Which group of 4 youngsters has more potential and why? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which group of 4 youngsters has more potential and why?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Action Jackson
08-19-2005, 08:31 AM
This came about from another conversation in another thread. Basically the question is which group out of the 4 respective players has the more potential and will be the most successful in the future, so it's not just about immediacy or recency effect.

As for success that would mean GS titles and TMC/TMS titles.

I decided grouping them would be easier than labelling them.

Gasquet, Monfils, Murray, Baghdatis
Berdych, Verdasco, Djokovic, del Potro

GS records since this thread was started.


Group A

Gasquet (FRA) 37-20
Monfils (FRA) 47-21
Murray (SCO) 76-23
Baghdatis (CYP) 39-22


Total: 199-86

Group B

Berdych (CZE) 58-26
Verdasco (ESP) 62-26
Djokovic (SRB) 110-22
Del Potro (ARG) 41-18


Total: 271-92

vincayou
08-19-2005, 08:55 AM
Is there a reason why you put them in a particular group?

Action Jackson
08-19-2005, 09:01 AM
Is there a reason why you put them in a particular group?

A very clear and obvious reason actually. I could have swapped del Potro and Baghdatis around, but chose not to.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:03 AM
I got it but it was Baghdatis I didn't understand.

Action Jackson
08-19-2005, 09:04 AM
I got it but it was Baghdatis I didn't understand.

What don't you understand about Baghdatis?

You haven't actually answered the original thread question.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:07 AM
It's a good thread to bump into in 3 or 4 years. :) It's too hard to make predictions for youngster and the biggest chance is that some of each group succeed and the other not obviously but it's a good poll.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:08 AM
What don't you understand about Baghdatis?

You haven't actually answered the original thread question.

Baghdatis is not really hyped. He doesn't get media coverage, WCs, etc...

Action Jackson
08-19-2005, 09:11 AM
Baghdatis is not really hyped. He doesn't get media coverage, WCs, etc...

What and Djokovic is?

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:12 AM
I will vote for the first group, but Djokovic and Del Potro have huge potential.

Gasquet, Monfils, Djokovic and Del Potro have the potential to win Grand Slam IMO, the other not.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:12 AM
What and Djokovic is?

No, but he's in your second group.

Action Jackson
08-19-2005, 09:17 AM
No, but he's in your second group.

I am not going to explain the reasons why I put Djokovic there and they are clear as to why I did.

As the groups are mixed you can't mix and match, and there will be others in that 8 who don't win Slams, yet will have some good results, it's a just a question of who will have more of them.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:22 AM
The reasons are clear to you, but you should a poll to know if they are clear to everybody.

I see the first group as the group of players who get media coverage, hype, and wild cards, and I just don't get why Baghdatis is in it. The problem is not where you put Djokovic but Baghdatis.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 09:24 AM
Plus Verdasco is a bit "old" compared to the other, just one year younger than Roddick. Ancic is younger no?

Deivid23
08-19-2005, 09:39 AM
Group B hands down.

Monfils is all about power without brain, Gasquet is the best from those 3, but he still needs to improve his 12 year-old fitness and Murray is nothing. Baghdatis, not my cup of tea, I prefer other heavy-hitters.

Verdasco has one of the biggest potential to my eyes, I´ve talked about him many times, if he takes more seriously his career he should be a top 10 with ease, similar goes to Berdych, a guy that can play in all surfaces with one of the best fh´s in the game, Djokovic, has all the shots, he returns the ball with incredible ease, huge natural talent. Del Potro, I can´t say nothing, still haven´t seen him.

PD: All Verdasco, Berdych and Djokovic have potential to win GS. In Group A I only can see Gasquet winning sth big but he still have to improve that weak fitness to achieve it


Edited: Some corrections to my former views:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=3137185&postcount=505

El Legenda
08-19-2005, 09:49 AM
Most of the people that voted for Group A..did it because of the names and not talent.

Papakori
08-19-2005, 09:50 AM
group 1,

I don't know, not for names though. I think because it has the names Gasquet and Monfils in although I think Group 2 also have a very chance to be successful

sonatinca
08-19-2005, 10:05 AM
Berdych seems to have any chances only in august ;) (though I like him very much, I saw him playing - dual impression), that's why I choose 1st group

silverwhite
08-19-2005, 10:49 AM
group 1,

I don't know, not for names though. I think because it has the names Gasquet and Monfils in although I think Group 2 also have a very chance to be successful

Putting a Top 15 player in Group 1 obviously earns the group a lot of votes.

vincayou
08-19-2005, 10:53 AM
Where is Donald Young. He had his place in group 1. :)

I think that Murray and Monfils will live up to their huge hype.

Ferrero Forever
08-19-2005, 10:56 AM
2nd group because it has Verdasco and Berdych is cute.
In the first group i only like gasquet, and i don't care if it's about talent lol, Verdasco has plenty of it!!!

Freddi22cl
08-19-2005, 11:02 AM
Where is Donald Young. He had his place in group 1. :)

I think that Murray and Monfils will live up to their huge hype.


lol, you got that right. Take Marcos out of there and put in Young.

Stupid thread anyway :rolleyes:

Oriental_Rain
08-19-2005, 11:32 AM
well I cant pick coz I like gasquet, bagdhatis and Berdych on the other side.

gooner88
08-19-2005, 12:01 PM
Baghdatis has received a fair bit of media coverage and hype, but not as much as the other 3 in that group.
I remember he had his own show on Eurosport which took an inside look to his life as a tennis player. I enjoyed watching it.

The Pro
08-19-2005, 12:35 PM
What don't you understand about Baghdatis?

You haven't actually answered the original thread question.

Why should he answer you if you refuse to answer him.

It is not obvious why you have grouped the individuals as such.

The criteria seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I don't care if you're some forum umpire, why are you always so short and blunt with people? And pedantic I might add.

Lady
08-19-2005, 12:45 PM
Well, it was easy to vote for Group 1 based on fact that I've seen all of them play, but from the 2nd group I have seen only Verdasco (the match he lost to Wawrinka).

TheMightyFed
08-19-2005, 12:45 PM
Hello guys, Monfils and Gasquet won 1 tourney each, Gasquet is among three players to beat Federer in one year and Monfils reached the 4th round in two MS. It's not only media hype, or this hype is well deserved...

Plastic Bertrand
08-19-2005, 01:12 PM
Wawrinka could have been added to the list and Young, but for all the hype one thing Gasquet won an ATP match at the age that Donald Young is at now, something Young has not done.

Gasquet has plenty of talent this is without a doubt, but he has gone away very easily when things are not going his way and while Murray seems to play well against the better players, he really needs to get some conditioning over the summer. Baghdatis a flashy player, I would be interested to see how he performs in an injury free year. Monfils is so raw and does have a lot of potential, he could win a Slam. Gasquet and Monfils are the best chances from Group A.

Group B well Berdych is very talented and has excellent production on his strokes and for someone who is very tall has excellent movement and hardcourts will be his best surface. He beat Federer when he was # 1 and Nadal at # 2, but with Berdych consistency will take longer for him to achieve. Djokovic has an excellent temperament and has not had the benefit of Wild Cards unlike some people and Del Potro is going down the same path as well, he will be another Argentine that will consistently do well on faster surfaces barring injury. Verdasco well he needs to make the next step, the game is there, but just as easily could go down as a wasted talent. The best chances of Group B for Slam success are Berdych and del Potro.

To answer the question I will go for Group B.

Angle Queen
08-19-2005, 01:48 PM
I don't know that there's a slam winner in either group but as for "potential," (and I'm taking that to mean success)...I think, unfortunately, that media hype will help determine it -- whether it's WCs early (or late) in their careers or better exposure (which equates to better endorsements, more money...perhaps better/more consistent coaching/training opportunities). All are talented but they'll have to compete for the better part of their careers with the group (Fed, Roddick, Hewitt) that came just before them.

I'm picking Group A, mostly because of Gasquet and Baghdatis. Murray will be adored by the Brits (sooner rather than later) and will probably be as (un)successful as Henman. Monfils is the wild card in this group, IMO.

Haven't seen Group B as much. Berdych and Verdasco are the solid picks here and I'd like to see more of the others.

Still, it's nice to see another crop of young players looking to make their impressoin on the tour.

Neely
08-19-2005, 02:18 PM
As for the question alone, potential-wise I see group B (clearly) ahead. Can't give any reason, it's my impression and I see overall an edge for group B in that category.

But having said that, I think there's a fair chance that it will be Group A that is going to perform better in future´.

