) M. Baghdatis - mostly at baseline, but can move forward and volley.
equal 5) A. Roddick - does actually end numerous points at net, but volley skills suspect. To many a surprise choice, bu Roddick is one of the more attacking players in game.

On other top 10 players:
Nadal - better volley skills than A. Roddick, but more defensive attitude. Therefore, tends to focus on baseline defense from deep behind baseline and hits with too much top spin.
Davydenko - actually takes ball early and plays near baseline, but limited volley skills mean he avoids going forward and making his life much easier.
Ljubicic - has the power game to open net opportunities, but limited volley skills and not a great mover.
Robredo - just tries to power through opponents from baseline. Not sure how good he is at the net.
Blake - usually tries to hit outright winners from baseline rather than creating chances to move forward. Volley OK, but nothing special.
Haas- much happier at baseline, but has reasonable volley skills.

DrJules
09-17-2006, 05:43 PM
Seems to be a dying breed these days, which is a shame since they are probably the most entertaining styles to watch. The only players that I can think of are Roger Federer, Tommy Haas, Ivan L., Lletyon Hewitt and possibly Marat Safin. I hate watching players like Davydenko, Ferrer and Nadal who just stay back at the baseline and wear their opponents down. Theres probably a few players I've missed, so please enlighten me

Amazed no Mario Ancic.

betterthanhenman
09-17-2006, 05:51 PM
Federer
Gasquet
Ancic
Haas
Safin
Baghdatis
Nalbandian
Stepanek
Hewitt
Henman
Malisse
Santoro

And others....

Nadal is rapidly becoming one.

markom
09-17-2006, 05:57 PM
Amazed no Mario Ancic.

his results on all surfaces proves him all-rounder and one of the last there trying to play serve-volley more often.

Radek Stepanek
09-17-2006, 06:29 PM
Ljubicic is good, so is Stepanek, Ancic.

RickDaStick
09-17-2006, 06:32 PM
Top 5 all court players:

1) R. Federer - only player who looks comfortable all over court.
2) M. Ancic - seems capable of serve & volley and baseline games. If remains fit expect in top 5 next year.
3) R. Gasquet - comfortable all over the court. Probably too defensive most of the time although at grass court event at Nottingham (won last 2 years) used serve and volley a lot. If fit expect in top 10 next year.
4) D. Nalbandian - can play from anywhere in court. Needs to improve serve to fully utilise all court game.
equal 5) M. Baghdatis - mostly at baseline, but can move forward and volley.
equal 5) A. Roddick - does actually end numerous points at net, but volley skills suspect. To many a surprise choice, bu Roddick is one of the more attacking players in game.

On other top 10 players:
Nadal - better volley skills than A. Roddick, but more defensive attitude. Therefore, tends to focus on baseline defense from deep behind baseline and hits with too much top spin.
Davydenko - actually takes ball early and plays near baseline, but limited volley skills mean he avoids going forward and making his life much easier.
Ljubicic - has the power game to open net opportunities, but limited volley skills and not a great mover.
Robredo - just tries to power through opponents from baseline. Not sure how good he is at the net.
Blake - usually tries to hit outright winners from baseline rather than creating chances to move forward. Volley OK, but nothing special.
Haas- much happier at baseline, but has reasonable volley skills.


HAHAHAHA Roddick an all court player and one of the more attacking players in the game? That slice backhand is really deadly :eek:

leng jai
09-17-2006, 11:44 PM
Yeah Ancic is one that I forgot. Andy Roddick an all court player? His volleys are pathetic and so is his slice backhand. The only reason hes good on grass is because of his serve.

Himura
09-18-2006, 12:27 AM
1. Federer : No comments we all know why
2. Nalbandian : Maybe not the second best player but can play in all surfaces.
Final at wimbledon, SF in AO, RG and USOpen.
3. Safin : Has proven that he can play on Grass took a set from Feds even. ´
And we all know that he can play on the other surfaces
4. Gonzalez : He`s game is suited for all surfaces, just bad luck to go against fed
all the time.
5. Berdych : He proved in Halle that he can play on Grass but Feds was in the
way there and Wimbeldon. Pushed Nadal bigtime in Båstad, he really has a good game for All surfaces.

JW10S
09-18-2006, 01:20 AM
If by all court player you mean a player who can play equally well from the backcourt, the midcourt, and the forecourt, no there aren't any left. Men's tennis has become a backcourt game dominated by inside-out forehands and the occassional backhand down the line. There are very few players who can actually execute a volley effectively. Just because a player can win 10% of the total points played at net doesn't make him an all-courter.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 01:54 AM
Nadal doesn't volley better than Roddick. In fact, his volley is in a "Monaco-Berlocq" level.

MisterQ
09-18-2006, 01:58 AM
You can debate whether Roddick's volleys and slice are good or bad, but regardless of this he is using them a lot these days and not just sitting back at the baseline. He's playing an all-court style.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 02:05 AM
Federer, Ancic, Tursunov, Haas, Gasquet, Ljubicic, Berdych, Djokovic, Youzhny, Malisse.
Grosjean used to be when he was a top 10. Great volleys.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 02:08 AM
You can debate whether Roddick's volleys and slice are good or bad, but regardless of this he is using them a lot these days and not just sitting back at the baseline. He's playing an all-court style.

Wrong. Roddick only goes to the net when he's lost in the baseline. He's never comfortable and/or playing effectively at the net.

zicofirol
09-18-2006, 02:12 AM
I see by end of the 2007 year the top 10 will be:

"The real top 10"

1. ROGER FEDERER
2. RAFAEL NADAL
3. ANDY RODDICK
4. JAMES BLAKE
5. N. DAVYDENKO
6. MARIO ANCIC
7. MARCOS BAGHDATIS
8. RICHARD GASQUET
9. ANDY MURRAY
10. TOMAS BERDYCH/ Tommy haas


Thats a joke of a top 10, Davydenko and Blake before Nalbandian??? And as much as you would hate to see lubijic in there, he does deserve to be there, and ahead of ancic. Roddick at #3 I am not sure, im not sold on his last run in the USO. He will have to do this for the next 6 months to "prove" he is back? besides other players know how to play him, well see in the last 3 master events.

