Who Is Better R.Gasquet Or A.Murray?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who Is Better R.Gasquet Or A.Murray??

ImmzB
12-14-2008, 09:27 PM
Who do u think is better Gasquet or Murray??

I say GASQUET!!

finishingmove
12-14-2008, 09:38 PM
Who do u think is better Gasquet or Murray??

I say GASQUET!!

i agree. gasquet will make his breakthrough next year

malisha
12-14-2008, 09:45 PM
Gasquet ofcourse...and he will beat Murray in Wimbeldon from 0:2 down

vucina
12-14-2008, 10:37 PM
The year of the G.

Caio_Brasil
12-14-2008, 10:42 PM
I think Gasquet is more talented and I enjoy seeing him playing more than I do for Murray. Anyway, Murray is a more complete player at the moment if you take other aspects into judgement.

NadalSharapova
12-14-2008, 10:48 PM
I don't like murray but he is better than gasquet. look at achievements and rankings or whatever you like: murray is better

NinaNina19
12-14-2008, 11:22 PM
Murray.

JimmyV
12-14-2008, 11:28 PM
Tough choice. What's worth more money, a bar of gold or a 12oz soda can?

Corey Feldman
12-14-2008, 11:36 PM
Gasquet.

NinaNina19
12-14-2008, 11:37 PM
Gasquet.
:bigcry:

Allegretto
12-14-2008, 11:41 PM
The real #1 Gasquet of course.

yellowboy906
12-14-2008, 11:56 PM
yeah, gasquet is better..... NOT. murray is so much better than gasquet it ain't even funny. murray will have more slams than gasquet by the end of their career. i doubt gasquet gets any slam though.

GlennMirnyi
12-15-2008, 12:08 AM
I say Qureshi.

alfonsojose
12-15-2008, 04:54 AM
The year of the G.
:lol:

Schu
12-15-2008, 05:43 AM
If you asked this question, this time last year, the answer would have been Gasquet but how things change in a year. Right now it's Murray (God I HATE to admit that!) but who knows what will happen in 2009 or beyond. Only time will tell who has the better career and there really is no point to speculate because there are so many factors that determine a career.

If you judge who is better purely on ability to play tennis and not ranking at a particular point in time, I'd say it's a toss up as each has their strenghts - Gasquest is a more explosive player, Murray is a better defender.

Murray is certainly the better "jerk" on the court, unless you think the screaming, mopey type is actually attractive. And speaking of attractive, HUMM, who wins there??? (although that image consultant of Murray's seems to be doing their job a bit as he's beginning to look and act a little better).

VolandriFan
12-15-2008, 05:45 AM
Murray has a real competitors mentality.

No matter how talented Gasquet is, he just doesn't have the right mindset to win consistently. I wish it were different, but sadly it isn't.

~*BGT*~
12-15-2008, 07:06 AM
Gasquet.

:bigcry:

Why be mad Nina? :shrug: The man speaks the truth. :p

Venle
12-15-2008, 07:13 AM
This year: Murray. No doubt about that.

Overall: I'd love to say Gasquet but I ain't sure of that anymore. :awww:

opeth84
12-15-2008, 08:38 AM
They both have rather average forehands but it's Murray by a country mile. Gasquet may have talent but talent is not everthing. There are so many factors that go into what makes a player great. Gasquet though with all his talent really doesn't seem to have a clue tactically what he needs to do standing 3 metres behind the baseline.And he seems to lack the killer instinct of a great player. I think all the expectation on him has maybe harmed him a little but he;s only 22 or 23
things could change.

duong
12-15-2008, 09:31 AM
I've always thought that Murray was potentially better than Gasquet, and of course I will not change my mind now.

Not only mentally but also technically, tactically and physically.

But for the pleasure of seeing, Gasquet is far more pleasant !

I hope he will find back the pleasure he had in 2005-2006.

During next years, it's quite likely that we have Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro dominating tennis ... then surely, apart from Federer, we will need the more pleasant Gasquet and Tsonga (as well as, I hope, Gulbis, Cilic, Baghdatis, Ancic) !

DartMarcus
12-15-2008, 11:28 AM
Murray.

lisaplenske
12-15-2008, 11:52 AM
Overall: I'd love to say Gasquet but I ain't sure of that anymore. :awww:

yes but who can be sure of what?:shrug: it depends on so many factors.Murray had his breakthrough earlier but richard could do it it too.
We cant be sure of that but its exciting to see him play when he's ON.;):wavey:

ah to answer the question: gasquet.

TheMuzz
12-15-2008, 12:05 PM
On what basis are people saying Gasquet? Murray's ranking is better than Gasquet's, his results have been better, he's won more (and bigger) titles, more prize money and has better head-to-heads with the top players. If the question was "who will have the better career", it might be reasonable (if misguided) to answer Gasquet, but not to the question "who is better?"!

Gasquet may be very talented, and he definitely has a bit of flair, making him good to watch, but:

- his "wonderful" backhand is more of a trick shot than a real weapon: it often miss fires and even on a "good" day he hits a bunch of errors off that wing

- he has less bottle than Alex Bogdanovic

- he movement, return of serve, defensive game and volleys are inferior to Murray's

- his tactics are mince

reggie1
12-15-2008, 12:17 PM
Gasquet has more talent and will always be an absolute joy to watch imo. As a Brit, (An english one) I can honestly say, along with a lot of other english people, I could not stand Murray when he first came onto the scene. I thought a big mouth with no results but he has turned that around and for that I applaud him. He gets results and it's nice for us brits to have a proper tennis player. As for who will always be the most loved on mtf, Gasquet wins everytime. I think it's his sheer talent, his so un- "I'm the best" personality and the fact that he does mess up that makes people like him so much. Hey, I'm English, we always support the quiet unassuming underdog, it's what we do!

Action Jackson
12-15-2008, 12:54 PM
bang bang.

Deivid23
12-15-2008, 01:14 PM
If you asked this question, this time last year, the answer would have been Gasquet

Only for deluded people as most of MTFers.

richie21
12-15-2008, 01:37 PM
- he movement, return of serve, defensive game and volleys are inferior to Murray's


Better volleys than Gasquet?? you must be kidding about that one!
At his best,i would say Gasquet's game is better and more impressive than Andy but for now,Andy is much more consistent,mainly because of his much improved fitness(by his own admission).
But that could change if Gasquet puts much more work on his fitness and on his physical strenght(whcih would make him stronger mentally as well)

stebs
12-15-2008, 01:42 PM
GS final > GS semi
AMS titles > AMS finals
#4 > #7
Wins over Nadal & Federer > Losses to Nadal and Federer
TMC SF > TMC group stage

Murray is ahead and it's not close.

Venle
12-15-2008, 01:44 PM
yes but who can be sure of what?:shrug: it depends on so many factors.Murray had his breakthrough earlier but richard could do it it too.
We cant be sure of that but its exciting to see him play when he's ON.;):wavey:

ah to answer the question: gasquet.

2009, Richie's year! :bigclap:

Why not? ;)

richie21
12-15-2008, 01:45 PM
GS final > GS semi
AMS titles > AMS finals
#4 > #7
Wins over Nadal & Federer > Losses to Nadal and Federer
TMC SF > TMC group stage

Murray is ahead and it's not close.

You forgot the H2Hs: Gasquet 2-1 Murray
Oh and Gasquet also beat Federer in the case you forgot(and it was against a better Federer than the one Andy beat last year)

stebs
12-15-2008, 01:50 PM
You forgot the H2Hs: Gasquet 2-1 Murray
Oh and Gasquet also beat Federer in the case you forgot(and it was against a better Federer than the one Andy beat last year)

Gasquet is barely recognisable from the player he was then and those years have made a bigger difference to Gasquet who has matured and Federer who has started a decline. Anyway Gasquet is, at a guess, about 1-5 against Federer with all of the losses consecutive after one victory. We all know about how well Murray has done against Federer.

The H-2-H is not something I forgot but it is far from something which overturns the many areas in which Murray is leaps and bounds ahead of Gasquet and lets not forget who won the match they played in a grand slam.

You are clutching at straws if you think one victory over Federer three and a half years ago and a 2-1 H-2-H makes Gasquet better than a player that has outperformed him in almost all areas.

richie21
12-15-2008, 01:53 PM
Gasquet is barely recognisable from the player he was then and those years have made a bigger difference to Gasquet who has matured and Federer who has started a decline. Anyway Gasquet is, at a guess, about 1-5 against Federer with all of the losses consecutive after one victory. We all know about how well Murray has done against Federer.

The H-2-H is not something I forgot but it is far from something which overturns the many areas in which Murray is leaps and bounds ahead of Gasquet and lets not forget who won the match they played in a grand slam.

You are clutching at straws if you think one victory over Federer three and a half years ago and a 2-1 H-2-H makes Gasquet better than a player that has outperformed him in almost all areas.

Gasquet is still only 22
Compare for example the fantasticly talented Gilles Simon at 22 and at 23.
One year is a very very long year for a tennis player,especially at such a young age.
That's all i have to say.

duong
12-15-2008, 02:16 PM
Better volleys than Gasquet?? you must be kidding about that one!
At his best,i would say Gasquet's game is better and more impressive than Andy but for now,Andy is much more consistent,mainly because of his much improved fitness(by his own admission).
But that could change if Gasquet puts much more work on his fitness and on his physical strenght(whcih would make him stronger mentally as well)

yes he must be kidding, because for the volley Gasquet is far better,

but for the rest, I think Themuzz is quite right.

I'm afraid he's quite far worse than Murray for the baseline game

... and nowadays tennis is mostly won from the baseline.

I think Gasquet can make good things in the future,
but overall, Murray will be quite far in front of him.

Tyler_Durden
12-15-2008, 03:00 PM
Richie, you're love for Gasquet knows no bounds, no matter how much you try to hide it ( bashing and bitching about him the last couple of months ) it always shows in the end whether it be when somone takes a swipe at him or for some reason whenever he is compared to murray even though murray seems to be your second favourite player.

reggie1
12-15-2008, 03:03 PM
Gasquet is still only 22
Compare for example the fantasticly talented Gilles Simon at 22 and at 23.
One year is a very very long year for a tennis player,especially at such a young age.
That's all i have to say.

Are you feeling alright? No, seriously, I'm worried!

Puschkin
12-15-2008, 03:06 PM
Gasquet is barely recognisable from the player he was then and those years have made a bigger difference to Gasquet who has matured and Federer who has started a decline. Anyway Gasquet is, at a guess, about 1-5 against Federer with all of the losses consecutive after one victory. We all know about how well Murray has done against Federer. ...........You are clutching at straws if you think one victory over Federer three and a half years ago and a 2-1 H-2-H makes Gasquet better than a player that has outperformed him in almost all areas.

For 2008: Murray, no 4, Gasquet nr 25, it is obvious. Facts remain, even if I don't like them. ;) We'll see what happens in the future.