Raquel
08-19-2005, 02:34 PM
I'd say Group A but mainly because that group has Gasquet ,who has obviously made a leap this year and can still yet improve, and I think he will be the best of the lot (although I've never seen Del Potro). It's amazing to think only one year ago Rafael would have been in a poll like this and look where he is now. He's a one off though. You couldn't expect any of these players to repeat that.

mitalidas
08-19-2005, 02:40 PM
Group A did exceedingly well as juniors-- all GS champs if I'm not mistaken and had an easier route into the pro tour. Excluding Monfils, they all have a lot more aesthetics relative to power, and Monfils has more power than aesthetics in my view. Group B did not shine as juniors and have had the harder road into the pro tour, less advertisement, less hype, more qualifying, less WC. I have not watched del Potro, but speaking for the others, in a way they distinguish from Group B by their consistently harder hitting.

I will go with Group A overall as having more potential, although the groups are such that I don't think one clearly dominates the other

alfonsojose
08-19-2005, 02:42 PM
I know the criteria for the groups .. dick size :drool: :yeah:

World Beater
08-19-2005, 03:35 PM
Group B has much more talent than group A. But group B with the exception of Djokovic who is very steady, struggles with consistency. Group A with the exception of Baggy will do well but not great. Baggy is very much like the players in group B, flashy but inconsistent.

Group B will either soar to new heights over group A, or will become wasted talents. But I have no doubt that group A will do well.

Experimentee
08-19-2005, 03:44 PM
I have seen all of them play except Del Potro. I would say Group 1 will be more successful as they are all the same age or younger than Group 2 and have achieved more thus far. Also they seem to be better mentally. Gasquet used to be a head case but not anymore.
Djokovic is the only one out of group 2 who is mentally tough and that I can see making the top 10, however as I said I dont know about Del Potro. Berdych and Verdasco are talented, but are inconsistent, and in the case of Verdasco, mentally weak.

its.like.that
08-19-2005, 05:35 PM
I know the criteria for the groups .. dick size :drool: :yeah:

hooray, I was right too.

:lol:

Jogy
08-19-2005, 05:38 PM
When potential wants to say who has better chance winning more titles it is group 1.

Rex
08-19-2005, 06:43 PM
picked group A - becaue if the players can do well at this stage then what are they capable in a few years time.
Int he second group i really think verdasco and berdych are well able to do well.

savesthedizzle
08-19-2005, 07:11 PM
I picked group two.. based on their potential, I think the members of that group, especially Verdasco and Djokovic, who I support, have a lot of potential... whether they capitalize on their potential is another question. I haven't seen del Potro yet, but based on Verdasco and Djokovic being in group B, they have my vote. I see good things for Djokovic in the future.

oneandonlyhsn
08-19-2005, 07:13 PM
Group B without a doubt.

Group A with the exception of Gasquet are all media hype.

Berdych and Verdasco are excellent players with heaps of talent and Berdych may have 1 of the best FH on tour. Djokovic is just amazing, he has a great game and is a very smart player too. No comment on Del Potro

SwissMister1
08-19-2005, 07:22 PM
I picked group A for now, mostly because a couple of my faves r in there. I haven't really seen any of Djokovic or Del Potro yet, but I'll make it a point to see their matches at the Open.

These guys are going to have to compete with Raffy for their whole careers, and with Fed, Andy, Marat, and Lleyton for part of it. So maybe Del Potro is at the biggest advantage, being born in '88 instead of 83-87 like the other guys on this list.

njnetswill
08-19-2005, 07:37 PM
As of now, the first group.

NYCtennisfan
08-19-2005, 07:51 PM
Potential, potential, potential...
Group B probably has more potential but that doesn't mean they will win more.

The real reason behind this thread is to see who picks Group A which means that you are influenced by the "biased media" who give this group a lot of airtime. Or did you pick Group B which consists of the more talented players but only "true" tennis fans know that. These true fans are unbiased by the media. It's kind of a GWH litmus test of sorts to see who is a knowledgeable fan who is unswayed by the ignorant media.

jacobhiggins
08-20-2005, 12:28 AM
This might sound crazy, but I think Monfils has the most potential. Nadal is already one of the top players, he has arrived, but I think Monfils can do damage on multiple surfaces just because he is and can become really powerful. He's a big guy with a large wingspan!

mitalidas
08-20-2005, 12:37 AM
The real reason behind this thread is to see who picks Group A which means that you are influenced by the "biased media" who give this group a lot of airtime. Or did you pick Group B which consists of the more talented players but only "true" tennis fans know that. These true fans are unbiased by the media. It's kind of a GWH litmus test of sorts to see who is a knowledgeable fan who is unswayed by the ignorant media.

The entire group in A proved itself in juniors (all slam winners) and the entire group in B did not. In the pro tour, A has done at least as well and in most cases better than B. If there is any media hype for A over B, at least so far it is well placed and not out of the blue.

My response was that A does not strictly dominate B, but on average it does dominate.

p.s. It could be argued that those picking B, do so only because they have less media coverage which of course a "true fan" must discount deeply because the "true fan" is very knowledgeable.

+alonso
08-20-2005, 12:44 AM
Option B
Del Potro is amazing man! He's only 16 :eek: My age.. :eek:
Verdasco plays very well i love his returning shots
Berdych .. He has such a power and a excellent serve ;)
Djokovic.. i didn't know him... but i saw him in feña's match and he played really well ;) a powerful serve and a great FH ;)

cleverdutchclogs
08-20-2005, 12:52 AM
This came about from another conversation in another thread. Basically the question is which group out of the 4 respective players has the more potential and will be the most successful in the future, so it's not just about immediacy or recency effect.

I decided grouping them would be easier than labelling them.

Gasquet, Monfils, Murray, Baghdatis
Berdych, Verdasco, Djokovic, del Potro

What about Rafael Nadal?

Donald Young must be worth a shout!

NYCtennisfan
08-20-2005, 12:59 AM
The entire group in A proved itself in juniors (all slam winners) and the entire group in B did not. In the pro tour, A has done at least as well and in most cases better than B. If there is any media hype for A over B, at least so far it is well placed and not out of the blue.

My response was that A does not strictly dominate B, but on average it does dominate.

p.s. It could be argued that those picking B, do so only because they have less media coverage which of course a "true fan" must discount deeply because the "true fan" is very knowledgeable.

Of course. I was only mentioning the reason why GWH put up the thread.

Havok
08-20-2005, 01:40 AM
Group A has already outperformed groub B by a long shot (most of it coming from Gasuquet's end) but groub B does have some good players in it. I've seen Berdych play, but it's been a very long time (saw him get killed by Agassi at the AO 04 :tape: ) and Verdasco is also good, but players in groub B it seems just can't string any matches together, while group A has two/three players who are capable and have won consecutive matches (they also have 2 titles to boot, group B has a big fat 0 I believe). Can't really vote since I haven't seen them all play, but I believe I would lean towards A on this one.

Merton
08-20-2005, 03:27 AM
Group A has already outperformed groub B by a long shot (most of it coming from Gasuquet's end) but groub B does have some good players in it. I've seen Berdych play, but it's been a very long time (saw him get killed by Agassi at the AO 04 :tape: ) and Verdasco is also good, but players in groub B it seems just can't string any matches together, while group A has two/three players who are capable and have won consecutive matches (they also have 2 titles to boot, group B has a big fat 0 I believe). Can't really vote since I haven't seen them all play, but I believe I would lean towards A on this one.

You are wrong. Verdasco won Valencia 2004 and Berdych won Palermo 2004. That makes 2 fat titles, exactly the same number as Group A.

Havok
08-20-2005, 03:30 AM
Ack how did I forget that Berdych 2004 title. Completely didn't know that Verdasco won a title though :o. Still A > B.

its.like.that
08-20-2005, 03:33 AM
Well, I like Group A.

Gasquet - he's really good, he beat Federer in Monte Carlo.

Monfils - he looks like LeBron James, so he must be good. I think he has won a few slams also, or maybe they were junior slams, I can't remember.

Murray - aka Splinter from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This guy beat Taylor Dent, who is one of the best players in the world. It seems like #1 Agassi, #2 Roddick and #3 Ginepri are our only Americans who can beat him, so I put Murray in the top 10, it's good to see England have another good player.

Baghdatis - Haven't heard of him, where's he from? He has one of those names like Sampras, so there's a good chance he could be American. It would be nice to have another Sampras, I shall keep an eye out for this guy during the World Series of Tennis this summer, and from now on he will be known to me as Sampras Jnr.

savesthedizzle
08-20-2005, 03:36 AM
Well, I like Group A.

Gasquet - he's really good, he beat Federer in Monte Carlo.