MisterQ
09-18-2006, 02:29 AM
Wrong. Roddick only goes to the net when he's lost in the baseline. He's never comfortable and/or playing effectively at the net.

If he's winning points at the net, and those points are helping him win matches, he's playing effectively. It doesn't have to be pretty.

He won Cincinnati and made the US Open final this year playing that way.

shotgun
09-18-2006, 02:41 AM
The definition of an all-court or all-around player: a player who can perform consistently well on any surface, who doesn't have any surface distinction, i.e., whose results on a certain surface are not outstanding in comparison to his results on any other surface.

Compare Ljubicic's results indoors to his results on grass, or Roddick's results on hard to his results on clay, or Nadal's results on clay to his results on carpet.

So no, Ljubicic, Roddick and Nadal aren't all-court players.

In the current top 20, I would point out Federer, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Berdych and maybe Stepanek as all-around players.

leng jai
09-18-2006, 02:48 AM
What I meant by an all court player was someone who has volleys that are almost as good as their groundies, a good slice backhand and a lot of variety in their shots. Performing well on grass and hardcourt doesn't make you an all court player since a big serve gets you half way there anyway. I'm mroe talking about the style of play than the results on each surface. A player with an all court game won't play well on all types of courts eg. at RG they lack the patience required, and don't keep their footing well on the dirt

shotgun
09-18-2006, 02:49 AM
What I meant by an all court player was someone who has volleys that are almost as good as their groundies, a good slice backhand and a lot of variety in their shots. Performing well on grass and hardcourt doesn't make you an all court player since a big serve gets you half way there anyway. I'm mroe talking about the style of play than the results on each surface. A player with an all court game won't play well on all types of courts eg. at RG they lack the patience required, and don't keep their footing well on the dirt

Ah ok, I probably confused all-court player with all-around player. My bad.

World Beater
09-18-2006, 04:14 AM
Ah ok, I probably confused all-court player with all-around player. My bad.

no you have the correct definition...he had the wrong one...its a matter of semantics :)

BlakeorHenman
09-18-2006, 05:20 AM
Someone was confusing all-court player with all-SURFACE player... two very different things. But yeah, semantics.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 05:22 AM
If he's winning points at the net, and those points are helping him win matches, he's playing effectively. It doesn't have to be pretty.

He won Cincinnati and made the US Open final this year playing that way.

Wrong. Federer passed him almost everytime he went to the net.

rmb6687
09-18-2006, 05:31 AM
Wrong. Federer passed him almost everytime he went to the net.

how is mister wrong when Andy did in fact win Cincinati and make it the final playing in that very style? Federer beating him by rendering his all-around game useless is what federer does to almost anyone, but the style Roddick was using all summer was effective on most of his other opponents.

Merton
09-18-2006, 05:44 AM
There are not players these days that have the same efficiency regardless of their court position. As for Andy, it seems to me that the slice backhand approach is more of a problem than the volley, it tends to land short and sit up, giving too many options to the opponent. However, Andy was effective at the net, apart from the final against Roger.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 05:47 AM
Roddick is one of the worst volleyers ever. That's a fact. Results prove nothing.

Again: there's a difference between playing at the net and going to the net when the point is practically won. Rafter/Sampras do the first. Roddick and the rest of the baseliners do the second.

Art&Soul
09-18-2006, 05:48 AM
Only Federer is really all-court player :)

MisterQ
09-18-2006, 01:35 PM
Wrong. Federer passed him almost everytime he went to the net.

Fed also hit balls wide or dumped them into the net because of the positional pressure Andy was applying, and floated back balls that Andy put away with overheads from well-inside the court.

Anyway, you can't judge this well by the Federer match. He's the best player in the world. ANY tactic is likely to be ineffective against him. Look at the other six matches that Andy won.

leng jai
09-18-2006, 01:55 PM
Federer was hitting some pretty poor passing shots in the US Open 06 Final, mixed in with a couple of gems. It was funny cause time and time again Andy was hitting crap volleys but winning the point..

Purple Rainbow
09-18-2006, 02:25 PM
Why are serve-volleyers considered all-court players? Basically all they do is rush to the net and move around there a few feet.
Players running the length of the baseline and well beyond, who move to the net, or are pushed several feet behind the baseline seem like more all-court players to me.

lordmanji
12-15-2006, 01:36 AM
an all courter is someone who can do everything well though not excel particularly at one thing. he has good footwork and can come to net to finish off points.

all courters to me are: tommy haas, sebastian grosjean and tommy robredo.

R.Federer
12-15-2006, 01:54 AM
Lleyton Hewitt (I guess his superiority is more in other things, like sheer determination, mental strength etc).

Fee
12-15-2006, 01:56 AM
Amer Delic has stated that he wants to be more of an 'all courter' so watch him next year and see if that part of his game develops.

Mardy Fish used to be called an all courter, but I'm just not sure what the state of his game is lately. I haven't seen him play in quite a while.

+alonso
12-15-2006, 01:59 AM
not just 'cause i'm a fan of him
but
fernando gonzález is
, david nalbandian too,
fabrice santoro
etc : D

marti_228
12-15-2006, 02:06 AM
gasquet,Nalbandian,Federer...maybe Nadal if you consider he has reached the final of Wimbledon.

Deboogle!.
12-15-2006, 02:06 AM
There are lots of players I'd consider all-courters. I can't believe Fed hasn't been mentioned? Just b/c he has weapons doesn't mean he can't be considered an all-courter. Safin also plays well from everywhere when his head's into it, andy is certainly trying like hell to become an all-courter, I'd consider Ljubicic one, Malisse, Fish, Blake, they all can play from mostly everywhere on the court :shrug:

Caralimon
12-15-2006, 02:25 AM
It depends on how do you see an ''all-court player''. You can see it as a multi surface player, who has decent and consistent results throughtout the year, like Nalbandian. Or the player who has good results on every surface but excel in a particular one, ultimate example Nadal.

Or the player who handle every part of a tennis court. Federer the prime example there.