But the argument that Murray is so much better because he has a better H/H with Roger is the wrong one. Murrays wins against Federer are to a large extent from 2008, while Gasquet's defeats are mainly from 2006. The Federer of two years ago was a different player to the one from 2008.

reggie1
12-15-2008, 03:06 PM
Richie, you're love for Gasquet knows no bounds, no matter how much you try to hide it ( bashing and bitching about him the last couple of months ) it always shows in the end whether it be when somone takes a swipe at him or for some reason when comparing him to murray even though he murray seems to be your second favourite player.

Couldn't agree more, when someone takes a pop at Richard, Richie21 defends him. It's as if it's o.k for him to do it but nobody else can. Keep it up Richie21.

richie21
12-15-2008, 03:11 PM
Couldn't agree more, when someone takes a pop at Richard, Richie21 defends him. It's as if it's o.k for him to do it but nobody else can. Keep it up Richie21.

I defend him when i feel he is defendable,which is far from always being the case(as you have noted in most of my posts about him last year).

reggie1
12-15-2008, 03:15 PM
Oh, trust you to spoil it R21 :devil:

richie21
12-15-2008, 03:26 PM
but for the rest, I think Themuzz is quite right.

I'm afraid he's quite far worse than Murray for the baseline game.

Murray has a better forehand(which doesn't say a lot) and overall better point construction but Gasquet has a BH at least as good as Murray.
Actually even in FH,Gasquet has a better ability of producing winners from that side than Murray(as seen in last Wimbledon).......it's just his FH in transition play which really sucks.
The biggest advantage Murray has for now is in term of fitness and physical strenght in my opinion.
I'm a big fan of Andy but even though he is more offensive than before,i can't see him beating Federer,blastering him with winners from both sides the same way Gasquet did 3 years ago.
In all his wins against Roger,i never had the feeling he was really outplaying Federer from the baseline.

reggie1
12-15-2008, 04:09 PM
I defend him when i feel he is defendable,which is far from always being the case(as you have noted in most of my posts about him last year).

Yeah, I did but no hard feelings eh? seriously, some of what you say I agree with I just think you are a bit harsh at times. Gasquet is what he is. But I think this year will be a big change for him. I've tried to follow him during the off season as much as possible and everything I've seen (not that much as there is a bit of a shortage of news) shows that he is taking the physical side of the game much more seriously, (I think he underestimated just how hard he needed to work & Deblicker didn't push him enough, which we all know). Peyre seems to be great for Richard, I think he will make Richard grow up as Peyre seemed to mature quickly (wasn't he already married with kids at Richard's age?) and I think Mama and Papa Gasquet seem to be taking more of a back seat too, which can only force Richard to stand on his own 2 feet. I think a lot of it with Richard has been down to being a little spoilt, over protected (I know you've said this too in the past) and immature. Once he gets his head together plus improvements in conditioning, the results will come. Also, once the results start coming he can hone the killer instinct which he also needs to do. :devil:

Schu
12-15-2008, 04:26 PM
Only for deluded people as most of MTFers.

If one based "better" on ranking, titles, progress in Grand Slams and H2H (which most here seem to do), it WAS Gasquet at the end of last year.

But as I said before, what a difference a year makes. Hope I can say the same at the end of 2009.

reggie1
12-15-2008, 04:34 PM
If one based "better" on ranking, titles, progress in Grand Slams and H2H (which most here seem to do), it WAS Gasquet at the end of last year.

But as I said before, what a difference a year makes. Hope I can say the same at the end of 2009.

We will Schu, keep the faith! :worship::worship:

BIGMARAT
12-15-2008, 05:34 PM
Gasquet is more promising, though Murray is more reliable as of late.

duong
12-15-2008, 05:54 PM
Murray has a better forehand(which doesn't say a lot) and overall better point construction but Gasquet has a BH at least as good as Murray.
Actually even in FH,Gasquet has a better ability of producing winners from that side than Murray(as seen in last Wimbledon).......it's just his FH in transition play which really sucks.
The biggest advantage Murray has for now is in term of fitness and physical strenght in my opinion.
I'm a big fan of Andy but even though he is more offensive than before,i can't see him beating Federer,blastering him with winners from both sides the same way Gasquet did 3 years ago.
In all his wins against Roger,i never had the feeling he was really outplaying Federer from the baseline.

I think Gasquet's backhand is overestimated : he needs a low ball to really achieve it, sometimes he plays it too short (especially when the ball is high), and also he makes too many mistakes.

His forehand has some technical problems (it's a pity he didn't try to change it with Benhabiles when he was younger).

And more importantly his movement and his eye are not good enough.

Moreover, I'm afraid Murray's style is more adapted to nowadays's tennis : what's important is to make no errors because there are players who are able to take back such incredible shots (Nadal, Murray, Simon especially).

Make winners and errors is more pleasant ... but catch back everything and make no errors, have a good serve (Murray has it, and Nadal has improved a lot) and build the point well, are more effective.

I hope I make a mistake saying that.

Anyway I think the initial question and its answers show that people usually think Murray is better but would like Gasquet to be better because he's more pleasant :
yes his backhand is so beautiful to see, his touch also especially some years ago ... but what's the effectiveness here ?

I'm afraid so.

sammy01
12-15-2008, 06:42 PM
have to go with murray because tennis is about controling your head as well as your tennis. gasquet probably has more shots but murray is mentaly stronger and more determined.

i see murray winning a slam next year, because i see him leaving bits of himself on court rather than lose, can't say that about gasquet.

Bascule
12-15-2008, 07:00 PM
I can't believe I defeated this guy at ACC tourney.:confused:

Deivid23
12-15-2008, 08:02 PM
If one based "better" on ranking, titles, progress in Grand Slams and H2H (which most here seem to do), it WAS Gasquet at the end of last year.


I´ll say it again. Only for deluded people and I will add for clueless people as well. Last year Murray spent injured 3 months with a wrist injury and couldn´t make the clay season and the grass season. That´s why Gasquet could flukely reach the AMS. Had Murray been injury free his blossoming would have ocurred earlier and Gasquet would have watched TMC on the telly if he could be arsed of course, as he might be too busy visiting doctors asking how he can handle "the pressure".

Hope this helps

KaiserT
12-15-2008, 08:12 PM
How has this thread generated such a response? :confused:

There is no debate that at the moment Murray is a much better all-around player than Gasquet.

Other than the argument that Gasquet may have more talent than Murray there is nothing that can be said to go against it.

jonathancrane
12-15-2008, 08:45 PM
I can't believe I defeated this guy at ACC tourney.:confused:

:lol:

richie21
12-15-2008, 08:49 PM
I think Gasquet's backhand is overestimated : he needs a low ball to really achieve it, sometimes he plays it too short (especially when the ball is high), and also he makes too many mistakes.



It is not: without it,he probably wouldn't even be in the top 60.

Puschkin
12-15-2008, 08:56 PM
I´ll say it again. Only for deluded people and I will add for clueless people as well. Last year Murray spent injured 3 months with a wrist injury and couldn´t make the clay season and the grass season.
while Gasquet was totally injury free in 2008 and there were no problems. :rolleyes:

reggie1
12-15-2008, 09:12 PM
Gasquet's backhand is incredible. End of story!

Schu
12-15-2008, 09:16 PM
I´ll say it again. Only for deluded people and I will add for clueless people as well. Last year Murray spent injured 3 months with a wrist injury and couldn´t make the clay season and the grass season. That´s why Gasquet could flukely reach the AMS. Had Murray been injury free his blossoming would have ocurred earlier and Gasquet would have watched TMC on the telly if he could be arsed of course, as he might be too busy visiting doctors asking how he can handle "the pressure".

Hope this helps

OR had Murray just beaten Gasquet in Paris (oh I forgot, he was still recovering from his injury...)

Speaking of deluded. I simply said Gasquet's results were better last year, facts don't lie - you take the player as they come, injury and all.

And YES this year Murray is better as I already said. I can pull the same "logic" about injuries (physical and mental) with Gasquet for this year but I'm not - no excuses - Murray is better THIS year.

Tyler_Durden
12-15-2008, 09:24 PM
OR had Murray just beaten Gasquet in Paris (oh I forgot, he was still recovering from his injury...)

Speaking of deluded. I simply said Gasquet's results were better last year, facts don't lie - you take the player as they come, injury and all.

And YES this year Murray is better as I already said. I can pull the same "logic" about injuries (physical and mental) with Gasquet for this year but I'm not - no excuses - Murray is better THIS year.

:rolleyes:

The main differenca is that if Murray hadn't been injured then he would have been guarenteed to have had a better season than Gasquet whereas with Gasquet considering his results before he got injured and had a mental relapse he still wouldn't have got near murray in terms of ranking and results.

Why this is even a discussion is beyond belief.

duong
12-15-2008, 09:30 PM
Gasquet's backhand is incredible. End of story!

yes it's incredible, but is it really effective and without any weakness ?

I think double-handed backhands are more effective nowadays,

and even for single-handed backhands, Youzhny knows how to deal with high balls, whereas Gasquet does not. And Youzhny slices better.

More importantly, great forehands can be very effective but great backhands, and especially Gasquet's, are not as effective.
Well, actually it would be more effective if he had a better movement :rolleyes:

Fortunately I think Gasquet has other qualities and would be in the top-60 even with a common backhand.

The_Beast
12-15-2008, 09:50 PM
Definetely Murray :)

BaselineSmash
12-16-2008, 03:11 AM
Would the tour be better off if Gasquet could get his shit together? Yes.

Did Gasquet manage to completely outplay Murray at Wimbledon and still lose? Yes.

After the season that was 2008, is Gasquet helped by any comparison with a top 10 player? No.

Vlad1980
12-16-2008, 08:18 AM
I think there can be made an argument who is more talented in terms of natural talent, but right now Murray is about 10 times more mature than Richard and it reflects in their rankings.

I think they both have top 4 talent overall... it is a tough pick who is more talented of the two.

I would put in terms of talent alone.

1. Federer by far

2/3 Murray/Gasquet

4/5 Djokovic/Nadal.

6/7 Nalbandian/Safin

GlennMirnyi
12-16-2008, 08:36 AM
I think there can be made an argument who is more talented in terms of natural talent, but right now Murray is about 10 times more mature than Richard and it reflects in their rankings.

I think they both have top 4 talent overall... it is a tough pick who is more talented of the two.

I would put in terms of talent alone.

1. Federer by far

2/3 Murray/Gasquet

4/5 Djokovic/Nadal.

6/7 Nalbandian/Safin

:haha:

Nadull and Faker more talented than Safin?

Gasquet more talented than Safin?

I mean, I'm not a fan of Safin, but this is crap.

jmf07
12-16-2008, 09:57 AM
IMO Gasquet is more talented but Murray is the better player due to things such as his stronger mentality.

reggie1
12-16-2008, 10:55 AM
Maybe Richard will always be an Enigma in terms of results but when he is on, there is no player more enjoyable to watch IMO. Plus the fact he is an adorable person on and off the court and that is why so many people are on here commenting, he generates feeling amongst real tennis fans. Of course Murray is a better player now but as to who makes me "feel the love" for the game and appreciate the "beautiful strokes" (Gasquest's words, not mine) it will always be Gasquet and I know there are many others who think like me.
I'm not a Murray hater, far from it actually because he makes Tennis over here so much more exciting (My god, it's been 500 years since Fred Perry! )but Richard will always be my favourite to watch. There was also a lot of English support in the crowd for Richard when he played against Murray at Wimbledon as you could hear many English voices cheering Richard on. There is something about the way that Gasquet plays that evokes real passion amongst fans. I don't know if Murray has that or ever will?

richie21
12-16-2008, 12:20 PM
IMO Gasquet is more talented but Murray is the better player due to things such as his stronger mentality.