Monfils - he looks like LeBron James, so he must be good. I think he has won a few slams also, or maybe they were junior slams, I can't remember.

Murray - aka Splinter from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This guy beat Taylor Dent, who is one of the best players in the world. It seems like #1 Agassi, #2 Roddick and #3 Ginepri are our only Americans who can beat him, so I put Murray in the top 10, it's good to see England have another good player.

Baghdatis - Haven't heard of him, where's he from? He has one of those names like Sampras, so there's a good chance he could be American. It would be nice to have another Sampras, I shall keep an eye out for this guy during the World Series of Tennis this summer, and from now on he will be known to me as Sampras Jnr.

:lol:

Merton
08-20-2005, 03:44 AM
I would go with Group B, but this is a close one. Gasquet has the most refined technique, but his physique is not good enough. It might take him a couple of years to bring that to the appropriate level. Monfils reminds me of Andy around 2001. Great potential but glaring technical deficiencies and it is not obvious that he has Andy's mental strength. Murray has poor physique but he appears lacking in big weapons at the moment. I love Marcos, but he lacks in overall guidance and support.

Berdych has one of the best forehands in the game, very good serve, and moves excellently. He lacks consistency at the moment. Verdasco appears the most gifted from the bunch in terms of pure quality of groundstrokes, but i expected him to do better this year. Djokovic appears mentally strong and has excellent groundstrokes.

Overall, i can see Berdych and Djokovic becoming threats at the hard court slams and Gasquet at Wimbledon. Monfils and Verdasco are equally big question marks as regards slam potential. I am sorry but i don't see Murray and Marcos winning a slam.

PD1: I have not seen Del Potro.
PD2: Is anybody aware if there are bookies betting on the event that Murray will never win a slam? What are the odds?

silverwhite
08-20-2005, 03:44 AM
Well, I like Group A.

Gasquet - he's really good, he beat Federer in Monte Carlo.

Rubbish! :rolleyes:

Monfils - he looks like LeBron James, so he must be good. I think he has won a few slams also, or maybe they were junior slams, I can't remember.

Murray - aka Splinter from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This guy beat Taylor Dent, who is one of the best players in the world. It seems like #1 Agassi, #2 Roddick and #3 Ginepri are our only Americans who can beat him, so I put Murray in the top 10, it's good to see England have another good player.

Baghdatis - Haven't heard of him, where's he from? He has one of those names like Sampras, so there's a good chance he could be American. It would be nice to have another Sampras, I shall keep an eye out for this guy during the World Series of Tennis this summer, and from now on he will be known to me as Sampras Jnr.

That's more like it! :D

Merton
08-20-2005, 03:46 AM
Baghdatis - Haven't heard of him, where's he from? He has one of those names like Sampras, so there's a good chance he could be American. It would be nice to have another Sampras, I shall keep an eye out for this guy during the World Series of Tennis this summer, and from now on he will be known to me as Sampras Jnr.

Are you a Greek hater? :haha:

savesthedizzle
08-20-2005, 03:49 AM
Berdych has one of the best forehands in the game, very good serve, and moves excellently. He lacks consistency at the moment. Verdasco appears the most gifted from the bunch in terms of pure quality of groundstrokes, but i expected him to do better this year. Djokovic appears mentally strong and has excellent groundstrokes.

Overall, i can see Berdych and Djokovic becoming threats at the hard court slams and Gasquet at Wimbledon. Monfils and Verdasco are equally big question marks as regards slam potential. I am sorry but i don't see Murray and Marcos winning a slam.



Djokovic got to the 3rd round of Wimbledon this year and took Grosjean to 4 sets... in the future I could see him getting further there as well :)

its.like.that
08-20-2005, 03:54 AM
Are you a Greek hater? :haha:

I like both Sampras and Philippoussis, but Baghdatis is a different kettle of fish.

I dont understand why the greeks claim cypriots to be their own... could you ever imagine the English claiming a Frenchman as their own? An American claiming a Canuck? An Australian claiming a New Zealander?

I think not...

:p

Merton
08-20-2005, 03:57 AM
Ack how did I forget that Berdych 2004 title. Completely didn't know that Verdasco won a title though :o. Still A > B.

No problem mate :D . Are you sure about the strict inequality? I think "B greater than or equal to A" but i can see the case for "A greater than or equal to B".

mitalidas
08-20-2005, 04:40 AM
PD2: Is anybody aware if there are bookies betting on the event that Murray will never win a slam? What are the odds?

Right after Wimbledon, there were some crazy odds given for Murray to win Wimbledon before he turns either 25 or by 2010 or something
They might still be offered

Merton
08-20-2005, 04:58 AM
I like both Sampras and Philippoussis, but Baghdatis is a different kettle of fish.

I dont understand why the greeks claim cypriots to be their own... could you ever imagine the English claiming a Frenchman as their own? An American claiming a Canuck? An Australian claiming a New Zealander?

I think not...

:p

It comes from the ancient Greeks. If you could speak Greek you were considered Greek, if not you were a barbarian. Marcos is a Greek speaking Cypriot, so he is considered Greek. :D

its.like.that
08-20-2005, 10:32 AM
It comes from the ancient Greeks. If you could speak Greek you were considered Greek, if not you were a barbarian. Marcos is a Greek speaking Cypriot, so he is considered Greek. :D

well an English speaking Cancuk still isn't considered a yank... nor a French speaking German.

:lol:

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 10:32 AM
First of all thanks to everyone who has responded to this question and providing their reasons for answering the way they did.

As someone said earlier this will be interesting to see after 3 years as to how this develops. Far from surprising that Group A has a higher lead over Group B. That might be the way it continues or it might not be, only time will tell.

The reason I didn't include Nadal is that he has already won a Slam and TMS events, which is something the 8 haven't done as of yet.

I will go with Group B over Group A. Yes, the total titles amongst them are 4 spread over the 2 groups equally.

Berdych has plenty of ability this is clear, the forehand and the serve are outstanding, his backhand is quite good as well, as for the movement for his size, it's amazing how smooth and fast he is on his feet. He'll be a factor for sure at the AO and the US Open, yes, he can play on clay but for him to win RG he would need the conditions to really fast ie consistent hot weather and hardly any rain just like in 1996, there are too many contenders there as for Wimbledon who knows. He will still have some lapses in the next 2 years where he won't be as consistent as he should be, but players develop at different speeds.

Verdasco, this guy does have some serious potential to progress and play very well on hardcourts as well as clay, he has the capability of blowing people off the court, and have seen him do it, then just as quickly, he can do some rather strange things and lose to people he shouldn't. His serve is underrated and a very hard and wicked forehand, but he uses too much of the hit it harder philosphy when losing and lacks tactical sense or if he doesn't lack it, doesn't like showing it.

Djokovic has my respect already qualifying for 3 Slams in a row, it shows that he has a good head on his shoulders and destroying Ginepri sure he is rubbish on clay, but winning the first 2 sets 6-0 6-0 and pushing Coria before having to default and making the 3rd round at Wimbledon. I can see Djokovic doing well on all surfaces. Del Potro is a huge guy and doing very well in the Futures and Satellite circuit and has been coming along well, he is taking that path to establish himself and will probably only get a WC to Buenos Aires next year. It will be interesting to see how many main tour events he will play next year, but he is one for the future, this plus he enjoys playing on other surfaces than clay and he has a good work ethic as well.

Group A: Gasquet is very talented, funny he went from overhyped to has-been and now he is back up there again, though his results have helped in this case, but I am waiting for him to grind out some wins when things aren't going well for him, and definitely needs to develop some stamina as well. The thing is the French are so desperate for a star and a Slam winner they haven't had one since Noah in 83 and if either Monfils or Gasquet win a Slam, the expectations will be even higher. Monfils is one I am doubtful about, he is so raw and could be very good with the right guidance, his movement is outstanding and another one who needs to bulk up a bit, but this will come over time. If Monfils win a Slam it wouldn't surprise, but I don't see him a consistent Slam winner.

Murray well this guy does know how to piss off people for sure, for a variety of reasons. Out of the 8 players he probably has the least natural talent out of them, but he does play well on the big stage, he doesn't have huge weapons, this guy seriously needs to get more endurance and strength, he can play a few matches and then runs out of steam badly, this being said I could see him having a Henman like career, not that this is bad, just not living up to a lot of the hype. Baghdatis well as much as I like the guy, he does have a good game and I like how he enjoys playing the game, he seems to be someone that will have some good wins for sure, but probably not have the overall consistency. I'd like him to win a Slam, but I don't think that will be happening.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 10:43 AM
Why should he answer you if you refuse to answer him.

It is not obvious why you have grouped the individuals as such.