Gonzalo82
12-15-2006, 02:32 AM
Federer, Nalbandián. The Emperor and the Prince (?)

CapeDeville
12-15-2006, 02:36 AM
Oscar Hernandez :)

MarieS
12-15-2006, 02:44 AM
what, xristos hasn't been mentioned yet? :eek:

shtexas
12-15-2006, 02:45 AM
Federer, although he does excel on faster surfaces. Gasquet is a solid pick too, even though it's still early. I agree with those that said Nalbandian, as his results are pretty even on all surfaces. I think Djokovic is heading in that direction - maybe - he played well at both RG and Wimbledon anyway.

Xristos
12-15-2006, 03:30 AM
Christopher Leonidas Spiropoulos.

idolwatcher1
12-15-2006, 03:32 AM
It depends on how do you see an ''all-court player''. You can see it as a multi surface player, who has decent and consistent results throughtout the year, like Nalbandian. Or the player who has good results on every surface but excel in a particular one, ultimate example Nadal.

Or the player who handle every part of a tennis court. Federer the prime example there.
Yeah, I think the poster was referring to which players can cover every part of the court well... But as to the other way of interpreting "all-court player", in the Statistics section of the forum, I posted a list of active players (in the Top 100 a few months ago) who made the second week of the different grand slams, and although not (at all) a complete indication of who is a multi-surface player, it does give you an idea of who might be (or is) a multi-surface player:

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4166/2ndweeknf0.gif

Sjengster
12-15-2006, 03:55 AM
Ancic, although it's interesting to note that he switched to a far more baseline-orientated style this year under Rosengren with a remodelled forehand and it paid divends, especially during the claycourt season. That said, in trying to take on Davydenko at his own game in Paris and failing, he did show that what distinguishes him from many other players is his ability to rush the net and he may need to use it regularly to have his greatest success.

R.Federer
12-15-2006, 04:50 AM
The original poster explicitly said do things well from everywhere but not excel in anything in particular. I think those who want to put Federer, Safin and some others into this category have misinterpreted the poster's first post. Those players excel on at least one dimension.

Osama B Hitler
12-15-2006, 05:52 AM
Federer, Haas, and Nalbandian for sure. Back in the day, Laver.

stebs
12-15-2006, 07:17 AM
Federer, Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, Gasquet, Ljubicic, Santoro.

lordmanji
12-15-2006, 07:37 AM
The original poster explicitly said do things well from everywhere but not excel in anything in particular. I think those who want to put Federer, Safin and some others into this category have misinterpreted the poster's first post. Those players excel on at least one dimension.

ya thats what i originally intended but i realized with some of the posts that an all courter can also be good at everything :)

Loremaster
12-15-2006, 08:03 AM
Federer
Nadal (you can't say he isn't :D, 2FO, Wimby runner up, QF of US Open, Hard court TMS, indoor TMS, SF of TMC, Dubai this year )
Gasquet
Nalbandian
Ancic
Gonzalez

Saumon
12-15-2006, 10:05 AM
the Bye

Blue Heart24
12-15-2006, 11:14 AM
"The real top 10"

1. ROGER FEDERER
2. RAFAEL NADAL
3. ANDY RODDICK
4. JAMES BLAKE
5. N. DAVYDENKO
6. MARIO ANCIC
7. MARCOS BAGHDATIS
8. RICHARD GASQUET
9. ANDY MURRAY
10. TOMAS BERDYCH/ Tommy haas






Gasquet,Murray,Ancic
:haha: :haha: :haha:

Oriental_Rain
12-15-2006, 11:31 AM
Federer
Gasquet
Bagdhatis
Nalbandian
Safin

they do exceptionally well all around the court

juanqui.ferrero
12-15-2006, 12:25 PM
Tommy Robredo's been doing very good this year on the different surfaces. Grass is not really his thing, but with only one month on grass, it's pretty hard to improve... :lol:

JCF
12-15-2006, 12:40 PM
Wrong. Federer passed him almost everytime he went to the net.

You are a pathetic hater, there's no reasoning with you. Its not even worth responding to people like you, who cannot see past their own favs and can't even give players they dislike some credit.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 05:03 PM
From an all surface perspective.

Federer and Nalbandian are the two main one.

Nadal comes right after them.

Then comes Grosjean in fourth place, that while had his limitations on clay, they weren't big enough to prevent him to get at one RG semi-finals.

I think these are the four main, but others that deserve a mention:


Canãs, Gasquet, Ancic, Stepanek and Gonzales can also play very well in all surfaces, but are one level bellow the four main one. They can get very good results on all surfaces, but I don't really believe that they will get truly great results on all of them.

And I am sure that are other players that I can't remember right now.

Safin, however, is not an all surface player and is being, once more, overrated.


From the perspective of having all the shots....... only Federer I think

All the others lack a little too much in at least one shot to be putted as all court players.

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 05:09 PM
From an all surface perspective.

Federer and Nalbandian are the two main one.

Nadal comes right after them.

Then comes Grosjean in fourth place, that while had his limitations on clay, they weren't big enough to prevent him to get at one RG semi-finals.

I think these are the four main, but others that deserve a mention:


Canãs, Gasquet, Ancic, Stepanek and Gonzales can also play very well in all surfaces, but are one level bellow the four main one. They can get very good results on all surfaces, but I don't really believe that they will get truly great results on all of them.

And I am sure that are other players that I can't remember right now.

Safin, however, is not an all surface player and is being, once more, overrated.


From the perspective of having all the shots....... only Federer I think

All the others lack a little too much in at least one shot to be putted as all court players.

Nadal all-surface player? Cañas?

:haha:

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 05:10 PM
You are a pathetic hater, there's no reasoning with you. Its not even worth responding to people like you, who cannot see past their own favs and can't even give players they dislike some credit.

You show you have no clue saying that.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 05:10 PM
Nadal all-surface player? Cañas?

:haha:

Prove that they aren't

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 05:16 PM
I forgot Hewitt, I would put him in Ancic and Stepanek class

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 05:20 PM
Prove that they aren't

Nadal has no results on carpet. Cañas had one SF in Paris where his QF opponent was Lopez, and that says enough.