I don't think Murray is mentally tougher than him(as seen last year in Paris) but FOR NOW,he has for sure a willingness to improve as a player which is far superior to Gasquet.
Gasquet thought he could have success in the tour without a FH and without being a professionnal athlete.....he is now seeing that it's not possible.

Tyler_Durden
12-16-2008, 03:21 PM
I don't think Murray is mentally tougher than him(as seen last year in Paris) but FOR NOW,he has for sure a willingness to improve as a player which is far superior to Gasquet.
Gasquet thought he could have success in the tour without a FH and without being a professionnal athlete.....he is now seeing that it's not possible.

:lol:

mate, that was over a year ago. if you dont think that murray has moved beyond gasquet mentally and physically then you are deluded.

Tyler_Durden
12-16-2008, 03:26 PM
:haha:

Nadull and Faker more talented than Safin?

Gasquet more talented than Safin?

I mean, I'm not a fan of Safin, but this is crap.

really?

do you think murray is more talented than safin? cos I dont and I certainly think gasquet is more naturally talented than murray.

stebs
12-16-2008, 03:38 PM
I don't think Murray is mentally tougher than him(as seen last year in Paris)

One match is far from enough to make this claim and the evidence of the last 12 months show Murray being a long way ahead of Gasquet mentally.

Igaarg
12-16-2008, 03:46 PM
Depends what you mean with better. Both are great with different kind of game. Murray seems to have more confidence right now and his results are better. But I can´t say who is better.

ImmzB
12-16-2008, 04:17 PM
Lets Face It

Gasquet Is Better And More Talented Then A.Murray!!

HarryMan
12-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Gasquet - Qureshi Wimby Final!!! Come On Qureshi Bhai!!!

ImmzB
12-16-2008, 04:29 PM
WIMBLEDON FINAL

Qureshi V Bopanna/Amritraj

HarryMan
12-16-2008, 04:32 PM
Better!!!

federernadalfan
12-16-2008, 04:58 PM
better at what? very vague question
they're both talented players, but murray has become far more consistent at producing good results in tournaments than gasquet
that sets them apart

stebs
12-16-2008, 08:16 PM
better at what?

Tennis I assume.

scoobs
12-16-2008, 08:33 PM
As usual the devil is in the detail.

But, a results basis is the only consistent way to determine who is better.

And on that basis, Murray's Grand Slam final appearance and two AMS titles means he surpasses Gasquet in the department that counts - on-court achievement.

Any other basis for comparison is pretty subjective - how more entertaining one is, how prettier their tennis is, etc. This is purely opinion-based.

richie21
12-16-2008, 10:05 PM
As usual the devil is in the detail.

But, a results basis is the only consistent way to determine who is better.

And on that basis, Murray's Grand Slam final appearance and two AMS titles means he surpasses Gasquet in the department that counts - on-court achievement.



Looking that way,you're right.
If you analyze a bit deeper though ,you would see that Murray's results are in truth not much better than Gasquet.
Murray won 2 MS and made a GS final,that's true but Murray won his 2 MS finals against Simon and Djokovic and had to beat Nadal in 1/2 final(on Nadal's worst surface) to make his only GS final while Gasquet lost his 2 MS finals against a Federer in his prime and lost his only GS 1/2 final against Federer on Federer's best surface and while Federer was still at his prime.

richie21
12-16-2008, 10:10 PM
One match is far from enough to make this claim and the evidence of the last 12 months show Murray being a long way ahead of Gasquet mentally.

Well,as well as one match is far from enough to make this claim,one year(especially being the worst year of Gasquet's career so far)is also not enough to make this claim.
Or else,we could also say that Gasquet was much stronger than Murray mentally on the evidence of 2006 or 2007.

ORGASMATRON
12-16-2008, 10:25 PM
Gasquet is more talented but lets be honest he's a waste of talent so far. I mean his probably got more talent then Federer and hes not even in the top 10. Murray has a much better record, his almost with the big three now. I really hope Gasquet gets it together cos i love his game and talent, but as we know the talented ones are often the crazy ones.

richie21
12-16-2008, 11:06 PM
Gasquet is more talented but lets be honest he's a waste of talent so far. I mean his probably got more talent then Federer and hes not even in the top 10. Murray has a much better record, his almost with the big three now. I really hope Gasquet gets it together cos i love his game and talent, but as we know the talented ones are often the crazy ones.

I agree.
Easily the biggest waste of talent of the last twenty years.
Ffs even guys like Grosjean and Clement have had a better career than him so far!

Schu
12-16-2008, 11:13 PM
Looking that way,you're right.
If you analyze a bit deeper though ,you would see that Murray's results are in truth not much better than Gasquet.
Murray won 2 MS and made a GS final,that's true but Murray won his 2 MS finals against Simon and Djokovic and had to beat Nadal in 1/2 final(on Nadal's worst surface) to make his only GS final while Gasquet lost his 2 MS finals against a Federer in his prime and lost his only GS 1/2 final against Federer on Federer's best surface and while Federer was still at his prime.

Well,as well as one match is far from enough to make this claim,one year(especially being the worst year of Gasquet's career so far)is also not enough to make this claim.
Or else,we could also say that Gasquet was much stronger than Murray mentally on the evidence of 2006 or 2007.

There's the Richie21 we all know and love. :yeah: Where have you been hiding all 2008?

You delusional and clueless person - don't ya know Murray was injured in 2007 (not sure what the explanation for 2006 would be) ;)

Vida
12-16-2008, 11:15 PM
disagree. apart from a touch of flair, talent missed Gasquet by a mile. He's a physical specimen of the low order and his technique is poor on all but his BH (compared to the top pro field and expectations of course). In the game of X and Os he didn't stand a chance in the first place.

Actually the story of his talent got hugely overblown by:
1: press eager for a Franko-champ
2: original fed freaks who admired 'baby Fed' as their idols rival on account of his 'beautiful style' knowing full well he's a head case who didn't stand a chance against their man.

sad but true.

Schu
12-16-2008, 11:15 PM
I agree.
Easily the biggest waste of talent of the last twenty years.
Ffs even guys like Grosjean and Clement have had a better career than him so far!

He's BAAAAACK.

His career ain't over yet...

Schu
12-16-2008, 11:25 PM
disagree. apart from a touch of flair, talent missed Gasquet by a mile. He's a physical specimen of the low order and his technique is poor on all but his BH (compared to the top pro field and expectations of course).

sad but true.

Talent and technique are 2 different things. But speaking of technique, Do you know what a proper volley looks like? and when he actually hits a forehand the technique is not poor; it's not the best but it's not poor. He's working on the physical and actually his legs, although a bit bowlegged, are very strong.

Vida
12-16-2008, 11:34 PM
Talent and technique are 2 different things. But speaking of technique, Do you know what a proper volley looks like? and when he actually hits a forehand the technique is not poor; it's not the best but it's not poor. He's working on the physical and actually his legs, although a bit bowlegged, are very strong.

the way I see it, only help that would be worth it, would concern his head - in direction of severely decreasing self-imposed expectations (which didn't come from out of the blue sky lets be hones). He was hyped beyond his measure, and once he realized it didnt correspond with reality (read: talent, technique, mentality etc) his results dipped.

if the head job does a trick or two, he might get some consistency back on track.. play relaxed, get rid of those tormented face expressions and bad body lingo, and he just might surprise on the bigger tournaments.

just my view.

richie21
12-16-2008, 11:34 PM
There's the Richie21 we all know and love. :yeah: Where have you been hiding all 2008?
You delusional and clueless person - don't ya know Murray was injured in 2007 (not sure what the explanation for 2006 would be) ;)

That's a question you should ask to the true Richie Gasquet ;)



2: original fed freaks who admired 'baby Fed' as their idols rival on account of his 'beautiful style' knowing full well he's a head case who didn't stand a chance against their man.

sad but true.

Mind you,Federer himself admires Gasquet's game and has made no secret that Gasquet's game is his favourite to watch among the youngsters.

scoobs
12-17-2008, 12:02 AM
Looking that way,you're right.
If you analyze a bit deeper though ,you would see that Murray's results are in truth not much better than Gasquet.
Murray won 2 MS and made a GS final,that's true but Murray won his 2 MS finals against Simon and Djokovic and had to beat Nadal in 1/2 final(on Nadal's worst surface) to make his only GS final while Gasquet lost his 2 MS finals against a Federer in his prime and lost his only GS 1/2 final against Federer on Federer's best surface and while Federer was still at his prime.
Well we could also look at it this way

Murray

vs Federer 4-2
vs Nadal 1-5
vs Djokovic 2-4
vs Davydenko 3-4
vs Ferrer 1-1
vs Roddick 5-2
vs Del Potro 2-0
vs Tsonga 1-1

Gasquet

vs Federer 1-6
vs Nadal 0-6
vs Djokovic 1-2
vs Davydenko 1-1
vs Ferrer 1-3
vs Roddick 1-2
vs Del Potro 1-2
vs Tsonga 2-2

In other words, the great and the good of the last few years and some up and comings.

Hard to see on that standard how Gasquet could be considered better than Murray - Murray is winning the matches against the top players much more frequency.

Gasquet has 5 singles titles.

Murray has 8, winning 5 this year alone.

Gasquet might have been better in the 2006 and 2007 period but since then Gasquet has been left in the dust and it's for him to show he is still a contender at the top of the game. He had a terrible 2008 season compared to 2007 and it's not like he was on the injury list that often - he got 54 matches in - the only major events he missed were Roland Garros and Paris, and he chose to skip the Olympics.

Just my 10 cents.

Vida
12-17-2008, 12:04 AM
That's a question you should ask to the true Richie Gasquet ;)




Mind you,Federer himself admires Gasquet's game and has made no secret that Gasquet's game is his favourite to watch among the youngsters.

Well Qasquet is easy on the eye, kinda similar to Fed... flashy, hitting winners, angles, construction... and that is talent 'on the ball' sure.. 'feel' what we call. But there is talent - as something given - means having something more to strike at the top dogs. look at rafa, djoko, andy... animals but same age as Gasquet. One thing doesn't go without the other when it comes to competition, or in another words: how god is he? For example, Fed wouldnt've been Fed if he were half a foot shorter. Not to mention, what if he had Qasquet's leggies?

besides, feds a very smart bloke. those kinda statements shouldn't be taken for granted. sure, all that might very well be true but knowing of his wits, if he'd seen Qasquet as some kind of a threat he'd hardly make such compliments on his account. He'd more likely go into some kinda psycho-job as he tried with Rafa, Djoker and Murray.

richie21
12-17-2008, 12:56 AM
besides, feds a very smart bloke. those kinda statements shouldn't be taken for granted. sure, all that might very well be true but knowing of his wits, if he'd seen Qasquet as some kind of a threat he'd hardly make such compliments on his account. He'd more likely go into some kinda psycho-job as he tried with Rafa, Djoker and Murray.