The criteria seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I don't care if you're some forum umpire, why are you always so short and blunt with people? And pedantic I might add.

The question has been answered and most people have got it and as for criteria being arbitary ? It's simple, it's a long range prediction and since Slams are the measuring the stick of success in tennis, then there you have it and these are the young players that were selected.

Buhu, I am short, blunt, pedantic, arrogant, well that's up there with the world is round in great scientific discoveries.

bad gambler
08-20-2005, 10:48 AM
Potential, potential, potential...
Group B probably has more potential but that doesn't mean they will win more.



right on the money

silverwhite
08-20-2005, 11:10 AM
First of all thanks to everyone who has responded to this question and providing their reasons for answering the way they did.

As someone said earlier this will be interesting to see after 3 years as to how this develops. Far from surprising that Group A has a higher lead over Group B. That might be the way it continues or it might not be, only time will tell.

The reason I didn't include Nadal is that he has already won a Slam and TMS events, which is something the 8 haven't done as of yet.

I will go with Group B over Group A. Yes, the total titles amongst them are 4 spread over the 2 groups equally.

Berdych has plenty of ability this is clear, the forehand and the serve are outstanding, his backhand is quite good as well, as for the movement for his size, it's amazing how smooth and fast he is on his feet. He'll be a factor for sure at the AO and the US Open, yes, he can play on clay but for him to win RG he would need the conditions to really fast ie consistent hot weather and hardly any rain just like in 1996, there are too many contenders there as for Wimbledon who knows. He will still have some lapses in the next 2 years where he won't be as consistent as he should be, but players develop at different speeds.

Verdasco, this guy does have some serious potential to progress and play very well on hardcourts as well as clay, he has the capability of blowing people off the court, and have seen him do it, then just as quickly, he can do some rather strange things and lose to people he shouldn't. His serve is underrated and a very hard and wicked forehand, but he uses too much of the hit it harder philosphy when losing and lacks tactical sense or if he doesn't lack it, doesn't like showing it.

Djokovic has my respect already qualifying for 3 Slams in a row, it shows that he has a good head on his shoulders and destroying Ginepri sure he is rubbish on clay, but winning the first 2 sets 6-0 6-0 and pushing Coria before having to default and making the 3rd round at Wimbledon. I can see Djokovic doing well on all surfaces. Del Potro is a huge guy and doing very well in the Futures and Satellite circuit and has been coming along well, he is taking that path to establish himself and will probably only get a WC to Buenos Aires next year. It will be interesting to see how many main tour events he will play next year, but he is one for the future, this plus he enjoys playing on other surfaces than clay and he has a good work ethic as well.

Group A: Gasquet is very talented, funny he went from overhyped to has-been and now he is back up there again, though his results have helped in this case, but I am waiting for him to grind out some wins when things aren't going well for him, and definitely needs to develop some stamina as well. The thing is the French are so desperate for a star and a Slam winner they haven't had one since Noah in 83 and if either Monfils or Gasquet win a Slam, the expectations will be even higher. Monfils is one I am doubtful about, he is so raw and could be very good with the right guidance, his movement is outstanding and another one who needs to bulk up a bit, but this will come over time. If Monfils win a Slam it wouldn't surprise, but I don't see him a consistent Slam winner.

Murray well this guy does know how to piss off people for sure, for a variety of reasons. Out of the 8 players he probably has the least natural talent out of them, but he does play well on the big stage, he doesn't have huge weapons, this guy seriously needs to get more endurance and strength, he can play a few matches and then runs out of steam badly, this being said I could see him having a Henman like career, not that this is bad, just not living up to a lot of the hype. Baghdatis well as much as I like the guy, he does have a good game and I like how he enjoys playing the game, he seems to be someone that will have some good wins for sure, but probably not have the overall consistency. I'd like him to win a Slam, but I don't think that will be happening.

Here's my 2 cents. Berdych and Verdasco have big games and lots of talent, no doubt, but still need to find consistency. Berdych was unable to capitalise on his wins over Federer and Nadal by breaking through in those tournaments. Verdasco used to be really inconsistent but is getting there in terms of consistency. As somebody said in this thread, it's no use just having talent. They could all end up like Malisse.

Regarding Djokovic, I can't form much of an opinion because I haven't watched much of him. He didn't really catch my attention when he played Safin at the AO but I watched a bit of his match against Coria at RG and he was hitting the ball very cleanly. From his results, he looks due for a breakthrough soon.

I'm obviously biased towards Gasquet. He is very talented and it's not his fault that he was overhyped. In fact, as I've said before, all they hype has hindered his progress. His stamina has been improving, I think. Remember the times he used to retire from matches due to fatigue? It's almost a miracle that the same player managed to survive as much tennis as he played in Monte-Carlo. You're right about him having to learn to grind out wins, GWH. If he wants to go even further up, he has to learn to win even when things aren't going for him, whether it be bad line calls, rain delays, momentum shifts or fatigue.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 11:14 AM
Here's my 2 cents. Berdych and Verdasco have big games and lots of talent, no doubt, but still need to find consistency. Berdych was unable to capitalise on his wins over Federer and Nadal by breaking through in those tournaments. Verdasco used to be really inconsistent but is getting there in terms of consistency. As somebody said in this thread, it's no use just having talent. They could all end up like Malisse.

Berdych is still 19 and it's not like he has been on tour for years like Gasquet for example, Berdych won't be like Malisse. If he is this inconsistent at 25 then maybe, it was the same stuff they were saying about Federer, though Berdych isn't in the Federer class, he could easily hold a top 10 place in the future, considering how bad he is supposed to be in that regard, how has he managed to be in the top 50.

silverwhite
08-20-2005, 11:20 AM
Berdych is still 19 and it's not like he has been on tour for years like Gasquet for example, Berdych won't be like Malisse. If he is this inconsistent at 25 then maybe, it was the same stuff they were saying about Federer, though Berdych isn't in the Federer class, he could easily hold a top 10 place in the future, considering how bad he is supposed to be in that regard, how has he managed to be in the top 50.

Well, I certainly hope you're right. I was really impressed by the way he played against Nadal in Bastad but watching him self-destruct against Blake in Washington was really painful.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 11:25 AM
Well, I certainly hope you're right. I was really impressed by the way he played against Nadal in Bastad but watching him self-destruct against Blake in Washington was really painful.

Nearly ever player who is very talented ability wise has those kind of days, it's just too many people have too many unrealistic expectations and expect now Berdych beat Federer, he should win the Olympics for example. That's the thing not everyone moves at the same pace.

Gasquet won't win a Slam until he gets fitter and deals with the other aspects that you mentioned previously.

silverwhite
08-20-2005, 11:39 AM
Nearly ever player who is very talented ability wise has those kind of days, it's just too many people have too many unrealistic expectations and expect now Berdych beat Federer, he should win the Olympics for example. That's the thing not everyone moves at the same pace.


It's one thing to expect him to win the whole tournament and another to expect him to win one more match or two. Beating a top player and then losing in the next round is just a waste. It goes back to the need for him to be consistent, I guess.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 11:43 AM
It's one thing to expect him to win the whole tournament and another to expect him to win one more match or two. Beating a top player and then losing in the next round is just a waste. It goes back to the need for him to be consistent, I guess.

Nadal, Wilander, Becker, Chang, Hewitt and Borg ultra consistent 19 year olds, notice a pattern there? It's not like Youzhny is a gimp, and at the same it's about respective match ups and so he loses his next match, it's a learning curve and not a waste.

The Pro
08-20-2005, 12:01 PM
The question has been answered and most people have got it and as for criteria being arbitary ? It's simple, it's a long range prediction and since Slams are the measuring the stick of success in tennis, then there you have it and these are the young players that were selected.

Buhu, I am short, blunt, pedantic, arrogant, well that's up there with the world is round in great scientific discoveries.

Yeah, but I asked why.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 12:06 PM
lol, you got that right. Take Marcos out of there and put in Young.

Stupid thread anyway :rolleyes:

It's not like you had to answer in it or read it, there were no obligations to do so.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 12:22 PM
Potential, potential, potential...
Group B probably has more potential but that doesn't mean they will win more.

The real reason behind this thread is to see who picks Group A which means that you are influenced by the "biased media" who give this group a lot of airtime. Or did you pick Group B which consists of the more talented players but only "true" tennis fans know that. These true fans are unbiased by the media. It's kind of a GWH litmus test of sorts to see who is a knowledgeable fan who is unswayed by the ignorant media.

You would be right about this and even more important is the potential, potential, potential comment. It's there for sure in Group B, though it doesn't mean they will be huge achievers, hopefully they are.