Next.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 05:26 PM
True, but if you are willing to put carpet in the middle of this, you also need to take out other players like Gonzales and Gasquet, otherwise you aren't following your own logic

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 05:33 PM
True, but if you are willing to put carpet in the middle of this, you also need to take out other players like Gonzales and Gasquet, otherwise you aren't following your own logic

Gonzalez made two finals and won Basel once.

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 05:34 PM
Gasquet won Lyon.

safinalium
12-15-2006, 05:35 PM
Federer ... ;)

Nalbandian - great game on clay, plays well on hard and reached the Wimbledon final 4 years ago. :eek:

Safin - RG SF (also two titles on clay), Wimbledon QF (last year he even gave Fed struggle on grass), USO and AO winner.

Gasquet - titles on grass, clay and carpet.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 05:37 PM
Which finals? When and against which oponnents? To win Basel at first doesn't seem to be anything special. Who he played their? You still has to take out Gasquet

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 05:40 PM
Which finals? When and against which oponnents? To win Basel at first doesn't seem to be anything special. Who he played their? You still has to take out Gasquet

When did you start watching tennis? Yesterday?

Gonzalez lost two finals: against Federer this year and Nalbandian in 2002.
Won last year against Baghdatis.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 05:54 PM
Gasquet won Lyon.

Who he beated their?

When did you start watching tennis? Yesterday?

No, If you have looked my registration data, you would conclude that I watch tennis at least since October 2004 :)

Gonzalez lost two finals: against Federer this year and Nalbandian in 2002.
Won last year against Baghdatis.

This also doesn't say much, I need to know who he beated their.

jayjay
12-15-2006, 05:57 PM
Gasquet won Lyon.

Wow! Incredible! :worship:

Saumon
12-15-2006, 05:57 PM
Who he beated their?

the overrated non-all-court-player 3-times-bercy-winner 2-slams-champion former-world-numer-one ;)

jayjay
12-15-2006, 06:06 PM
The definition of an all-court or all-around player: a player who can perform consistently well on any surface, who doesn't have any surface distinction, i.e., whose results on a certain surface are not outstanding in comparison to his results on any other surface.


I would agree with most of that, and certainly it is more what I believe to be the definition than what it appears the thread starter had in mind.

My only disagreement is that you can be great on clay for example, and good elsewhere, that would still make you an all courter. Like the Ferrero of old, excelled on clay, but could still win Madrid and get to Shanghai F or USO F or AO SF.

So those who label Ferrero a clay courter, I don't agree with at all. As his results elsewhere are also of a high standard, even if he is known more for his clay court prowess than not.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 06:09 PM
the overrated non-all-court-player 3-times-bercy-winner 2-slams-champion former-world-numer-one ;)

So you think Safin is not overrated? Hard to take it seriously from a russian. But tell me, what reasons you have to think that he is not overrated and that he is an all court surface?
And that Gasquet victory over him has any meaning? And that only two slams and three simple bercy titles are enough to justify all the hype that is over him?

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 06:12 PM
I forgot Verdasco and Djokovic

Saumon
12-15-2006, 06:15 PM
So you think Safin is not overrated? Hard to take it seriously from a russian. But tell me, what reasons you have to think that he is not overrated and that he is an all court surface?
And that Gasquet victory over him has any meaning? And that only two slams and three simple bercy titles are enough to justify all the hype that is over him?

who said I'm Russian? :)

richie21
12-15-2006, 06:18 PM
Which finals? When and against which oponnents? To win Basel at first doesn't seem to be anything special. Who he played their? You still has to take out Gasquet


he won Lyon ,a carpet tournament ,beating indoor specialists like Safin and Soderling.:o

LK_22
12-15-2006, 06:24 PM
Ljubicic is NOT an all court player. Try Henman as one of the biggest examples of an all court player in the game in the past 10 years.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 06:52 PM
he won Lyon ,a carpet tournament ,beating indoor specialists like Safin and Soderling.:o

So, you think his victory about Safin meant something?
Please, tell me you aren't being serious.

About Soderling's match, Soderling was broken three times in the third set (or something like that), meaning that it was an atypical, bizarre match. In other words, it have little, if not any importance

Sjengster
12-15-2006, 06:59 PM
I didn't see the Gasquet-Safin match, but the reports I read about it all said it was a tremendously high-quality, competitive affair and Safin was full of praise afterwards for Gasquet afterwards, so I think it must have meant something. And Soderling crumbling at the end of a match isn't that atypical or bizarre, it still took a lot of work to get him to that stage.

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 07:00 PM
who said I'm Russian? :)

I sweared that I read in your profile something about Russia.
But since you aren't, I apologize

BlackSilver
12-15-2006, 07:13 PM
I didn't see the Gasquet-Safin match, but the reports I read about it all said it was a tremendously high-quality, competitive affair and Safin was full of praise afterwards for Gasquet afterwards

I saw the first set and it was a high quality match, I think they played at similar levels most of the time, but Gasquet raised his level in a couple of important moments and Safin didn't take his chances, partially due to Gasquet playing well at these moments that's true.
But I have to totally disagree with anyone who thinks it was a "tremendous" high quality, "competitive affair". I also read here reports that it was a good match but nothing so special.
Specially that he Gasquet played even better at DC and still lost

Safin being full of praise afterwards doesn't mean much anyway.

so I think it must have meant something.

I personally think it meant very little. As far as I remember, Safin never got really good results in these smaller carpet tournaments, besides, he doesn't play well for more than one or two consecutive matches at almost two years.

And Soderling crumbling at the end of a match isn't that atypical or bizarre, it still took a lot of work to get him to that stage.

A lot of work to get to the third set and then see his opponent to collapse is not good enough for me.

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2006, 07:24 PM
I forgot Verdasco and Djokovic

Verdasco? That's laughable.

So, you think his victory about Safin meant something?
Please, tell me you aren't being serious.

About Soderling's match, Soderling was broken three times in the third set (or something like that), meaning that it was an atypical, bizarre match. In other words, it have little, if not any importance

Big deal, Soderling crumbling has nothing to do with Gasquet's ability.