Well,he continues to give a lot of compliments to Murray for his game despite Murray being more of a menace to him recently so your point is a bit flawed.
I think Federer genuinely admires Gasquet's game and actually i wouldn't be surprised if he secretly hoped that Gasquet became one of the new players to challenge him at the top.
I certainly think he would prefer him or Murray to take over his number 2 spot in the future than the Djoker!
I mean,even when the Djoker was less of a menace to him than Murray and Gasquet,he was having a go at the Djoker!

Vida
12-17-2008, 05:21 PM
Well,he continues to give a lot of compliments to Murray for his game despite Murray being more of a menace to him recently so your point is a bit flawed.
I think Federer genuinely admires Gasquet's game and actually i wouldn't be surprised if he secretly hoped that Gasquet became one of the new players to challenge him at the top.
I certainly think he would prefer him or Murray to take over his number 2 spot in the future than the Djoker!
I mean,even when the Djoker was less of a menace to him than Murray and Gasquet,he was having a go at the Djoker!

Murray played smart ball and sucked to Fed on number of occasions, and besides Fed realized Andy's got big backing and it wouldn't be quite effective to continue going down on him. Besides, one "He's going to have to grind very hard for the next few years if he keeps playing this way" is quite enough of a jab. Also, Fed now cares about Slams mostly, and we witnessed what kind of menace Murray proved to be on that stage.

Federer admiring Gasquets game has little to do with the subject at hand: rating Gasqets talent. Again, it can be argued that who said what - especially when the marks come from the mouth of competition - desnt really hold any water.

Beside the point, Id kindly disagree with your last mark as well. Djoker blabbing Federer and thus messing with his fear factor was enough of a reason for Fed to have a go at Djoker, regardless of whether Djoker was a menace to him game-wise. (And I guess he was, dumping him out of the Aussie open).

Tommy fan
12-17-2008, 06:08 PM
Well Gasquet is by far more talented and I enjoy watching him much more then I enjoy Murray, but Gasquet's head sucks so badly unlike Murray's, so Murray's having more succes now, so yah, now it's Murray, but if Rihcard can get it together one day..

reggie1
12-17-2008, 07:33 PM
Well Gasquet is by far more talented and I enjoy watching him much more then I enjoy Murray, but Gasquet's head sucks so badly unlike Murray's, so Murray's having more succes now, so yah, now it's Murray, but if Rihcard can get it together one day..

Let's hope he does! ;)

guy in sf
12-21-2008, 08:01 AM
They are both great players but Murray annoys me so much, flexing his chicken biceps and all. It's like watching a dork trying to pretend he's a stud but has no idea how to do it. He does have the mental capacity to tough it out in tensed situations while Gasquet tends to fold. Gasquet, win or lose, is always a much bigger pleasure to watch though.

reggie1
12-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Gasquet, win or lose, is always a much bigger pleasure to watch though.

Couldn't have put it better myself. :cool:

waterlily_021989
12-21-2008, 12:00 PM
Couldn't have put it better myself. :cool:

I completely agree:D

habibko
12-21-2008, 07:16 PM
better results: Murray
better looks: Gasquet

Gasquet > Murray.

jonathancrane
12-21-2008, 07:23 PM
:lol:

NinaNina19
12-21-2008, 07:28 PM
better results: Murray
better looks: Gasquet

Gasquet > Murray.

Not according to me :p.

jonathancrane
12-21-2008, 07:31 PM
A good thing the sports has is that you can tell who is the better player just comparing the results
I prefer to watch Gasquet too, but obviously Murray is a better player

Clydey
12-21-2008, 08:05 PM
Lets Face It

Gasquet Is Better And More Talented Then A.Murray!!

Someone have this guy committed.

We can argue all day about who has more talent. It's not an exact science. However, the results don't lie. Maybe Gasquet will steam ahead of Murray next year. As of now, he simply isn't as good as Muzza.

There's being a fan and then there's being deluded.

wcr
12-21-2008, 08:38 PM
If we're talking who is a better tennis player, the results speak for themselves.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/default.asp?playersearch=gasquet

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/default.asp?playersearch=murray%2C+andy

reggie1
12-21-2008, 08:41 PM
Someone have this guy committed.

We can argue all day about who has more talent. It's not an exact science. However, the results don't lie. Maybe Gasquet will steam ahead of Murray next year. As of now, he simply isn't as good as Muzza.

There's being a fan and then there's being deluded.

I hate it when you're right!!!!!!!!

Clydey
12-21-2008, 08:47 PM
I hate it when you're right!!!!!!!!

You'd be surprised how often I'm right :shrug:

:D

NinaNina19
12-21-2008, 11:21 PM
You'd be surprised how often I'm right :shrug:

:D

All the time :hug: .

richie21
12-21-2008, 11:36 PM
Someone have this guy committed.

We can argue all day about who has more talent. It's not an exact science. However, the results don't lie. Maybe Gasquet will steam ahead of Murray next year. As of now, he simply isn't as good as Muzza.
There's being a fan and then there's being deluded.

Nobody can disagree with you there.

Corey Feldman
12-21-2008, 11:38 PM
Gasquet is just too talented for Muzza

i hate to admit it, but he's awesome

richie21
12-21-2008, 11:41 PM
Gasquet is just too talented for Muzza

i hate to admit it, but he's awesome

He certainly was in last Wimbledon.....but only for 2 sets and half.:o

NinaNina19
12-22-2008, 12:39 AM
Gasquet is just too talented for Muzza

i hate to admit it, but he's awesome

When he was playing at Wimbledon before he started choking:eek:.

Corey Feldman
12-22-2008, 12:51 AM
When he was playing at Wimbledon before he started choking:eek:.Dokic won AO play off :hearts:

Clydey
12-22-2008, 01:27 AM
Dokic won AO play off :hearts:

You're being serious when you say that you think Gasquet is currently a better player than Murray? :scratch:

I didn't see that one coming.

Corey Feldman
12-22-2008, 01:30 AM
he's baby Fed!

Andy is baby Nalbandian

Clydey
12-22-2008, 01:34 AM
he's baby Fed!

Andy is baby Nalbandian

We should expect Muzza to pile on about 30 pounds, then.

~*BGT*~
12-22-2008, 01:35 AM
he's baby Fed!

Andy is baby Nalbandian

You're so right. ;) :p

case
12-22-2008, 04:31 AM
i havnt been here in a while, but its nice to see Gasquet still chokes and fat dave are still being tossed about!;)

hi everyone:wavey: kind of missed coming here and season greetings :D

NinaNina19
12-22-2008, 05:55 AM
Dokic won AO play off :hearts:

I know :hearts: :bounce::bounce::bounce:!!!

danicarlos
12-22-2008, 06:27 AM
http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/icon/20_7912367_1-niche.jpg

kai.
12-22-2008, 08:24 AM
Murray :p

Schu
12-22-2008, 09:38 PM
They are both great players but Murray annoys me so much, flexing his chicken biceps and all. He does have the mental capacity to tough it out in tensed situations while Gasquet tends to fold. Gasquet, win or lose, is always a much bigger pleasure to watch though.

"Spot on" :yeah:

lisaplenske
12-23-2008, 05:05 PM
gasquet is just pure joy to watch.

watch it by yourselfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDz3a2H5NYg&feature=related

reggie1
12-23-2008, 05:19 PM
gasquet is just pure joy to watch.

watch it by yourselfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDz3a2H5NYg&feature=related

:yeah: Absolutely!

Benzilla7
12-23-2008, 05:40 PM
Both good players, but cmon.... Andy Murray :D

Benzilla7
12-23-2008, 05:42 PM
gasquet is just pure joy to watch.

watch it by yourselfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDz3a2H5NYg&feature=related

And who won that game in the end? ;)

lisaplenske
12-23-2008, 06:01 PM
And who won that game in the end? ;)

The fact murray won the game and the match at the end doesnt take away that gasquet has way better game to watch than him.
You see the nuance?;)

ORGASMATRON
12-23-2008, 06:38 PM
Lol there must be something about Gasquet for this thread to have gone on as long as it has. I will say this though, Murray is a much better player at this point even thugh i dont like him much. I mean i love talented players but i absoluetly hate it when they waste their talent, as Gasquet has been doing so far. Thats the thing with French players though, so talented but such nutcases. IMO Tsonga is wayyyy better then Gasquet and the first Frnech player since Noah probably who seems mentally stable. I guess white french people are just struggling mentally in tennis.

angry1
12-23-2008, 06:50 PM
The fact murray won the game and the match at the end doesnt take away that gasquet has way better game to watch than him.
You see the nuance?;)

Murray winning that match is a fact,Gasquet having the better game to watch is an opinion, albeit a popular one(that I don't share).
The way this thread reads,one would think it has been empirically proven.
Gasquet having more talent is also subjective, he may hit a greater number of spectacular winners, but, he also IMO, hits a far greater number of dreadful errors. Murray's performance in the U.S. Open Semi-Final showed to my satisfaction that he's at least Gasquet's equal in talent, especially allowing for Murray facing a better defensive player than Gasquet was at Wimbledon.
I prefer Murray & Nadal's style of play to Federer & Gasquet's more flouncy style.I'm in a minority there,but,that doesn't make you any more or less correct in your preference than I am in mine.

reggie1
12-23-2008, 08:17 PM
Murray winning that match is a fact,Gasquet having the better game to watch is an opinion, albeit a popular one(that I don't share).
The way this thread reads,one would think it has been empirically proven.
Gasquet having more talent is also subjective, he may hit a greater number of spectacular winners, but, he also IMO, hits a far greater number of dreadful errors. Murray's performance in the U.S. Open Semi-Final showed to my satisfaction that he's at least Gasquet's equal in talent, especially allowing for Murray facing a better defensive player than Gasquet was at Wimbledon.
I prefer Murray & Nadal's style of play to Federer & Gasquet's more flouncy style.I'm in a minority there,but,that doesn't make you any more or less correct in your preference than I am in mine.

Calm yourself Angry1, oh, and why so angry?? :):worship: Yes, Murray is a better player right now (don't think anyone can deny that as Murray's results speak for themselves) but Gasquet is just more enjoyable to watch for a lot of people, you can call it flair, flashness, flounce, whatever you like, but as somebody else said, the fact that so many people have commented on this thread shows that Gasquet does have a certain "magic" about the way he plays. However magic alone does not always win matches, grit, courage and determination is also needed and we all know (even Gasquetaires like myself ;)) that this is something that Murray has in abundance.

jeremda01
12-23-2008, 11:14 PM
MURRAY, by far, i reckon but things could change

angry1
12-23-2008, 11:34 PM
Calm yourself Angry1, oh, and why so angry?? :):worship: Yes, Murray is a better player right now (don't think anyone can deny that as Murray's results speak for themselves) but Gasquet is just more enjoyable to watch for a lot of people, you can call it flair, flashness, flounce, whatever you like, but as somebody else said, the fact that so many people have commented on this thread shows that Gasquet does have a certain "magic" about the way he plays. However magic alone does not always win matches, grit, courage and determination is also needed and we all know (even Gasquetaires like myself ;)) that this is something that Murray has in abundance.