Peta Pan
08-20-2005, 12:22 PM
An Australian claiming a New Zealander?

I think not...

:p
We are constant offenders... Russell Crowe (why we'd want to, who knows?), Crowded House, Sunline, Rough Habit and a multitude of other champion racehorses. Ok so the horses we don't actually claim - but they are still cheered on like one of our own if they perform internationally and adored as one of our own.

Peta Pan
08-20-2005, 12:23 PM
oh and as for the thread, I have nothing really to say other than I voted for group A :)

David Kenzie
08-20-2005, 12:26 PM
I voted group A (because of Gasquet) but I haven't seen Del Potro or Djokovic play, so I could change my mind.

Action Jackson
08-20-2005, 12:31 PM
I voted group A (because of Gasquet) but I haven't seen Del Potro or Djokovic play, so I could change my mind.

This will be an ongoing thread and as has been said before the results aren't surprising really, you can change your mind, but you can't change your vote. :)

pablo2k1
08-20-2005, 02:42 PM
Well I chose group A, but only because of Gasquet. I believe he is a massive talent and the best of the lot listed there, just need more experience, more strength and to be tougher. The rest in group A I don't think will do much Grand Slam wise.

Let's say Richie wins 5 Slams, but Verdasco, Berdych, Djokovic and Del Potro win 1 each. Is Group A still considered more successful?

If this is the reasoning, then thats why I chose A, because Gasquet is the stud.

World Beater
08-20-2005, 04:47 PM
When looking at potential, one must look at what weapons each player possesses. The weaknesses can be covered up with hardwork and improvement, but weapons cannot be created out of nothing. I will consider each assuming that they work hard and live up to their "potential"

Gasquet : Great backhand but will it be a match-winner? Like federer's fh or roddick's serve. Forehand is good and serve is decent. Movement could be better. Fitness and stamina shouldn't be looked as when considering potential, as these can be improved by some hardwork. The glaring thing abt gasquet is he doesn't seem to have one "go to shot" But he has a well rounded game for an 18 y old or for anyone. His game for me is similar to Mikhail Youzhny of now.

Monfils: Serve, Movement are excellent. Forehand technique is strange but seems to be effective. Backhand is good. He has some big weapons. The potential is there. He fights but is he mentally strong? Is he tactically astute?

Baghdatis: Shotmaker. Great fh, but everything else is inconsistent. Serve is ok and movement is fine. He doesn't have any huge weapons though.

Djokovic : Good serve, good fh, solid bh. Has a very well rounded game. Movement is good. Does he have what it takes to perform on faster courts? His game seems to be more suited to slower surfaces.

Berdych: Has the most talent for me. But his shots are flat and have little margin for error. Thus the inconstency. Berdych is fluid like federer and possesses power off the ground like safin.

Del potro: Haven't seen him

Murray: Plays well within himself. Physically extremely raw, and for a guy with the least natural talent has the most to gain by becoming physically strong. A fit and strong murray will be interesting. Almost like a mentally strong Nalby. He wishes he could have the same shot making ability though. Probably won't win many slams, but has a chance to be a good top player.

Verdasco : Flat shots have little margin for error. Needs to improve tactically. Plays w/o his brain. Talent is evident.

nermo
08-20-2005, 05:41 PM
well, it's really hard to compare two groups of tennis players, simply ,cuz everyone in each group is a different player with different abilities.., haven't seen djokovic or del petro is a second reason for not voting..For group B:.Berdych and Verdasco..are talented, inconsistency is the big minus,and in case of Verdasco...his mentality decieves him upon taking rapid response..
As for Group A: Gasquet, Monfils..have good chances to achieve good things, they need time, experience..Murray is overhyped i think..

amierin
08-20-2005, 05:48 PM
I picked Group A because of Monfils and Gasquet.

Monfils is being brought along slowly which is good for him IMO. He has a thin wiry build and I wonder if he has the endurance to handle a Grand Slam yet.

Gasquet needs to keep working to improve his game so he doesn't end up like Roddick who hasn't done anything with his game since he won the US Open.

There were some pretty negative reports about Murray's attitude and I hope this doesn't mean he's destined to become a legend in his own mind and not on the court.

I haven't seen the other guy play yet but these three do seem promising.

Sagiel
08-20-2005, 08:09 PM
I don't consider myself a great talent/potential evaluator, but I chose Group B simply because the ceiling seems to be higher for them, if they turn their potential into results I could easily see group B having more success than group A in the long run.

NYCtennisfan
08-20-2005, 08:23 PM
It's always interesting to see the debate over potential and talent versus achievement. In all sports you have those players who you would think would achieve more but they don't.

Here's a grouping: Safin, Flip, Goran VS. Hewitt, Chang, Courier

The first group has way more talent and potential but the achievement side goes to the Hewitt, Chang, and Courier side.

Auscon
08-21-2005, 10:36 AM
tough for me to say.....tho I'm very familiar with all of them (except for del Porto), of all the names I've only seen Baghdatis play...and that little bounce thing he does before his serve is pretty cool, so I'll give group A my vote :), even tho B is probably better overall

iliketennis
08-21-2005, 01:08 PM
Buhu

I call it boohoo, but that's just me ;) As for the thread's main question, I would have to give A the edge, but only because I can see Monfils and Gasquet splitting a few slams between them. But then again, Verdasco and Berdych tilt the scales towards B....

Such a difficult question. I can see why you disregarded Nadal, so many fans who would dismiss the actual question and vote Nadal.

Anyways, A > B

delsa
08-21-2005, 11:26 PM
I voted Group B because all the players from this group are obviously very talented, the four of them and have all a lot of potential with two of them a few results to proove it (Verdasco, Berdych...) or just that it already shows in their play.
In the group A, you've got Gasquet who i'm a fan of who's the only one in this group to truely be a certain talent with a lot of potential and things to work on and already having good results despite this so it's very promising (i completely agree with Silverwhite's analysis on this...). He still has to gain experience, learn to handle the emotional aspect of the game (he shows his physical state and his feelings too much on the court to his opponent, is a bit too "precious" in his attitude...), learn to deal with any match's conditions, work on his physical shape, endurance etc...And that's without mentioning that he still has a lot to learn technically (in his movements, his volley, learn to hit the ball flat a bit more etc...etc...), tactically (he still tends to be a bit too naive sometimes...) etc...
Monfils is a big doubt. He could be a fantastic players if he develops well (the coaching will be very important in that...) or just another flop. It's so uncertain, it's almost 50-50. It's like he's over-achieving right now looking at what he shows on court technically (his technic is still so poor right now...but he has good bases without any true weak point and a huge margin for progress so a lot of good things could be built on them...He's very raw. ). But he has a few results with him. He's the biggest "incertitude". Maybe it will be too much talk for nothing in his case but the thing is facts are there behind him with his results in the Juniors and his first ATP title etc..., so i don't really know what to think... We'll see. The thing about him compared to a lot of other French players is that he have the mental. Hopefully if he won't be the type to choke. That's almost a first. There was a lot of French players said to be "more talented" than Noah but in the end he's the one with the best "palmarès"...
Murray seems to have a lot of potential and some promising results. I didn't see him play a lot except a set in Wimbly against Nalby and a little bit in Cincy this week on tv. But from the little i've seen i think players like Gasquet, Berdych, Djokovik etc...(it's true that he's still the youngest of them all so you'll never know. It's a bit too early to try to have a true idea of his game...) are more talented than him or at least they're more impressive but maybe that's because they've gone further in their development...
It's been a while since i've not seen Baghdatis play but i remember i thought he was very talented. The results aren't numerous enough to proove it though...
I think the Group A only has Gasquet with a certain potential and the other may have too but that's uncertain IMHO wether it's striking all the players from group B have it and if they exploit it well, they'll be very successful. You just have too look at them playing (Djokovik in Rg, in Wimbly against Grosjean etc...i watched his match against Gonzo recently too etc..., Berdych beating Federer and Nadal, having a title to his name already etc...Verdasco is one of those players who could make the top 10 if it was not for their "head problems" à la Mathieu etc... He's a bit older than them all but well... I haven't seen a single match of Del Potro but heard a lot of good about him from ppl i almost always agree with so i trust them...
So i choose the group B. Because that's sure that Del Potro, Djokovik, Berdych and Verdasco have a lot of potential. It's also sure for Gasquet but the others are a "risky bet" even if it could be the case for them too...It doesn't really show that much in the way they play now...And apart from Gasquet, they all, in my opinion, have a lot less interesting style of play not enough "artistry", great shot making sense etc...for my taste...

revolution
08-22-2005, 12:21 AM
I dunno about this one GWH, I think they all have a good chance, but I would probably go for group 1, I think the first three can definitely win one eventually, but while Fed is around, the FO is the only one they have a chance in for the next few years.