I saw the first set and it was a high quality match, I think they played at similar levels most of the time, but Gasquet raised his level in a couple of important moments and Safin didn't take his chances, partially due to Gasquet playing well at these moments that's true.
But I have to totally disagree with anyone who thinks it was a "tremendous" high quality, "competitive affair". I also read here reports that it was a good match but nothing so special.
Specially that he Gasquet played even better at DC and still lost

Safin being full of praise afterwards doesn't mean much anyway.

I personally think it meant very little. As far as I remember, Safin never got really good results in these smaller carpet tournaments, besides, he doesn't play well for more than one or two consecutive matches at almost two years.

A lot of work to get to the third set and then see his opponent to collapse is not good enough for me.

What's high quality for you? Moonballing contests?

Safin is a great player: 2 DC, 2 GS, 5 MS. His opinion is a important, yes.

What's good enough for you? Double-bagelling?

jocaputs
12-15-2006, 08:16 PM
the only all-round player in the game is federer.

all-surface players are fed and nalbo, maybe grosjean

richie21
12-15-2006, 09:04 PM
So, you think his victory about Safin meant something?
Please, tell me you aren't being serious.

About Soderling's match, Soderling was broken three times in the third set (or something like that), meaning that it was an atypical, bizarre match. In other words, it have little, if not any importance

Soderling is a pretty good indoor player.....ask Federer:o
Soderling was broken three times in the third set but it was mostly due to Gasquet being incredibly good at returning his serve.
considering it used to be one of his main weaknesses before,i was myself very surprised to see how good his return of serve was during this Lyon's tournament.

JCF
12-15-2006, 09:21 PM
You show you have no clue saying that.

You show you have no clue, when people disagree with you. Your judgements on a tennis player are not facts, don't make others seem like they have no clue what they're talking about.

Roddick is developing an all court game. He may not be the best at it, but its been pretty effective for him this summer.

Burrow
12-15-2006, 09:23 PM
Of course Safin is an all courter, he's always trying to get into the net.

speedemonV12
12-15-2006, 11:35 PM
Seems to be a dying breed these days, which is a shame since they are probably the most entertaining styles to watch. The only players that I can think of are Roger Federer, Tommy Haas, Ivan L., Lletyon Hewitt and possibly Marat Safin. I hate watching players like Davydenko, Ferrer and Nadal who just stay back at the baseline and wear their opponents down. Theres probably a few players I've missed, so please enlighten me

Federer is an all court player, Hass and Hewitt are definately not. Hewitt is the same as Nadal.

GlennMirnyi
12-16-2006, 01:58 AM
You show you have no clue, when people disagree with you. Your judgements on a tennis player are not facts, don't make others seem like they have no clue what they're talking about.

Roddick is developing an all court game. He may not be the best at it, but its been pretty effective for him this summer.

Yeah, all court game. The guy can't make a volley to save his life.

That's Seinfeld-stuff.

Action Jackson
12-16-2006, 04:19 AM
Roddick is developing an all court game. He may not be the best at it, but its been pretty effective for him this summer.

Hahahaha, who is your drug dealer?

KaxMisha
12-16-2006, 04:44 AM
So, you think his victory about Safin meant something?
Please, tell me you aren't being serious.

About Soderling's match, Soderling was broken three times in the third set (or something like that), meaning that it was an atypical, bizarre match. In other words, it have little, if not any importance

Still much more than Nadal has managed to do on the surface, isn't it? ;)

KaxMisha
12-16-2006, 04:48 AM
You show you have no clue, when people disagree with you. Your judgements on a tennis player are not facts, don't make others seem like they have no clue what they're talking about.

Roddick is developing an all court game. He may not be the best at it, but its been pretty effective for him this summer.

It's effective when he gets easy volleys (having a kick-ass serve certainly helps here). Easy is the key word - his volleying technique is not very good to say the least. He could never rush the net like Edberg or Henman and still win points. You do see this, right?

16681
12-16-2006, 04:56 AM
Hey give Roddick a break. He is trying to improve his game. And if he does improve his game it will not only be good for him, but good for tennis as well IMO.

KaxMisha
12-16-2006, 05:12 AM
To answer the general question posed in this thread:

All-surface players
Federer - no explanation needed, I hope. The best by a wide margin on everything but clay and second only to Nadal (hopefully/probably not for too long, though) on clay. Obviously has titles on all surfaces. Has reached the final of all Grand Slam and won three. Enough said.

Safin - Grand Slam titles both at the slow hard courts of the Australian Open and the fast hard courts of the US Open. Has titles on all surfaces but grass, but has many on carpet, proving he handles fast surfaces well. Beat Ferrero in straights in Barcelona (obviously on clay) in 2003 when Ferrero dominated the surface (Ferrero's only loss on clay that year, apart from a match against Federer, where he retired). Anyone saying Safin isn't an all-surface player but Nadal is must be either high or stupid. By the way - me saying this has nothing to do with me being Russian. I would never say Andreev is an all-surface player. Safin isn't even my favorite player, so don't even think about it BlackSilver. :wavey:

Nalbandian - certinly a force on all surfaces. Has reached the semis or better of all Grand Slams. No explanation needed, really.

Ancic - since he changed his game, seems equally comfortable on clay as on fast surfaces. Impressive and unexpected.

Grosjean - seems to be equally good at all surfaces.

(Djokovic - might be a contender here, but I haven't seen enough of him on grass, so I can't be sure.)

Almost all-surface players
Gonzalez - obviously is a force on clay and has proved that he is also excellent on carpet. The hard court results are not quite there yet, but I think that will change. He has the game for it. Grass, however... I doubt it.

Davydenko - basically the same as above. Seems equally good on everything but grass.

NOTE: I have included players who are good at everything but grass as almost all-surface players. I have not done this with players good at everything but clay. The reason for this is that
(i) there is another surface basically as fast as grass (carpet), so you can in a way "make up" for not being good on grass by being good on carpet (like Gonzalez and Davydenko). This is the main reason.
(ii) clay takes up a much bigger part of the season than grass (this is only semi-relevant, though).

KaxMisha
12-16-2006, 05:13 AM
Hey give Roddick a break. He is trying to improve his game. And if he does improve his game it will not only be good for him, but good for tennis as well IMO.