I didn't think mine was an angry post this time . Long winded and pompous perhaps... :)

Ivanatis
12-23-2008, 11:39 PM
9 pages? :lol:

Forza Offseason.

Clydey
12-24-2008, 02:39 AM
The fact murray won the game and the match at the end doesnt take away that gasquet has way better game to watch than him.
You see the nuance?;)

That is debatable.

However, the thread isnt about which game is easier on the eye. It is about who the better player is.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 03:25 AM
That is debatable.

However, the thread isnt about which game is easier on the eye. It is about who the better player is.

Nooo... the OP says "better" but doesn't specify better in what. ;) So, who is the better player to watch? Gasquet. :p

oranges
12-24-2008, 03:31 AM
Oh God, why didn't we have this thread a year or at least six months ago. Now, no one can live from the Muzza fans pretending the last couple of months is how it always was and always will be.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 03:43 AM
Oh God, why didn't we have this thread a year or at least six months ago. Now, no one can live from the deluded Muzza fans pretending the last couple of months is how it always was and always will be.

:yeah:

Clydey
12-24-2008, 08:09 AM
:yeah:

Murray fans are deluded for thinking that he's better than Gasquet? You seriously need to get a grip. Passionately supporting a player is one thing, but delusional fans wind me up something awful. If Gasquet achieves a higher ranking or better results, any sane Murray fan will concede that he's a better player. Right now, it's simply stupid to say that Gasquet is superior.

Is it really so hard to support a player without losing a grip on reality? Everyone knows that I'm a big fan of Murray, but you wouldn't catch me running around saying that he's better than Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic.

oranges
12-24-2008, 10:58 AM
Is it really so hard to support a player without losing a grip on reality? Everyone knows that I'm a big fan of Murray, but you wouldn't catch me running around saying that he's better than Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic.

Good question, is it so hard to maintain a grip on reality? There is an oracle in the Muzzatard camp who knows through powers that be that the Scot will not only continue with his form/results of the past few months, but progress to Jesus-Muzz (actually uber-Jesus, since it will be better than Jesus Fed), while his competitor in this thread will obviously never regain his form/confidence, let alone make his own progress. Is there pre-Wimbeldon and post-2008 time at all and what happens in it in the heads of the fans of the biceps-boasting tennis wonder? A valid argument why he is so indisputably better overall? Enlighten me.

reggie1
12-24-2008, 11:17 AM
I didn't think mine was an angry post this time . Long winded and pompous perhaps... :)

Me and you have actually had quite a nice little discussion with each other on this forum compared to some people. It's all got a bit heated in some camps. :lol: I don't think you're long winded and pompous. Well, not at the moment!

Clydey
12-24-2008, 12:01 PM
Good question, is it so hard to maintain a grip on reality? There is an oracle in the Muzzatard camp who knows through powers that be that the Scot will not only continue with his form/results of the past few months, but progress to Jesus-Muzz (actually uber-Jesus, since it will be better than Jesus Fed), while his competitor in this thread will obviously never regain his form/confidence, let alone make his own progress. Is there pre-Wimbeldon and post-2008 time at all and what happens in it in the heads of the fans of the biceps-boasting tennis wonder? A valid argument why he is so indisputably better overall? Enlighten me.

You've essentially just made up a bunch of shit and passed it off as my opinion. It's the height of desperation when someone resorts to strawman arguments. I have never said anything remotely absurd about Murray's ability. He is the 4th best player in the world. Nothing more, nothing less. I would ask you to quote where I supposedly stated any of nonsense you mentioned above.

Nowhere have I asserted that Murray will definitely continue his form of the last 5 months. Nor have I ever stated that Murray is better than Federer or will ever be better than Federer. I also did not say that Gasquet wouldn't regain his form. If you had bothered to read my posts, you would have noticed where I said the following:

Maybe Gasquet will steam ahead of Murray next year. As of now, he simply isn't as good as Muzza.

A valid agument why Murray is currently a better player than Gasquet? Where to start.

Murray is ranked 4th (higher than Gasquet has ever been ranked), while Gasquet is ranked 25th.

Murray has won 2 MS events and Gasquet has won 0.

Murray has won 8 titles overall and Gasquet has won 5.

Murray has been in a Grand Slam final and Gasquet hasn't.

And let's not forget that Gasquet has been on the tour for 3 years longer. Despite that, Murray has not only eclipsed Gasquet's achievements, he has won almost $2,000,000 more in prize money.

The one I've marked in bold should highlight the absurdity of you asking for a valid argument for why I think Murray is currently a better player than Gasquet. The rest merely hammer home the point.

How did you manage to get any of that bollocks from me saying that Murray is not as good as Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic? How does that translate into me calling Murray the next Federer?

rototito
12-24-2008, 12:25 PM
Andy Murray

oranges
12-24-2008, 12:33 PM
You've essentially just made up a bunch of shit and passed it off as my opinion. It's the height of desperation when someone resorts to strawman arguments. I have never said anything remotely absurd about Murray's ability. He is the 4th best player in the world. Nothing more, nothing less. I would ask you to quote where I supposedly stated any of nonsense you mentioned above.


It's implied in every word. I've just worded it as it appears to the other side. It's implied in the fact that you still refuse to consider better player meaning better player overall, not having better 6 six months or a year, but hey who would come up with some decent arguments then. If we were discussing who is better Federer or Nadal, would the current ranking and their results this year be the only element that matters or does that apply only when you have to consider your favorite one, when it suits you? If it's just about the recent results, why the discussion, there is rankings. Andreev is indisputably a better player than Safin, Almagro beats Haas, Gulbis is half the player Seppi is, Gooch plays around with Baghdatis, should I continue.
You jumped on BGT's post, which was in response to mine, which clearly joked about all of the above. Any possibility the added deluded was referring to exactly the fact that no pre or post glorious Muzza months are to be considered? Any truth to that?

scoobs
12-24-2008, 12:46 PM
The fact murray won the game and the match at the end doesnt take away that gasquet has way better game to watch than him.
You see the nuance?;)
Total matter of opinion, though.

Some people prefer to watch success over style.

Others prefer Murray's style of play over Gasquet's.

And frankly, I find Murray consistently more entertaining to watch than Gasquet. It's true Richie can have some matches where he plays some seriously sexy tennis, like against Roddick at Wimbledon 07, but he plays an awful lot more matches where his forehand is all over the place, and a few flashy backhands don't make up for him spraying errors and making poor shot choices on the way to a straight sets loss somewhere.

Ultimately everyone's entitled to their opinions on this and since it's essentially unprovable when you get onto questions of style and attractiveness rather than concretes like results, scorelines, stats, it's fairly pointless trying to persuade others, I find :)

Clydey
12-24-2008, 12:59 PM
It's implied in every word. I've just worded it as it appears to the other side. It's implied in the fact that you still refuse to consider better player meaning better player overall, not having better 6 six months or a year, but hey who would come up with some decent arguments then. If we were discussing who is better Federer or Nadal, would the current ranking and their results this year be the only element that matters or does that apply only when you have to consider your favorite one, when it suits you? If it's just about the recent results, why the discussion, there is rankings. Andreev is indisputably a better player than Safin, Almagro beats Haas, Gulbis is half the player Seppi is, Gooch plays around with Baghdatis, should I continue.
You jumped on BGT's post, which was in response to mine, which clearly joked about all of the above. Any possibility the added deluded was referring to exactly the fact that no pre or post glorious Muzza months are to be considered? Any truth to that?

It doesn't matter how they compared 6 months ago or a year ago. No matter how you look at it, Murray comes out on top. He is a better player at this moment in time. However, if you want to compare them over a longer period, Murray still wins out. He has achieved much more than Gasquet even though he has only been on the tour for half as long.

Nothing I said implied what you suggested. I stated explicitly that Gasquet might turn it around next year, yet you stated that I said the opposite. I said that Murray is the 4th best player in the world and is not as good as Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic. Despite that, you suggested that I was calling Murray the next Federer. If you want to have a proper discussion, simply reply to the points I make. Don't make shit up.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 03:50 PM
Murray fans are deluded for thinking that he's better than Gasquet? You seriously need to get a grip. Passionately supporting a player is one thing, but delusional fans wind me up something awful. If Gasquet achieves a higher ranking or better results, any sane Murray fan will concede that he's a better player. Right now, it's simply stupid to say that Gasquet is superior.

Is it really so hard to support a player without losing a grip on reality? Everyone knows that I'm a big fan of Murray, but you wouldn't catch me running around saying that he's better than Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic.

See oranges' posts.

Good question, is it so hard to maintain a grip on reality? There is an oracle in the Muzzatard camp who knows through powers that be that the Scot will not only continue with his form/results of the past few months, but progress to Jesus-Muzz (actually uber-Jesus, since it will be better than Jesus Fed), while his competitor in this thread will obviously never regain his form/confidence, let alone make his own progress. Is there pre-Wimbeldon and post-2008 time at all and what happens in it in the heads of the fans of the biceps-boasting tennis wonder? A valid argument why he is so indisputably better overall? Enlighten me.

It's implied in every word. I've just worded it as it appears to the other side. It's implied in the fact that you still refuse to consider better player meaning better player overall, not having better 6 six months or a year, but hey who would come up with some decent arguments then. If we were discussing who is better Federer or Nadal, would the current ranking and their results this year be the only element that matters or does that apply only when you have to consider your favorite one, when it suits you? If it's just about the recent results, why the discussion, there is rankings. Andreev is indisputably a better player than Safin, Almagro beats Haas, Gulbis is half the player Seppi is, Gooch plays around with Baghdatis, should I continue.
You jumped on BGT's post, which was in response to mine, which clearly joked about all of the above. Any possibility the added deluded was referring to exactly the fact that no pre or post glorious Muzza months are to be considered? Any truth to that?

That's what I wanted to say but I couldn't word it like that. :worship:

It doesn't matter how they compared 6 months ago or a year ago. No matter how you look at it, Murray comes out on top. He is a better player at this moment in time. However, if you want to compare them over a longer period, Murray still wins out. He has achieved much more than Gasquet even though he has only been on the tour for half as long.

Nothing I said implied what you suggested. I stated explicitly that Gasquet might turn it around next year, yet you stated that I said the opposite. I said that Murray is the 4th best player in the world and is not as good as Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic. Despite that, you suggested that I was calling Murray the next Federer. If you want to have a proper discussion, simply reply to the points I make. Don't make shit up.

You don't get it. :rolleyes:

All y'all stop with that Big 4 crap. Only 3 players won slams this year. It's only the big 3 right now.

Regarding this topic, it's really ridiculous to try to compare the two, especially since 2008 was Murray's best year and Gasquet's worst year. It still wasn't a BAD year for Richie though. He won a doubles title with Tsonga at Sydney, got to the IW doubles semis (beating Murray long the way :p ), the Rome doubles semi with Santoro, got to a final (losing to the on fire JMDP ).