Action Jackson
08-22-2005, 07:21 AM
I dunno about this one GWH, I think they all have a good chance, but I would probably go for group 1, I think the first three can definitely win one eventually, but while Fed is around, the FO is the only one they have a chance in for the next few years.

That's the thing Fed won't be dominating forever, he will decline unless he does a Borg and retires on top.

This is all dependant on how long the 8 players play for but I imagine it will be at least over a 10 year period at least, so anything can happen, so the development will be interesting to see as to how it progresses over time.

Fedex
08-22-2005, 10:12 AM
From what I've seen I'd give the slight edge to the 1st group, though I have not seen many of the players in the other group play too much, so.

Experimentee
08-22-2005, 04:35 PM
The first group are hyped more because they did better in juniors than the other group, so its natural that the media would pay more attention to them. Maybe it shows that those players develop from a young age, while Group B will take a bit longer to reach their peak, since Group A seem to have better results now.

vincayou
08-22-2005, 05:02 PM
Ooooh I understand now. The first group has won slams in junior and the second not. That was the criteria.
I'm a bit slow. :)

Action Jackson
08-23-2005, 12:06 PM
Ooooh I understand now. The first group has won slams in junior and the second not. That was the criteria.
I'm a bit slow. :)

You almost got it. :)

kundalini
08-23-2005, 01:39 PM
In all likelihood one player will win more than the rest put together if you are only counting Masters and Grand Slams. That is the usual pattern with these lists of young players.

Right now Gasquet looks to be the one but it could change so easily. I would go for the top group for this reason.

Verdasco and Berdych may have had big wins but their rankings are good rather than impressive given their ages. Certainly I would expect Monfils and Murray to get into the top 20 at a much earlier age than Verdasco or Berdych.

So I would say that Verdasco is the least likely to achieve, Gasquet the most likely, and as for the rest - who knows?

Suzi
08-23-2005, 02:39 PM
I voted group A but i think that each has there own potential (verdasco not really and as for del potro not really familiar with him)

Nathaliia
08-23-2005, 02:47 PM
I will vote for the first group, but Djokovic and Del Potro have huge potential.

Gasquet, Monfils, Djokovic and Del Potro have the potential to win Grand Slam IMO, the other not.
wanted to write something like this :) Monfils and Del Potro will be the great players just because I say so :) they have been my starlets and all of my starlets become great players. and why Gasquet and Djokovic? I've never seen Djokovic playing but people enjoy him. And Gasquet? I like watching him on court, I wish him all the best as well.

choosing between the groups, i vote for the first one (sorry JMDP you know i like you a lot)

Human Washington
08-23-2005, 03:02 PM
i would guess Gasquet has the best chance of winning the French Open after his impressive play this year on that surface.


Many people give Berdych alot of credit too. He has been a giant killer in the past year- a little like Hewitt and Nadal were when they were young and had few titles.

Winning slams comes down to fitness and temperament beyond the obvious talent-
I think these two players have the talent to win TMS titles- Baghdatis Murray i'm not so sure. The others i haven't seen yet.

vincayou
08-23-2005, 04:21 PM
i would guess Gasquet has the best chance of winning the French Open after his impressive play this year on that surface.


Many people give Berdych alot of credit too. He has been a giant killer in the past year- a little like Hewitt and Nadal were when they were young and had few titles.

Winning slams comes down to fitness and temperament beyond the obvious talent-
I think these two players have the talent to win TMS titles- Baghdatis Murray i'm not so sure. The others i haven't seen yet.

I'm not sure that Gasquet's best shot is at the French. In fact, I can't figure out what will be his best surface.

silverwhite
08-23-2005, 04:49 PM
I'm not sure that Gasquet's best shot is at the French. In fact, I can't figure out what will be his best surface.

I can't either... At the moment, he still seems the most comfortable on clay. He only started playing on hardcourts and grass 3 years ago or so.

He can play well on all surfaces but to be honest, there are better players than him on each surface. On clay, there is Nadal. On grass, Fed. On hardcourts, the above two plus maybe Roddick and the OAF. It's like Mauresmo's situation, in a way. She can adapt to a variety of surfaces, but is stopped by Justine on clay, the Williams sisters on hardcourts and grass, etc.

Suzi
08-23-2005, 04:51 PM
I'm not sure that Gasquet's best shot is at the French. In fact, I can't figure out what will be his best surface.

i agree with you i dont think RG is his best shot i think he is a kinda all-rounder but there are so many other better clay courters out there atm

vincayou
08-23-2005, 08:07 PM
I can't either... At the moment, he still seems the most comfortable on clay. He only started playing on hardcourts and grass 3 years ago or so.

He can play well on all surfaces but to be honest, there are better players than him on each surface. On clay, there is Nadal. On grass, Fed. On hardcourts, the above two plus maybe Roddick and the OAF. It's like Mauresmo's situation, in a way. She can adapt to a variety of surfaces, but is stopped by Justine on clay, the Williams sisters on hardcourts and grass, etc.

On hardcourt he didn't do much so far, but I hope that it will change very quickly. A run in the US open like the one in Wimbledon would be nice. All these things depend on the draw anyway.

*julie*
08-23-2005, 08:27 PM
On hardcourt he didn't do much so far, but I hope that it will change very quickly. A run in the US open like the one in Wimbledon would be nice. All these things depend on the draw anyway.

It also depend on whether or not he will have recovered from his injury... :o

delsa
08-23-2005, 08:51 PM
I can't either... At the moment, he still seems the most comfortable on clay. He only started playing on hardcourts and grass 3 years ago or so.

He can play well on all surfaces but to be honest, there are better players than him on each surface. On clay, there is Nadal. On grass, Fed. On hardcourts, the above two plus maybe Roddick and the OAF. It's like Mauresmo's situation, in a way. She can adapt to a variety of surfaces, but is stopped by Justine on clay, the Williams sisters on hardcourts and grass, etc.
Er...He was "raised" on hardcourt actually; he learned to play tennis on hard and had the opportunity to play on clay for like half of the year (spring/summer) like many other French players (we're speaking of outdoor practice here, if not he was probably able to play on indoor clay as well...). What i'm trying to say is that he had access to hardcourt since the beginning of his tennis experience. It's not as if he began to play on hard only very recently...
His tendinitis is very concerning. It's recurrent and keep getting worse. I pray for it not stopping his progress...
Some even say that if he doesn't want it to be a problem he'll have for all the rest of his career he even has to make a long break to cure this completely and rest his elbow, and strenghten it...He already talked about this pain coming back every three or four months in the juniors and he had this problem back in Wimbledon this year too...
So... i don't want to ring the alarm bell this early when there's still very few info on what he really suffers from, but it's whispered he might not even play the USO!... :eek: :sad:
I hope it's not too serious, the medical staff at his disposal is very competent and efficient (not like the dentist who took care of his wisdom tooth removal for exemple... :mad: ) and will make him take the good decision. The guy really has to work on his physical shape...That's one of the challenges he'll have to tackle...

Castafiore
08-23-2005, 08:56 PM
Tennis Week did an interview with Brad Gilbert and they asked him about the up and coming talent.

Tennis Week: Of all the teenagers not named Nadal — Berdych, Monfils, Gasquet, Murray — who has the biggest upside and who will have the best career, assuming they stay healthy?
Brad Gilbert: Not named Nadal? That's tough because I would pick Nadal. Umm. You want 'em in chronological order?
Tennis Week: Sure, whatever your gut feeling.
Brad Gilbert: I think of those guys Monfils is the best athlete by far. Gasquet's got the biggest shot like he's a great ball striker. Murray's a little bit like Mecir. I think Berdych has the biggest upside of them all.
Tennis Week: Because of his size and strength?
Brad Gilbert: I walked by him the other day in the locker room, right, and I had no idea he was 6-foot-4 and he's got legs like tree stumps. I mean, he is a big guy.
Tennis Week: He's a little bit like Enqvist in that you don't realize how big the guy is until you stand next to him.
Brad Gilbert: He's even bigger than Enqvist. And Berdych hits a big ball. I think he has a big upside, I just don't know him that well. Every single one of those guys you mention, I would be very surprised if they all didn't reach the top 10

All top 10...great new generation, isn't it?