How is that relevant? I wasn't bashing Roddick - simply pointing out that his volley at present isn't as good as the poster seems to think. Since when is that not "giving him a break"?

Action Jackson
12-16-2006, 05:21 AM
(Ferrero's only loss on clay that year, apart from a match against Federer, where he retired).

Just to point out Ferrero was absolutely bitch slapped by Calleri in Malaga of 2003 in the Davis Cup on clay, so he did lose a match on clay when he wasn't ill or injured.

KaxMisha
12-16-2006, 05:35 AM
Just to point out Ferrero was absolutely bitch slapped by Calleri in Malaga of 2003 in the Davis Cup on clay, so he did lose a match on clay when he wasn't ill or injured.

Duly noted. :) Still, I think my point regarding Safin on clay stands - don't you?

Action Jackson
12-16-2006, 05:39 AM
Duly noted. :) Still, I think my point regarding Safin on clay stands - don't you?

Safin is very competent on clay, considering he spent enough years in Spain then it stands to reason.

*Viva Chile*
12-16-2006, 05:47 AM
I'm proud to say that my country have an all court player like González. In times we're are never expected :worship:

And Roddick an all court player?????? :spit: :haha: winning Houston many times don't say nothing considering "all the claycourters" that always participate in that MM tournament.

leng jai
12-16-2006, 12:21 PM
Federer is an all court player, Hass and Hewitt are definately not. Hewitt is the same as Nadal.

Firstly who the fuck is "Hass"? And explain to me how he is definitely not an all court player.

leng jai
12-16-2006, 12:22 PM
I'm proud to say that my country have an all court player like González. In times we're are never expected :worship:

And Roddick an all court player?????? :spit: :haha: winning Houston many times don't say nothing considering "all the claycourters" that always participate in that MM tournament.

He hasn't won it since Tommy came back.

JCF
12-16-2006, 01:31 PM
Yeah, all court game. The guy can't make a volley to save his life.

That's Seinfeld-stuff.

No, but he's working on it and improving. So what if some other players can volley, no-one uses it no more anyway, not even your beloved Federer.

JCF
12-16-2006, 01:32 PM
Hahahaha, who is your drug dealer?

Glenn ;)

stebs
12-16-2006, 01:42 PM
(Djokovic - might be a contender here, but I haven't seen enough of him on grass, so I can't be sure.)

Almost all-surface players
Davydenko - basically the same as above. Seems equally good on everything but grass.

Djokovic can play on grass for sure. He took Ancic to 5 sets at Wimby this year, quite an acheivement.

Davydenko, much as I like him is not an all surface player and never will be. He isn't just bad on grass he is terrible. Since 2003 he's played 10 grass court matches and lost all but one of them.

charlie666
12-16-2006, 01:51 PM
Other than Federer: Grosjean, Malisse, Nalbandian, Santoro

KaxMisha
12-16-2006, 08:00 PM
Davydenko, much as I like him is not an all surface player and never will be. He isn't just bad on grass he is terrible. Since 2003 he's played 10 grass court matches and lost all but one of them.

Isn't that basically what I said? :confused:

GlennMirnyi
12-16-2006, 10:00 PM
Hey give Roddick a break. He is trying to improve his game. And if he does improve his game it will not only be good for him, but good for tennis as well IMO.

Why can't people cut this :bs: about "trying to improve". A guy like Roddick is already developed as a player, he can't learn to do things he already doesn't know how to do.

+alonso
12-16-2006, 11:49 PM
To answer the general question posed in this thread:


Almost all-surface players
Gonzalez - obviously is a force on clay and has proved that he is also excellent on carpet. The hard court results are not quite there yet, but I think that will change. He has the game for it. Grass, however... I doubt it.

Davydenko - basically the same as above. Seems equally good on everything but grass.

I think comparing Davydenko results on grass to González results is quite funny, mainly 'cause a QF run at Wimbledon and Queens tell you that González can play on the surface, unlike Davydenko, who hasn't achieved too much on it.

IMHO, Gonzalez has a lot to improve in the next years esp on grass, but He showed that grass isn't a surface that He can't play on it

Auscon
12-17-2006, 12:40 AM
I think Federer and Nalbandian would have to be the two best

-------------------------------

I definitely think Lleyton is an all-court player, unfortunately absent from most clay tournaments the last 2 years due to injury, but he made a great showing against Nadal at RG this year

2x RG QF's (losses to JCF and Gaudio...the good Gaudio)
Made the latter stages of plenty of clay tournaments in the past
Kuerten would also attest...

-------------------------------

I think Rafa is right up there
- HC wise, he's getting outplayed by good HC players consistently at AO/USO, but he's already got 2 Masters titles to his name, F of Miami and SF at Indian Wells without dropping a set, won a couple of other HC titles...so imo the only question is grass....

And I think he's proven this year that like the best he can adapt his game to suit his least favoured surface. QF of Queens (retiring), and I definitely don't think his Wimby final will be a one off

-------------------------------

I don't think Safin has come close to proving himself on grass to be considered an allcourt player.

1 Wimby QF and 1 final at Halle

The vast majority of all of his other grass tournaments resulted in early round losses

He's got the ability to be great on grass, but he just hasnt been able to make anything out of it - hopefully 07 will see some improvement

KaxMisha
12-17-2006, 08:22 AM
I think comparing Davydenko results on grass to González results is quite funny, mainly 'cause a QF run at Wimbledon and Queens tell you that González can play on the surface, unlike Davydenko, who hasn't achieved too much on it.

IMHO, Gonzalez has a lot to improve in the next years esp on grass, but He showed that grass isn't a surface that He can't play on it

To be fair, I said "basically the same as above" - basically being the key word. My point was that they are both accomplished players on all surfaces but grass. You are right in Gonzalez being better on grass than Davydenko is, but that's not the point. The point is both of them seem not to mind the surface as long as it's not grass. Sorry for my confusing wording the first time.

stebs
12-17-2006, 11:27 AM
To be fair, I said "basically the same as above" - basically being the key word. My point was that they are both accomplished players on all surfaces but grass. You are right in Gonzalez being better on grass than Davydenko is, but that's not the point. The point is both of them seem not to mind the surface as long as it's not grass. Sorry for my confusing wording the first time.