He beat Ferrer, a player he had never won more that 4 games in a set, let alone beaten. People forget, but he almost beat Rafa in Toronto, having breakpoints to go up a set and a break. He also got to the 4th round at AO (losing to Tsonga, not a bad loss considering) and the 4th round at Wimbledon. So even his worst year wasn't really bad.

Crazy Girl
12-24-2008, 03:55 PM
BGT Just...Merry Christmas to you!!! and your family!! Ciao da Firenze!!

Clydey
12-24-2008, 08:25 PM
See oranges' posts.





That's what I wanted to say but I couldn't word it like that. :worship:



You don't get it. :rolleyes:

All y'all stop with that Big 4 crap. Only 3 players won slams this year. It's only the big 3 right now.

Regarding this topic, it's really ridiculous to try to compare the two, especially since 2008 was Murray's best year and Gasquet's worst year. It still wasn't a BAD year for Richie though. He won a doubles title with Tsonga at Sydney, got to the IW doubles semis (beating Murray long the way :p ), the Rome doubles semi with Santoro, got to a final (losing to the on fire JMDP ).

He beat Ferrer, a player he had never won more that 4 games in a set, let alone beaten. People forget, but he almost beat Rafa in Toronto, having breakpoints to go up a set and a break. He also got to the 4th round at AO (losing to Tsonga, not a bad loss considering) and the 4th round at Wimbledon. So even his worst year wasn't really bad.

You're right, I don't get it. I'm deluded for thinking that the world number 4 is better than the world number 25.

Murray has had a better year than Gasquet has ever had. By miles. It's hilarious that you actually decided to make your point by bringing up Gasquet's doubles record. You do realise that Gasquet lost in doubles at least once (I think twice) to Murray in 2008, right? It doesn't matter how you compare them, Murray still comes out on top.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 08:29 PM
You're right, I don't get it. I'm deluded for thinking that the world number 4 is better than the world number 25.

Murray has had a better year than Gasquet has ever had. By miles. It's hilarious that you actually decided to make your point by bringing up Gasquet's doubles record. You do realise that Gasquet lost in doubles at least once (I think twice) to Murray in 2008, right? It doesn't matter how you compare them, Murray still comes out on top.

I was just commenting on the year Richie's had. :shrug: And duh! Murray's had a better year, but the OP doesn't ask who had a better year, he just says ' who is better'. So I say Gasquet is the better player because I prefer his game and prefer watching him, and I believe in the long run that he will have a better career. Now do you understand? :o

reggie1
12-24-2008, 08:33 PM
I think the problem with this thread, if there is one, is that we all have our own interpretations as to what "better" actually means. Let's keep it nice people, please, it's Christmas afterall.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 08:36 PM
I think the problem with this thread, if there is one, is that we all have our own interpretations as to what "better" actually means. Let's keep it nice people, please, it's Christmas afterall.

I don't celebrate Christmas so I treat the holiday season just like any other time of the year. :p

Clydey
12-24-2008, 08:42 PM
I was just commenting on the year Richie's had. :shrug: And duh! Murray's had a better year, but the OP doesn't ask who had a better year, he just says ' who is better'. So I say Gasquet is the better player because I prefer his game and prefer watching him, and I believe in the long run that he will have a better career. Now do you understand? :o

No, it doesn't. The thread asks who is better, not who was better or who will be better in future.

But hey, by all means continue to believe that Gasquet is a better player.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 08:43 PM
No, it doesn't. The thread asks who is better, not who was better or who will be better in future.

I said that. You quoted it. :confused:

But hey, by all means continue to believe that Gasquet is a better player.

I will. ;) And you can continue to believe that 2008 is how it always was and will always be. :p

Clydey
12-24-2008, 08:49 PM
I will. ;) And you can continue to believe that 2008 is how it always was and will always be. :p

I said no such thing. I wish people would address the points I make instead of putting words in my mouth.

ImmzB
12-24-2008, 08:52 PM
I want 2 see Gasquet play Murray in Aussie Open but Gasquet and Murray @ Roland Garros would be goooood!!

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 08:57 PM
I want 2 see Gasquet play Murray in Aussie Open but Gasquet and Murray @ Roland Garros would be goooood!!

Beauty and the Beast. :inlove: I'm not talking about looks here. :secret:

reggie1
12-24-2008, 09:00 PM
I don't celebrate Christmas so I treat the holiday season just like any other time of the year. :p

I aimed this comment more at Clydey. Clydey, Murrays and Gasquets results speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned, I will always be a Gasquetaire but I'm not deluded. Obviously Murray's results have been better in 2008 and I just hope that Richard has a better year in 2009 because, to be completely honest, 2008 was pretty crap for him (imho). I think his fans are coming to his defence so vehemently because of this and because we don't like to see him kicked when he is down. (and there is so much of this on MTF). Having said that, we all have to keep a sense of proportion and reality. Now can that be the end of your row with BGT please? she's my friend. ;)

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 09:05 PM
I aimed this comment more at Clydey. Clydey, Murrays and Gasquets results speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned, I will always be a Gasquetaire but I'm not deluded. Obviously Murray's results have been better in 2008 and I just hope that Richard has a better year in 2009 and because to be completely honest, 2008 was pretty crap for him. I think his fans are coming to his defence so vehemently because of this and because we don't like to see him kicked when he is down. Having said that, we all have to keep a sense of proportion and reality. Now can that be the end of your row with BGT please, she's my friend. ;)

No, I'm done with Clydey. I have had arguments with him in the past that haven't gone anywhere. This was actually my first time talking to him since the summer. Don't even know why I started tbh. :rolleyes:

TMJordan
12-24-2008, 09:07 PM
No, I'm done with Clydey. I have had arguments with him in the past that haven't gone anywhere. This was actually my first time talking to him since the summer. Don't even know why I started tbh. :rolleyes:

Because you can't resist his charm, thats why.

Clydey
12-24-2008, 09:08 PM
No, I'm done with Clydey. I have had arguments with him in the past that haven't gone anywhere. This was actually my first time talking to him since the summer. Don't even know why I started tbh. :rolleyes:

Don't play the victim. :rolleyes:

I'm hardly being unreasonable when I say that I think Murray is a better player than Gasquet.

Clydey
12-24-2008, 09:09 PM
Because you can't resist his charm, thats why.

I'm inclined to agree. It's tough to resist the old Clydey charm.

Clydey
12-24-2008, 09:12 PM
I aimed this comment more at Clydey. Clydey, Murrays and Gasquets results speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned, I will always be a Gasquetaire but I'm not deluded. Obviously Murray's results have been better in 2008 and I just hope that Richard has a better year in 2009 because, to be completely honest, 2008 was pretty crap for him (imho). I think his fans are coming to his defence so vehemently because of this and because we don't like to see him kicked when he is down. (and there is so much of this on MTF). Having said that, we all have to keep a sense of proportion and reality. Now can that be the end of your row with BGT please? she's my friend. ;)

It's not a row. It's just a discussion. :shrug:

I mean, if she's going to call Murray fans deluded for thinking that Murray is currently better than Gasquet, she should expect someone to disagree with her. It was an absurd thing to say. But hey, I'm not all that interested in continuing with the discussion, since it's going nowhere.

reggie1
12-24-2008, 09:15 PM
Your charm offensive on me has worked Clydey, I am now speechless :worship:

Clydey
12-24-2008, 09:16 PM
Your charm offensive on me has worked Clydey, I am now speechless :worship:

:lol:

You're under my spell.

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 09:17 PM
It's not a row. It's just a discussion. :shrug:

I mean, if she's going to call Murray fans deluded for thinking that Murray is currently better than Gasquet, she should expect someone to disagree with her. It was an absurd thing to say. But hey, I'm not all that interested in continuing with the discussion, since it's going nowhere.

It was sarcasm for goodness' sakes. :rolls: MURRAY IS CURRENTLY BETTER THAN GASQUET!!

But I still think Gasquet is better but everyone's definition of 'better' is subjective.

reggie1
12-24-2008, 09:20 PM
Good, we can all put our handbags down now! :haha:

~*BGT*~
12-24-2008, 09:24 PM
I'm inclined to agree. It's tough to resist the old Clydey charm.

Yeah, it's a Scottish vacuum of charm in here.

angry1
12-24-2008, 09:30 PM
Yeah, it's a Scottish vacuum of charm in here.

If you're going to be obnoxious leave nationalities/races out of it, please

reggie1
12-24-2008, 09:38 PM
:lol:

You're under my spell.

Yes, but don't tell everyone!

NinaNina19
12-24-2008, 09:56 PM
It was sarcasm for goodness' sakes. :rolls: MURRAY IS CURRENTLY BETTER THAN GASQUET!!

But I still think Gasquet is better but everyone's definition of 'better' is subjective.

Gasquet has a flashier game yeah but lets see:
serve: Murray
forehand: not saying much but Murray
backhand: Murray even though Gasquet's is flashier, Murray's is way more consistent and therefor more effective as a weapon
slice: Murray
Net game: Tied
return: Murray
movement: Murray
fitness: Murray
mental strength: Murray

So how is Gasquet a better player?

Exclusive
12-24-2008, 10:33 PM
Not even a question. Murray has started to implement his talent in action, Gasquet did not. Murray is a way way better by now, and there is a huge probability he'll stay better in a future.

Sunset of Age
12-24-2008, 10:37 PM
Right now, Muzza is undoubtedly the better player. 'Better' in terms of *results*, and in the end, THAT's the only thing that counts.

That said, it's way too early to write off Gasquet. He has the talent, he has the strokes, but right now he's still a genuine headcase.
Remember what was said about Federer when he was about Gasquet's age? Headcase. Major Failure at GS's. Well we all know what happened shortly thereafter. There are early bloomers and late bloomers in the game, so I still give him the benefit of the doubt.

~*BGT*~
12-25-2008, 02:36 AM
If you're going to be obnoxious leave nationalities/races out of it, please

I guess you didn't see James McAvoy on the Craig Ferguson show earlier this year. That's a direct quote from him. :rolls:

oranges
12-25-2008, 04:32 AM
Gasquet has a flashier game yeah but lets see:
serve: Murray
forehand: not saying much but Murray
backhand: Murray even though Gasquet's is flashier, Murray's is way more consistent and therefor more effective as a weapon
slice: Murray
Net game: Tied
return: Murray
movement: Murray
fitness: Murray
mental strength: Murray

So how is Gasquet a better player?