The rest of the interview is here:
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=13672&bannerregion=
(couple of great quotes in there)

silverwhite
08-23-2005, 11:43 PM
Er...He was "raised" on hardcourt actually; he learned to play tennis on hard and had the opportunity to play on caly for like half of the year (spring/summer) like many French players.
His tendinitis is very concerning. It's recurrent and keep getting worse. I pray for it not stopping his progress...
Some even say that if he doesn't want it to be a problem he'll have for all the rest of his career he even has to make a long break to cure this completely and rest his elbow, and strenghten it...He already talked about this pain coming back every three or four months in the juniors and he had this problem back in Wimbledon this year too...
So... i don't want to ring the alarm bell this early when there's still very few info on what he really suffers from, but it's whispered he might not even play the USO!... :eek: :sad:
I hope it's not too serious, the medical staff at his disposal is very competent and efficient (not like the dentist who took care of his wisdom tooth removal for exemple... :mad: ) and will make him take the good decision. The guy really has to work on his physical shape...That's one of the challenges he'll have to tackle...

OK. I must have misinterpreted what he said once in 2002 about recently learning to play on fast surfaces. I suppose he was referring to grass and maybe indoors, and not hardcourts.

Action Jackson
08-24-2005, 05:09 AM
OK. I must have misinterpreted what he said once in 2002 about recently learning to play on fast surfaces. I suppose he was referring to grass and maybe indoors, and not hardcourts.

Gasquet can play on all surfaces which is good for him, but will that translate into consistent GS success. That's the thing it won't be a lack of ability, but until he gets stronger and develops some endurance and reach the stage where he can grind out wins, then again the same could be said for all of these players listed.

Herceg Novi
08-24-2005, 11:24 AM
Djokovic is the real deal it is just his net team has made awful decisions regarding tournaments, he so easily could have played washington and indy and could have made a name for himself, he has selected very few turnamanets for the rest of the year which is not good

Experimentee
08-24-2005, 01:51 PM
So why is Del Potro on the poll? What has he done that suggests he'll be on the level of those other players, and whats his game like?

Action Jackson
08-24-2005, 02:11 PM
So why is Del Potro on the poll? What has he done that suggests he'll be on the level of those other players, and whats his game like?

An Argentine who likes playing on hardcourt, he is a big guy and has moved up 700 places already this year and is only 16 years old. He was only going to play Futures events, but he was able to play Challengers this year without getting the benefit of Wild Cards. Good serve and hits the ball well, like most big guys needs to improve his patience, strength and fitness over time.

I have a few friends who have seen him recently and they are very impressed, there is Leo Mayer, Emiliano Massa and he is easily the best out of those 3 prospects.

He is younger than all the others mentioned.

Herceg Novi
08-24-2005, 03:29 PM
Marin Cilic also had a big win yesterday against Di Pasquale yesterday in Geneva, is Del Porto younger than him?

vincayou
08-24-2005, 03:37 PM
An Argentine who likes playing on hardcourt, he is a big guy and has moved up 700 places already this year and is only 16 years old. He was only going to play Futures events, but he was able to play Challengers this year without getting the benefit of Wild Cards. Good serve and hits the ball well, like most big guys needs to improve his patience, strength and fitness over time.

I have a few friends who have seen him recently and they are very impressed, there is Leo Mayer, Emiliano Massa and he is easily the best out of those 3 prospects.

He is younger than all the others mentioned.

Patience is something that talented youngster are often lacking. Their ability to finish points quickly at junior level is the reason.

savesthedizzle
08-24-2005, 05:12 PM
I saw Del Potro play for the first time yesterday and now I'm glad my vote was for group B, because now I've seen all four of those guys. At first Del Potro was not impressing me at all, going down early against Ramon Delgado 0-5 in the first set of qualifying, but apparently he was just getting warmed up, because near the end of that run for Delgado and the next 3 games, he improved greatly and I definitely saw the ability and power that he will grow into for the future. The shots he missed weren't out by much, so with some more refinement and practice, when they start landing in, he will definitely be a contender. And I was surprised he was so tall! I knew nothing about him until I actually saw him, and his size surprised me.

I also watched Novak Djokovic practice for two hours, but he wasn't having the best of practices, and since I've seen him before, I recognized he wasn't up to his regular ability, but he was practicing with Ancic playing a practice match against each other and the two of them had some really great points going. Hopefully will play well at USO :)

vincayou
08-24-2005, 07:59 PM
The first battle group A - group B next week at USO!
Djokovic - Monfils!

delsa
08-24-2005, 08:44 PM
The first battle group A - group B next week at USO!
Djokovic - Monfils!
I'm happy i voted for the group B if you base the superiority of one to another on the result of this match...

vincayou
08-24-2005, 09:15 PM
Let's wait for the result, I don't have a clue about how this will be sorted out.
There is no favourite in this match.

I think it would be funny to keep a count of head to head matchs between groupA and groupB.

Deivid23
08-24-2005, 11:55 PM
Let's wait for the result, I don't have a clue about how this will be sorted out.
There is no favourite in this match.

I think it would be funny to keep a count of head to head matchs between groupA and groupB.

Monfils will be settled as a clear favourite but I think Nole will win

Merton
08-25-2005, 03:40 AM
Monfils will be settled as a clear favourite but I think Nole will win

Monfils has demonstrated problems with his conditioning and he has not played very convincingly in the hard courts so far. Novak has already played 5-set matches at Wimby and he was close to winning against Gonzalez. I can see Monfils having slightly better odds due to his higher ranking, but it would be ridiculous to be a clear favourite.

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 06:44 AM
Patience is something that talented youngster are often lacking. Their ability to finish points quickly at junior level is the reason.

Yes, that really is so apparent amongst all youngsters especially guys like Hewitt, Chang, Wilander and Nadal. It depends on the players style of game more than age.

vincayou
08-25-2005, 08:48 AM
Yes, that really is so apparent amongst all youngsters especially guys like Hewitt, Chang, Wilander and Nadal. It depends on the players style of game more than age.

You probably know the difference between the word often and always.

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 08:50 AM
You probably know the difference between the word often and always.

No, I don't.

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 08:51 AM
Monfils will be settled as a clear favourite but I think Nole will win

It'll be a match that I look forward to one of the few at the US Open.

vincayou
08-25-2005, 08:53 AM
No, I don't.

That explains then.

Deivid23
08-25-2005, 10:06 AM
Monfils has demonstrated problems with his conditioning and he has not played very convincingly in the hard courts so far. Novak has already played 5-set matches at Wimby and he was close to winning against Gonzalez. I can see Monfils having slightly better odds due to his higher ranking, but it would be ridiculous to be a clear favourite.

Just wait and see, I highly doubt Monfils odds are gonna be higher than @1.7 and that means being a clear favourite to me

Deivid23
08-25-2005, 10:10 AM
It'll be a match that I look forward to one of the few at the US Open.

I have two very interesting matches to watch in 1st round, though I´ll probably end up without watching any of them and yes this one is one of those

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 10:11 AM
Just wait and see, I highly doubt Monfils odds are gonna be higher than @1.7 and that means being a clear favourite to me

Wouldn't Monfils have to be a clear favourite in this match, not that this means he will win this match?

As someone I suggested I might keep a H2H record between the players in this group.

So far in the US Open we have apart from the above. del Potro didn't qualify and awaiting the performance of Murray as well.

Henman vs Verdasco
Baghdatis vs Tursunov
Gasquet vs Martin
Berdych vs Kohlschreiber

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 10:12 AM
I have two very interesting matches to watch in 1st round, though I´ll probably end up without watching any of them and yes this one is one of those

I have probably the same and it did get mentioned in the frustrating thread.

Deivid23
08-25-2005, 10:19 AM
Wouldn't Monfils have to be a clear favourite in this match, not that this means he will win this match?


Monfils must be the favourite here, that´s clear, but as I said, I think Nole will win.

Deivid23
08-25-2005, 11:04 PM
Just wait and see, I highly doubt Monfils odds are gonna be higher than @1.7 and that means being a clear favourite to me

First odds I´ve seen, Monfils @1.57, Nole @2.65

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 11:10 PM
First odds I´ve seen, Monfils @1.57, Nole @2.65

I might to break my hardcourt rule and take some of this. The pressure will be on Monfils, he is starting to get noticed unlike Nole just yet.

Deivid23
08-25-2005, 11:11 PM
I might to break my hardcourt rule and take some of this. The pressure will be on Monfils, he is starting to get noticed unlike Nole just yet.

Nole is a dangerous rival for Gael, match will be closer than those odds suggest imo.