Yes, as Alonso said, there is a big difference. Gonzalez is a good player on grass and a QF in the slam on that surface does not suggest that he deserves to be compared to Kolya.

KaxMisha
12-17-2006, 11:43 AM
Yes, as Alonso said, there is a big difference. Gonzalez is a good player on grass and a QF in the slam on that surface does not suggest that he deserves to be compared to Kolya.

Point taken. You are right. I hope my clarification above better explains what I was trying to say, though.

nobama
12-17-2006, 12:49 PM
This isn't really about active players but still is interesting for debate...

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16331&bannerregion=

Best Of All Time On All Surfaces
12/15/2006

In response to Tennis Week's "A Tourney For All Time" (http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16227&bannerregion=), you need three For All Time tourneys: on clay, grass and hard courts. Roy Emerson could not have beaten Frank Sedgman.

Your comment that Emmo was in great shape is true, but you forgot that Sedge was also in great shape. In fact he owns a gymnasium and trained Margaret Smith Court.

Boris Becker couldn't beat Don Budge in his dreams. Pancho [Gonzalez] said that he couldn't serve and volley against Budge, even though he was old by then. Budge's returns were too good. Budge was the best of his era, without a doubt. Budge could beat both Emerson and Sedgman. No doubt.

Gonzalez would have trounced John McEnroe. I saw Gorgo [Gonzalez] trounce Fred Stolle, and Fred and John Newcombe almost beat McEnroe and Peter Fleming in their heyday at the U.S. Open.

Bjorn Borg would beat Gorgo on clay, but on grass it would be Gorgo. On hard courts it also would be Gorgo. Borg couldn't win the U.S. Open on hard courts or clay.

Jack Kramer could have beaten — and he did beat — Lew Hoad, Gorgo, and many more. Kramer also believed Budge was the best of that era.

Lew Hoad losing to McEnroe? Are you kidding? Hoad hit too hard for Mac. I saw Mac get killed by Tim Mayotte with power and Paul Haarhuis and Ivan Lendl. Hoad would have no trouble with any of them. Hoad beat Gorgo, Kramer, Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, and all the young Aussies.

Laver says that Hoad was the best. Why don't you believe all these Aussies?

Does McEnroe own stock in Tennis Week? Mac was a touch player, who couldn't keep up with a true hard hitter like Hoad, Pete Sampras, etc.

Your final four should have been Hoad, Federer, Sampras and Laver.

Final four on clay: Borg, Rafael Nadal, Gustavo Kuerten and Manolo Santana.

Final four on grass: Laver, Hoad, Federer and Sampras (what do you know, same as hard).

All time greatest: Roger Federer (maybe), Rod Laver, Lew Hoad, Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg (on clay), Don Budge, Jack Kramer and Fred Perry.

Remember, players today have to be runners. Runners back then were easily beaten by the greats. Today the greats would be killed by runners if they couldn't run themselves. This is why Laver is the greatest. He could have adapted. Rod says that if he played today, he would have used a more western grip and not the continental. I believe him. He was the greatest.

Hoad was the greatest until he hurt his back. Hoad beat Rod 11 times in a row when Rod turned pro. So how could Rod win the Grand Slam in '62, when both Hoad and Rosewall could have killed him at the time? Rod had to learn percentage tennis as a pro.

I hope that Roger Federer gets the chance to be the best of all time. He has a great risk of serious injury, same as Kuerten, Chang, Agassi, Connors, Safin, etc.

We must change the Grand slams from 3 out of 5 to 2 out of 3 set-matches. I want to see the best tennis player, not the best marathon "iron man" contestant.

Give me a break. Give tennis a break.

By the way, I believe Laver recently said " the ball travels too fast now for players to rush the net." This means that to spice up the game, we need to slow it down a bit, not make it faster.

Thank you, I feel much better now. Have a happy holiday and see if I can get my Tennis Week on time. I received my December issue several weeks after my friends.

Other than these minor changes, you did have a pretty good tourney. Please don't get my blood pressure up again.

alfonsojose
12-18-2006, 01:11 PM
all court / all surface player : d*ck, p*ssy, an*s, shaved, unshaved, indoors, outdoors :drool:

BlackSilver
12-25-2006, 09:06 PM
Still much more than Nadal has managed to do on the surface, isn't it?


I couldn't care less

Anyone saying Safin isn't an all-surface player but Nadal is must be either high or stupid. By the way - me saying this has nothing to do with me being Russian. I would never say Andreev is an all-surface player. Safin isn't even my favorite player, so don't even think about it BlackSilver.

I can see why someone would think that Safin is more of an all-surface player than Nadal. Nothing against it. Now saying that a person that thinks the oppositive "must be either high" (what that means btw?) or stupid? Hahahaha. Then show me WHY Safin is SO much more of an all-courter. The only stupid things in this thread are the following parts of your post.

there is another surface basically as fast as grass (carpet), so you can in a way "make up" for not being good on grass by being good on carpet (like Gonzalez and Davydenko). This is the main reason.

That is one of the dumbest things that I saw here this year.
You must think that speed is the main component separating different surfaces right? Well, it happens that you are wrong. Very wrong.
The way surfaces react to spin and the way these allow the players move over them are both as important as speed. And together, they are MORE important than speed. So, I am sorry if I had to interrupt your party when you thought you was being the king of the hill. Good luck next time.

Ancic - since he changed his game, seems equally comfortable on clay as on fast surfaces. Impressive and unexpected.

Grosjean - seems to be equally good at all surfaces.

No player is "equally" as confortable in all surfaces. I don't have a clue as to why the hell you think so. Grosjean is no exception, specially this older, past-his-prime Grosjean.
About Ancic, hahaha, please, you can do better than this.

BlackSilver
12-25-2006, 09:07 PM
Soderling was broken three times in the third set but it was mostly due to Gasquet being incredibly good at returning his serve.
considering it used to be one of his main weaknesses before,i was myself very surprised to see how good his return of serve was during this Lyon's tournament.