:lol: I love how they are not even tied for BH and FH. BTW, unlike Murray, Richie can do some serious damage with his forehand when he flattens it. I'd take Gasquet's volleys over Murray's any day. You're basically left with return, movement and two of the most fluent categories. Yeah, it's written in stone, Muzza is better for eternity. :p

Arkulari
12-25-2008, 05:58 AM
Gasquet is talented, but he's too mentally weak to do anything :shrug:

Karin, I'm also willing to give Richie the benefit of the doubt, but one thing: Roger won Wimbledon at the age of 21, and he has already won a MS when he was 20, and by the end of 2003 (he was the same age Richie is now) he has already gotten twice to the TMC, of course Roger is too big to compare :p, but since you put the example, those are things that Richie hasn't been able to achieve and he's been a pro for 6 years now :shrug:

Happy Holidays my friend! :wavey: :hug:

NinaNina19
12-25-2008, 06:30 AM
:lol: I love how they are not even tied for BH and FH. BTW, unlike Murray, Richie can do some serious damage with his forehand when he flattens it. I'd take Gasquet's volleys over Murray's any day. You're basically left with return, movement and two of the most fluent categories. Yeah, it's written in stone, Muzza is better for eternity. :p

Yeah and Murray can't :retard: ? How about at the semis of the USO? Against Fed at Madrid? It's also more consistent and harder to attack than Gasquet's. Murray easily has a better forehand imo. Gasquet hitting crazy winners with it in one match out of 50 doesn't count:rolleyes:, Murray does it way more often. Don't forget Murray has a much better serve as well.

~*BGT*~
12-25-2008, 06:44 AM
Yeah and Murray can't :retard: ? How about at the semis of the USO? Against Fed at Madrid? It's also more consistent and harder to attack than Gasquet's. Murray easily has a better forehand imo. Gasquet hitting crazy winners with it in one match out of 50 doesn't count:rolleyes:, Murray does it way more often. Don't forget Murray has a much better serve as well.

FH, I agree with you. Richie uses his FH to direct the rally back to his BH. His FH is usually a defensive shot.

Regarding the serve, Gasquet leads in 4 out of 6 service stat categories, including first and second serve points won, service games won, and first serve percentage. :angel: Murray has just 30 more aces in the year and just barely surpasses him in break points saved.

And if you think those stats aren't the best indication of better serve, it's noted that Federer, Roddick, and Karlovic are ranked in at least the top 3 if not first in all 6 of those categories. It's pretty safe to say that they are the best three servers in the game. So, this isn't an opinion, it's cold numbers. Sorry Nina, but we get this category. :p:p

oranges
12-25-2008, 07:16 AM
Yeah and Murray can't :retard: ? How about at the semis of the USO? Against Fed at Madrid? It's also more consistent and harder to attack than Gasquet's. Murray easily has a better forehand imo. Gasquet hitting crazy winners with it in one match out of 50 doesn't count:rolleyes:, Murray does it way more often. Don't forget Murray has a much better serve as well.

Murray's FH can be devastating, that's news. What about those matches, was it as effective a Gasquet against Nadal in Toronto ever? It's even crappier of the two and its the weakest shot for both. He does not have a much better serve, unless we're to pretend Murray's the only who improved in this respect, but hey whatever works for you. Is more consistent shot claim made according to percentage of shots made within the lines, because he easily wins against most with the number of junkballs he'll play within a match? If we're counting only those that actually go for something, than I don't really see how it is any more consistent. I'm out now, both reading and responding, otherwise my brain will resign in protest.

Clydey
12-25-2008, 08:59 AM
I'm out now, both reading and responding, otherwise my brain will resign in protest.

Yeah, we're the crazy ones for thinking that the world number 4 is better than the world numbber 25. You're the only sane one here. The rest of us are coming out with some real crazy shit. I really hope that your brain does "resign in protest". It'll save us the trouble of having to read your drivel.

Murray's FH can be devastating, that's news. What about those matches, was it as effective a Gasquet against Nadal in Toronto ever?

Yes :lol:

Gasquet lost the match in Toronto. Murray won at the US Open and it was as much because of his forehand as it was his backhand, particularly in the first two sets. I lost count of how many forehand winners down the line that Murray hit.

I think you're about the only one who thinks that Murray's flat forehand is poor. That's not the aspect of his forehand that lets him down. It's his top spin forehand that's a liability. It's a rally shot that consistently drops short.

~*BGT*~
12-25-2008, 01:12 PM
Clydey, who has a better serve? :angel:

Forehander
12-25-2008, 05:15 PM
Gasquet's game is a bad match-up for Murray's game.

Clydey
12-25-2008, 05:53 PM
Clydey, who has a better serve? :angel:

It depends. I think Gasquet's is more consistent. It's more reliable. I think Murray's is better when he's serving well, like he did against Nadal or against Federer in Madrid.

So yeah, it depends.

lisaplenske
12-25-2008, 06:18 PM
Gasquet's game is a bad match-up for Murray's game.

I think the same too.The 4th round Wimbledon match proved it, gasquet was up 2 sets and a break before he forgot to finish murray off.
A more confident gasquet with many wins in his belt would beat murray imo.An offensive gasquet would prevail the mostof the time on murray type of game.
I hope they will play each other in 2009 and we'll see who's the best.:devil::angel::devil::angel:

Clydey
12-25-2008, 07:16 PM
I think the same too.The 4th round Wimbledon match proved it, gasquet was up 2 sets and a break before he forgot to finish murray off.
A more confident gasquet with many wins in his belt would beat murray imo.An offensive gasquet would prevail the mostof the time on murray type of game.
I hope they will play each other in 2009 and we'll see who's the best.:devil::angel::devil::angel:

:rolleyes: Gasquet lost. I'm tired of the argument that Gasquet outplayed Murray. He outplayed Murray for two sets and Murray outplayed Gasquet for 2 sets.

~*BGT*~
12-25-2008, 10:55 PM
:rolleyes: Gasquet lost. I'm tired of the argument that Gasquet outplayed Murray. He outplayed Murray for two sets and Murray outplayed Gasquet for 2 sets.

Please read what you just said. :lol: You said you were tired of hearing the Gasquet outplayed Murray. And then you state JUST that in the next sentence. :rolls:

Clydey
12-25-2008, 11:00 PM
Please read what you just said. :lol: You said you were tired of hearing the Gasquet outplayed Murray. And then you state JUST that in the next sentence. :rolls:

Yes, for 2 sets. People seemingly always fail to mention that Murray also outplayed Gasquet for 2 sets. Again, please respond to what I say, instead of misrepresenting what I say.

Gasquet outplayed Murray for 2 sets and Murray outplayed Gasquet for 2 sets. The other set was very even and Murray pulled it out in the tiebreak.

Dini
12-25-2008, 11:10 PM
I prefer Gasquet but he seriously needs to get in shape big time. What the hell is he doing ranked 25 in the world?! Get out of there Richy - you can do better.

So Andy for now..but wait for 2009.

ORGASMATRON
12-25-2008, 11:11 PM
Pay special attention to number 4 and number 25 on the list :)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp

~*BGT*~
12-25-2008, 11:32 PM
Yes, for 2 sets. People seemingly always fail to mention that Murray also outplayed Gasquet for 2 sets. Again, please respond to what I say, instead of misrepresenting what I say.

Gasquet outplayed Murray for 2 sets and Murray outplayed Gasquet for 2 sets. The other set was very even and Murray pulled it out in the tiebreak.

:rolls: OMG, how in the WORLD am I misrepresenting what you say when you have clearly conflicted yourself within two sentences? You're the one picking apart posts, deciding what to comment on. Why don't you quote an entire post? :rolleyes:

Pay special attention to number 4 and number 25 on the list :)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp

No one is denying the fact that Murray had a better year. :rolleyes:

Clydey
12-25-2008, 11:40 PM
:rolls: OMG, how in the WORLD am I misrepresenting what you say when you have clearly conflicted yourself within two sentences? You're the one picking apart posts, deciding what to comment on. Why don't you quote an entire post? :rolleyes:

Because you missed the point of what I said. There is a difference between a player outplaying another player for an entire match and a player outplaying another player for only half of a match.

The fact that Gasquet outplayed Murray for 2 sets simply isn't relevant, since he also got outplayed by Murray for 2 sets and eventually lost the match.

ORGASMATRON
12-25-2008, 11:41 PM
:rolls: OMG, how in the WORLD am I misrepresenting what you say when you have clearly conflicted yourself within two sentences? You're the one picking apart posts, deciding what to comment on. Why don't you quote an entire post? :rolleyes:



No one is denying the fact that Murray had a better year. :rolleyes:

Yes but they are denying that Murray is BETTER. I dont know about you but i prefer to live in the NOW.

~*BGT*~
12-25-2008, 11:45 PM
Yes but they are denying that Murray is BETTER. I dont know about you but i prefer to live in the NOW.

Actually, we don't know what's going on right now in the off-season. :shrug: 2008 was the past. For all we know, Gasquet could have gained 5-10 pounds of muscle in the 2 months he's been off. At least I know, he's had at least 3 more weeks to prepare for 2009.

ORGASMATRON
12-25-2008, 11:50 PM
Actually, we don't know what's going on right now in the off-season. :shrug: 2008 was the past. For all we know, Gasquet could have gained 5-10 pounds of muscle in the 2 months he's been off. At least I know, he's had at least 3 more weeks to prepare for 2009.

Point taken, but Gasquet is going to have to do more then gain muscle. His problem is a mental one, like all french players cept Tsonga.

FiBeR
12-25-2008, 11:52 PM
King Oscar

richie21
12-25-2008, 11:56 PM
I prefer Gasquet but he seriously needs to get in shape big time. What the hell is he doing ranked 25 in the world?! Get out of there Richy - you can do better.

So Andy for now..but wait for 2009.

The worst thing,much above his current ranking, is that he has yet to win a big title.
Guys like Safin and Hewitt(or even Nalbandian sometimes) are also badly ranked but at least,they've proved they could win some big titles.
In 7 years on the tour,Gasquet has only won MM titles so far.
Ffs, even guys like Grosjean or Clement have probably had a better career than him so far!

~*BGT*~
12-26-2008, 12:01 AM
Point taken, but Gasquet is going to have to do more then gain muscle. His problem is a mental one, like all french players cept Tsonga.

Fitness improves his chances of winning tight close matches (if he's in better shape, he can outlast his opponents). Winning tight matches increases his mental toughness and confidence. He has lost a lot of close matches this year, against Rafa in Toronto, against JMDP in Stuttgart and Tokyo, against Haas at the USO. If he gets fitter, I think he'll win more matches and his confidence will go up

~*BGT*~
12-26-2008, 12:02 AM
The worst thing,much above his current ranking, is that he has yet to win a big title.
Guys like Safin and Hewitt(or even Nalbandian sometimes) are also badly ranked but at least,they've proved they could win some big title.
In 7 years on the tour,Gasquet has only won MM titles so far.
Ffs, even guys like Grosjean or Clement have probably had a better career than him so far!

How old are they?

richie21
12-26-2008, 12:05 AM
Point taken, but Gasquet is going to have to do more then gain muscle. His problem is a mental one, like all french players cept Tsonga.

I think you're wrong on that,mate.
Not so long ago,Murray was described as a mentally weak player,who would get frustrated very easily and get angry once things didn't go his way but now,he is described as a mentally tough player and BY HIS OWN ADMISSION,his recent improvements in term of mental strenght have simply been the result of all the hard work he putted into his fitness and his physical strenght.

As i said,if Gasquet FINALLY works hard enough on his fitness and his physical strenght(his new coach seems to have made him work a lot harder during this off-season) then i'm convinced he'll become much stronger mentally as well.
Just look at his match against Nadal at Toronto: nobody would dare saying he looked mentally weak in the first set,winning that long tie-break(where he saved numerous set points) against the strongest mentally player on the tour.
But then,what happened?? he had no energy left and the ball looked at least 5kg heavier when he was hitting it comparing to the first set.
That's also what happened a bit in his match against Murray: when he looked fit and not tired,he was hitting the ball so well that he made Andy look clueless at times.
But then,at the end of the third set,he suddenly showed clear signs of tiring(the ball looked much heavier when he was hitting it) while Andy looked as fresh as ever.

How old are they?

Dunno but i know for sure that Hewitt and Safin had already won many big titles at Gasquet's age.

Dini
12-26-2008, 12:11 AM
The worst thing,much above his current ranking, is that he has yet to win a big title.
Guys like Safin and Hewitt(or even Nalbandian sometimes) are also badly ranked but at least,they've proved they could win some big titles.
In 7 years on the tour,Gasquet has only won MM titles so far.
Ffs, even guys like Grosjean or Clement have probably had a better career than him so far!

Thanks for reminding me :( . But Gasquet has all the tools, except for fitness and tanking it against the big players. But getting his fitness to Murray/Nadal/Federer standard will see him leap right into that top 5.

ORGASMATRON
12-26-2008, 12:16 AM
I think you're wrong on that,mate.
Not so long ago,Murray was described as a mentally weak player,who would get frustrated very easily and get angry once things didn't go his way but now,he is described as a mentally tough player and BY HIS OWN ADMISSION,his recent improvements in term of mental strenght have simply been the result of all the hard work he putted into his fitness and his physical strenght.

As i said,if Gasquet FINALLY works hard enough on his fitness and his physical strenght(his new coach seems to have made him work a lot harder during this off-season) then i'm convinced he'll become much stronger mentally as well.
Just look at his match against Nadal at Toronto: nobody would dare saying he looked mentally weak in the first set,winning that long tie-break(where he saved numerous set points) against the strongest mentally player on the tour.
But then,what happened?? he had no energy left and the ball looked at least 5kg heavier when he was hitting it comparing to the first set.
That's also what happened a bit in his match against Murray: when he looked fit and not tired,he was hitting the ball so well that he made Andy look clueless at times.
But then,at the end of the third set,he suddenly showed clear signs of tiring(the ball looked much heavier when he was hitting it) while Andy looked as fresh as ever.



Dunno but i know for sure that Hewitt and Safin had already won many big titles at Gasquet's age.

Agreed, but becoming fit is a decision, therefor mental. Murray decided to get fitter because he knew that was the only way to take his game to the next level. Gasquet could have already made that decision, and there is no guarentee that he will.

richie21
12-26-2008, 12:18 AM
When his new coach took him over few months ago,he said that he would make Gasquet work much much harder on his fitness and physical strenght than what he used to do until then,especially during the off-season.
Actually,it was a polite way for him to say that Gasquet hadn't putted a lot of work on his fitness and physical strenght until then.....and i certainly believe him!

Agreed, but becoming fit is a decision, therefor mental. Murray decided to get fitter because he knew that was the only way to take his game to the next level. Gasquet could have already made that decision, and there is no guarentee that he will.

On that ,you certainly have a point ;)
So now,we can only wait to see how much work Gasquet is ready to put if he really wants to win big things badly.
Perhaps that the success of other french players like Simon and Tsonga last year might have fired up him and given him a supplement of motivation to work harder?

ORGASMATRON
12-26-2008, 12:25 AM
When his new coach took him over few months ago,he said that he would make Gasquet work much much harder on his fitness and physical strenght than what he used to do until then,especially during the off-season.
Actually,it was a polite way for him to say that Gasquet hadn't putted a lot of work on his fitness and physical strenght until then.....and i certainly believe him!



On that ,you certainly have a point ;)
So now,we can only wait to see how much work Gasquet is ready to put if he really wants to win big things badly.
Perhaps that the success of other french players like Simon and Tsonga last year might have fired up him and given him a supplement of motivation to work harder?

One can only hope so, he is so much more talented then either Tsonga or Simon. Id hate to see him waste that talent.

~*BGT*~
12-26-2008, 12:25 AM
Agreed, but becoming fit is a decision, therefor mental. Murray decided to get fitter because he knew that was the only way to take his game to the next level. Gasquet could have already made that decision, and there is no guarentee that he will.

I think Richard didn't decide to get fitter because he didn't have to. He thought his talent alone would take him to the top. Just look at last year. He was maybe less fit than this year and he has his best season. In his mind, why in the world would he need to work harder off court. He was successful without being really fit. :shrug:

But, I think using Murray as an example will motivate him to get fitter. If I were his trainer, I'd get him doing cardio twice a day (increasing intensity by 10% every two days) and doing upper body weightlifting every other day. And of course tennis for 2 hours a day. He'd eat nothing but brown rice and baked chicken and fish and steamed veggies. I'd whip him in shape in no time.

Odesnik
12-26-2008, 12:27 AM
murray

richie21
12-26-2008, 12:32 AM
One can only hope so, he is so much more talented then either Tsonga or Simon. Id hate to see him waste that talent.

Disagree about Tsonga but certainly agree about Gilles "Simple" Simon.

HarryMan
12-26-2008, 04:17 AM
One can only hope so, he is so much more talented then either Tsonga or Simon. Id hate to see him waste that talent.

No way is Gasquet more talented than Tsonga; Tsonga has a better serve, has greater volleying skills, and has a much better forehand. Gasquet is no where close to him in overall talent aspect.

ORGASMATRON
12-26-2008, 11:59 AM
No way is Gasquet more talented than Tsonga; Tsonga has a better serve, has greater volleying skills, and has a much better forehand. Gasquet is no where close to him in overall talent aspect.

Oh please Tsonga dont come close to The Gas in the talent department. Tsonga has a big game, that doesnt mean his talented. Tsonga doesnt even have a good backhand, whereas The Gas has a one-hander to die for. Mcenroe said he was more talented then Federer, and i think Mac would know. Why do you think they made such a big deal of The Gas in France and Tsonga was hardly known? The Gas was the youngest player to ever become a -30 in France, at age 15!!!

lisaplenske
12-26-2008, 04:46 PM
Dunno but i know for sure that Hewitt and Safin had already won many big titles at Gasquet's age.

richard would have won at least 2 MS titles now.But there was one wall which prevented him to do so and its name is Roger Federer.
He played both of his MS finale against Peak federer, so yeah you're right, he didnt win those big titles but simply against the best player of the tour and a legend.
He wasnt at the same level at federer at that time but let see if his fitness intensive training will be benefic for 2009 and he became a "new player" who can win big and do more than challenge the best.:armed:
I believe in him and his coach to have done the job during this off season.
We'll see so only time will tell us if richard gasquet can be among the best performers next year.

Action Jackson
12-26-2008, 04:55 PM
Oh please Tsonga dont come close to The Gas in the talent department. Tsonga has a big game, that doesnt mean his talented. Tsonga doesnt even have a good backhand, whereas The Gas has a one-hander to die for. Mcenroe said he was more talented then Federer, and i think Mac would know. Why do you think they made such a big deal of The Gas in France and Tsonga was hardly known? The Gas was the youngest player to ever become a -30 in France, at age 15!!!

McEnroe is a total bandwagoner, only thing Gasquet does better than Federer is a hit a backhand.

ORGASMATRON
12-26-2008, 05:32 PM
McEnroe is a total bandwagoner, only thing Gasquet does better than Federer is a hit a backhand.

...which says a lot.

Action Jackson
12-26-2008, 05:49 PM
...which says a lot.

It says shit. Wawrinka has a better backhand than Federer, but that's all it means nothing more.

cocrcici
12-26-2008, 05:58 PM
Murray muri mari marej.......

ORGASMATRON
12-26-2008, 07:16 PM
It says shit. Wawrinka has a better backhand than Federer, but that's all it means nothing more.

Ok yes Gaquet is absolutely shit, in fact he is so shit i have no idea what he is doing on the tour. :rolls:

finishingmove
12-26-2008, 07:46 PM
point is that federer's backhand is shit.

as for murray, he's a complete mug

Corey Feldman
12-26-2008, 08:23 PM
Roddick's BH is better than Fed's

Oksan4ik
12-26-2008, 09:03 PM
i like them both, but anyway Andy is better

Clydey
12-26-2008, 09:10 PM
i like them both, but anyway Andy is better

Oksan! :worship:

:hug:

Clydey
12-26-2008, 09:11 PM
Roddick's BH is better than Fed's

My backhand is better than Fed's. And mine looks like Karlovic's.

ImmzB
12-30-2008, 12:05 PM
Remmeber Gasquet saying he could play the bad guy...he was the bad guy running away with the match and Murray was the Police Officer and Murray couldnt get him then Gasquet Choked(Murray caught him) Murray put him in prison(Murray beat him)

xargon
01-08-2009, 05:35 PM
Does anyone have the video of Murray, I think in Cincy where the balls boys are giving him the finger as he sits on the bench?

reggie1
01-08-2009, 08:50 PM
Does anyone have the video of Murray, I think in Cincy where the balls boys are giving him the finger as he sits on the bench?

OMG is that true?! :o

yaman
01-08-2009, 08:52 PM
i pretty much prefer murray s game.i think gasquets technique is very strange.of course they re both very good.but gasquet always looks like he s smashing his head when he s doing a forehand.:)

Henry Kaspar
01-08-2009, 09:01 PM
i agree. gasquet will make his breakthrough next year

People were talking of Gasquet's imminent breakthrough already in 2005 when Nadal was coming up. I don't think he has what it takes at the big stage.

richie21
01-08-2009, 09:03 PM
For now,Murray obviously.
Gasquet is probably not even the third best french player,let alone better than Murray.

KaiserT
01-08-2009, 09:09 PM
Dumb thread, mental midget Gasquet not fit to lace Murray's trainers.

meihaditalab
01-08-2009, 09:15 PM
i would have to go with gasquet cause of his dirty bh

lovebaggy
01-08-2009, 09:33 PM
murray...he ll do a good 2009 year

Henry Kaspar
01-08-2009, 09:36 PM
Somebody has to tell Gasquet that his reverse baseball cap looks stupid, not cool.

Andi-M
01-08-2009, 09:43 PM
As much of a clown this gasquet is. I will say one thing, Murray's game does not match up well with his game at all, and it wouldnt suprise me if their career H2H is always close.

~*BGT*~
01-09-2009, 12:03 AM
OMG is that true?! :o

I think so... I saw it. :lol:

fred perry
01-09-2009, 01:49 AM
Gasquet is a Prodigy. He's just a late bloomer....He will be in his prime in about 12 years.

xargon
01-09-2009, 10:52 PM
I think so... I saw it. :lol:

It was USO--here it is...http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/roddickwatch/animated%20gifs/murray.gif

Leo
01-10-2009, 05:16 AM
I think the last day's results answer the question in the thread. Murray beats Federer. Gasquet loses to Stepanek. End.

green25814
01-10-2009, 05:17 AM
I think the last day's results answer the question in the thread. Murray beats Federer. Gasquet loses to Stepanek. End.

/signed.

richie21
01-10-2009, 04:25 PM
:haha::haha: to this thread