I can see why are you impressed and respect your point of view.
It is difficult for me to accept that. How many times he broke Safin in the final? Once? Twice? And then he comes and suddenly broke Soderling THREE times in ONE SET?

This doesn't make any sense. Even if Gasquet improved his serve devolution, this should not have occurred. And even if had become the best returner in the world, would still be strange. And even in the case of this being true, I would still consider it as an aberration that will happen again half a dozen times in his career.

BlackSilver
12-25-2006, 09:08 PM
Verdasco? That's laughable.

He doesn't have good results on all surfaces but the potential to do well in all of them is there. When I mentioned the second group, I was thinking about players
that not only have good results on all surfaces, but have the potential to get them (Gasquet is more their due to his potential than his nothing special results).


Big deal, Soderling crumbling has nothing to do with Gasquet's ability.

Big deal for Gasquet being in the final. No it has nothing to do with his ability to play well on carpet, but I won't give praise to anyone that beats Soderling by breaking his serve three times in one set.



What's high quality for you? Moonballing contests?

No


Safin is a great player: 2 DC, 2 GS, 5 MS. His opinion is a important, yes.


I don't give much importance to most of the post-match interviews, even less to Safin's ones.

What's good enough for you? Double-bagelling?

Give trouble to one of the best carpet players, on a good day, in an important event, more than once.
Crappy Safin and a crumbling Soderling aren't NEAR enough to make me think that Gasquet should be above any of the players that I putted together with him.
Sorry if you have low standards.

freeandlonely
12-25-2006, 09:13 PM
Roger Federer
Richard Gauset

KaxMisha
12-25-2006, 11:15 PM
I can see why someone would think that Safin is more of an all-surface player than Nadal. Nothing against it. Now saying that a person that thinks the oppositive "must be either high" (what that means btw?) or stupid? Hahahaha. Then show me WHY Safin is SO much more of an all-courter.

I did show you. Safin has titles on all surfaces but grass. Nadal has never won anything on anything faster than a hard court. Do you want it in bold? Sure, we can fix that: Safin has titles on all surfaces but grass. Nadal has never won anything on anything faster than a hard court. Happy now? Also, you can easily deduce it by looking at their respective games, but we don't have to go into that, as the point is already made.


That is one of the dumbest things that I saw here this year.
You must think that speed is the main component separating different surfaces right? Well, it happens that you are wrong. Very wrong.
The way surfaces react to spin and the way these allow the players move over them are both as important as speed. And together, they are MORE important than speed. So, I am sorry if I had to interrupt your party when you thought you was being the king of the hill. Good luck next time.

If I thought that, I would find it inexplicable how Davydenko can be good on carpet but suck on grass. I don't. You, of course, omitted that I didn't include these players as all-surface players, but labelled them as almost all-surface players, and the reason I gave was (paraphrased) that they are at least good on surfaces of all kinds of speed. Do I think that's the only thing to a surface? Of course not. Are they closer to being all-surface players than someone only good on grass, fast hard court and carpet, but who absolutely sucks on clay? You bet. Hence, what I wrote was correct and everything you wrote above is bullshit (not surprising, since you consider Nadal to be more of an all-surface player than Safin), not because it's wrong on its own, but because it's completely irrelevant, as - again - I didn't include these players as all-surface players. Next time, maybe you should look at what you're replying to, huh? To put it in your words - "good luck next time."

No player is "equally" as confortable in all surfaces. I don't have a clue as to why the hell you think so. Grosjean is no exception, specially this older, past-his-prime Grosjean.
About Ancic, hahaha, please, you can do better than this.

You're right. They're not equally comfortable. In day-to-day speech, however, we sometimes use simplifications to get a point across. What I meant (and this is obvious to everyone who tried to grasp the essence of what I wrote instead of dissecting the semantics) was that the standard deviation of their level of play with respect to the surface is relatively low. Happy now?

KaxMisha
12-25-2006, 11:17 PM
Gasquet should be above any of the players that I putted together with him.

Wait? Is this thread suddenly about golf? ;)

richie21
12-25-2006, 11:50 PM
He doesn't have good results on all surfaces but the potential to do well in all of them is there. When I mentioned the second group, I was thinking about players
that not only have good results on all surfaces, but have the potential to get them (Gasquet is more their due to his potential than his nothing special results).

ah so to win 4 titles and make 2 MS finals(both lost against Federer), while he is only 20, are nothing special results for you??
i admit that he is not Nadal or Hewitt in term of precocity but to say his results are nothing special......

Nole Rules
04-14-2013, 12:21 AM
<<<<<<<

http://siusopen.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ernests-gulbis1.jpg?w=610&h=400

Nole Rules
04-14-2013, 01:14 AM
Seems to be a dying breed these days, which is a shame since they are probably the most entertaining styles to watch. The only players that I can think of are Roger Federer, Tommy Haas, Ivan L., Lletyon Hewitt and possibly Marat Safin. I hate watching players like Davydenko, Ferrer and Nadal who just stay back at the baseline and wear their opponents down. Theres probably a few players I've missed, so please enlighten me

I didn't know you hated watching Davydenko. :lol:

barbadosan
04-14-2013, 01:43 AM
A lot of this thread is a reminder that people actually used to discuss tennis on MTF, agree and disagree, without the thread being derailed by mindless trolling

rocketassist
04-14-2013, 01:53 AM
Firstly who the fuck is "Hass"?

:worship:

Nole Rules
04-14-2013, 02:02 AM
:worship:

Now we know from where he got that nickname. :lol:

Honestly
04-14-2013, 02:06 AM
The GOAT, Haas, Gasquet, Clownga, and sadly that is about it. Murray can volley too.

BauerAlmeida
04-14-2013, 02:23 AM
Federer, Safin, Nalbandian, Tsonga and Haas are the most "all court" players of the last decade.

leng jai
04-14-2013, 03:40 AM
OP :facepalm:

Kyle_Johansen
04-14-2013, 04:45 AM
Federer, Safin, Nalbandian, Tsonga and Haas are the most "all court" players of the last decade.

Henman as well.