Action Jackson
08-25-2005, 11:19 PM
Just hope Novak can win this match. I'll be keeping regular track of this thread.

delsa
08-26-2005, 11:29 AM
It's "simple". If Gaël plays like he did on HC almost one year ago, he'll have a chance. Playing his A game that he doesn't seem to find these days when he's winning ugly like in Cincy against player who were missing their match, he could hang in there and even bother Djokovic if he doesn't play at his best and make some naive mistakes we saw him do against Gonzalez in Montréal i think it was where he should have won but let Gonzo back in the match which ended with him having better stats and won more points despite loosing...
If not, i think Gaël could be even defeated with a very tough deserved score by a Novak eager to succeed in the first round of the last Slam of the season (he seems to enjoy playing in Slams' condition a lot...) against one of the "WC kings" (there'll be a bit of the beginning of a 'rivalry' going on, in the mental aspects of the match...) on HC, in what he'll consider rightly as a clearly winnable match for him. He's got more technical skills than Gaël it seems and he'll want to show it.
But who knows which Gaël will show up. he's the one who like "big matches" too. and maybe the hypermotivated one will be there and in this case, he could even win making a very ugly match just fighting and never saying die...
There's also the conditioning problem of Gaël (don't know about Nole but i think he's got good physical capabilities from the little i saw...) in a best of five encounter... He already runs out of gas in best of three matches so...(mostly because he doesn't "manage" his energy well during a match, "wasting it" running everywhere instead of making good tactical choices sometimes if you get what i mean...).
There are a lot of factors that will matter in this match.
So you want to polemicate and speculate? We'll polemicate and speculate... :p ;)

adee-gee
08-26-2005, 10:58 PM
Murray qualified for the main draw :)

delsa
08-27-2005, 11:05 AM
Murray qualified for the main draw :)
++++++++++++++++++++++ for the Group A :)
(That i'd like to do well too despite having voted for the Group B because it was a choice of head not of heart as required since my fav Gasquet is in the first one...And i wanted to show those who are less hyped are recognized as good and with a lot of potential by me... ;) )

garylanders
08-27-2005, 11:37 AM
From what I´ve seen, I´d say that Djokovic has got the most potential out of all of them..I voted for the second group.., just because the first group´s got more media-coverage doesnt mean that they´ve got more potential.
I feel like Gasquet stands for 65% of the potential in group1 =)

Herceg Novi
08-27-2005, 03:15 PM
Djokovic not DJOKOVIK get it right DENISE

Experimentee
08-27-2005, 04:30 PM
From what I´ve seen, I´d say that Djokovic has got the most potential out of all of them..I voted for the second group.., just because the first group´s got more media-coverage doesnt mean that they´ve got more potential.
I feel like Gasquet stands for 65% of the potential in group1 =)

But equally, if they get a lot of coverage it doesnt mean they arent as good. The media hypes them because of their achievements in juniors, which suggests they do have a lot of potential.
I like Djokovic the best out of all of them, but I voted for Group A.

revolution
08-29-2005, 11:54 PM
Djokovic has impressed me greatly, certainly, although I seen Safin rip him to pieces, he has the shots. He won't win a GS though, as he's emerged in the wrong era, the Fed era.

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 09:38 AM
Djokovic has impressed me greatly, certainly, although I seen Safin rip him to pieces, he has the shots. He won't win a GS though, as he's emerged in the wrong era, the Fed era.

Like Federer is going to be dominant forever.

It's not that difficult if any of these 8 players are good enough to win Slams, then they will irrespective of who is in the draw.

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 03:44 PM
Murray qualified for the main draw :)

Not a surprise is it, and he has his match against Pavel. The veteran isn't in great form, just hope Murray doesn't have an excuse when he gets beaten in the tournament.

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 09:12 PM
A win for Group B in the Djokovic vs Monfils, hopefully many more to come.

vincayou
08-30-2005, 09:18 PM
Group A will prevail. Just a minor setback! :)

Herceg Novi
08-30-2005, 09:19 PM
i have a feeling that if Murray loses he will use an excuse such as.........he mom was wearing an unlucky colored shirt

delsa
08-30-2005, 09:20 PM
Group A will prevail. Just a minor setback! :)
Don't count on that! :devil: Group B will prevail. Hopefully with Gasquet and maybe Monfils...

vincayou
08-30-2005, 09:23 PM
Don't count on that! :devil: Group B will prevail. Hopefully with Gasquet and maybe Monfils...

Murray will kick Djokovic's ass and learn him a thing or 2 about cramp in the process next time they meet. :devil:

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 09:25 PM
At the end of the US Open I will have a pointscore which will highlight their Slam performances and it will be done individually, then together the total of the respective groups will be added up and updated after every Slam.

NYCtennisfan
08-30-2005, 09:52 PM
At the end of the US Open I will have a pointscore which will highlight their Slam performances and it will be done individually, then together the total of the respective groups will be added up and updated after every Slam.

Why just slams?

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 09:53 PM
Why just slams?

They count the most, pure and simple.

NYCtennisfan
08-30-2005, 09:58 PM
They count the most, pure and simple.

Sure, but if we are really going to compare these groups, then we might need all around results. Without the rest of his results, Muster was a one tournament wonder and that doesn't accurately describe his career. Of course, it would be quite a chore to keep track of all the results.

vincayou
08-30-2005, 10:00 PM
Well we can add entry points ranking at the end of each year. :)

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 10:01 PM
Sure, but if we are really going to compare these groups, then we might need all around results. Without the rest of his results, Muster was a one tournament wonder and that doesn't accurately describe his career. Of course, it would be quite a chore to keep track of all the results.

It's really only the Slams that count on the face of things. As for TMS events they'd only be peripheral at the best of times. I'd rather have Kafelnikov winning 2 Slams to Muster's 1.

Action Jackson
08-30-2005, 10:02 PM
Well we can add entry points ranking at the end of each year. :)

Nope, too many MM events involved and I have already a grading system for the Slams and how the points are allocated.

Action Jackson
09-01-2005, 04:24 PM
So far in the 2nd round there are

2 players from Group A Murray and Gasquet.
3 players from group B Berdych, Verdasco and Djokovic.

Vamos group B.

revolution
09-01-2005, 04:27 PM
Vamos Andy! :banana:

I think group A will win their matches.
As for group B, Verdasco should spank Capdeville and it's hard to predict Djokovic-Ancic. Berdych to win.

Deivid23
09-01-2005, 04:28 PM
So far in the 2nd round there are

2 players from Group A Murray and Gasquet.
3 players from group B Berdych, Verdasco and Djokovic.

Vamos group B.

*crossing fingers & lighting candles for a Nole vs Fer 3rd round match*

Action Jackson
09-01-2005, 04:34 PM
Vamos Andy! :banana:

I think group A will win their matches.
As for group B, Verdasco v Mathieu is tough to call and so is Djokovic-Ancic. Berdych to win.

Paulo lost to Capdeville, so that won't be happening.

revolution
09-01-2005, 04:35 PM
Paulo lost to Capdeville, so that won't be happening.

Yes, corrected.

Action Jackson
09-01-2005, 04:37 PM
*crossing fingers & lighting candles for a Nole vs Fer 3rd round match*

Not easy watching matches like that, it's the hardest thing.

I just hope Berdych can lay the smackdown on Agassi.

Experimentee
09-01-2005, 04:45 PM
You cant read too much into Djokovic's win over Monfils as the match was so close it could have gone either way, and Monfils actually won a lot more points.
The most this shows is that these two particular representatives of each group are evenly matched and doesnt establish any advantage of Group B over Group A yet.

Action Jackson
09-01-2005, 04:50 PM
You cant read too much into Djokovic's win over Monfils as the match was so close it could have gone either way, and Monfils actually won a lot more points.
The most this shows is that these two particular representatives of each group are evenly matched and doesnt establish any advantage of Group B over Group A yet.

This thread will be going for a very long time, it's just I want the ones in B to have the advantage. :)

Deivid23
09-03-2005, 03:09 AM
Group B is kicking ass in NYC :yeah:

Coming up next Djokovic vs Verdasco, it can´t get any better than this for me :aparty:

Raquel
09-03-2005, 03:16 AM
Murray is nothing.
Deivid! :sad:

How did I miss this without saying something before now? :p

Give him 2 years from now before making a final decision. For me :kiss: :p

Kudos to Group B in NYC though, they're playing well and lasting longer.

Deivid23
09-03-2005, 03:22 AM
Not easy watching matches like that, it's the hardest thing.

Here we got it :)

I just hope Berdych can lay the smackdown on Agassi.


I think Berdych stands a good chance to defeat André, let´s see

Deivid23
09-03-2005, 03:24 AM
Deivid! :sad:

How did I miss this without saying something before now? :p

Give him 2 years from now before making a final decision. For me :kiss: :p

Kudos to Group B in NYC though, they're playing well and lasting longer.

Why sad? It´s too soon to say, a battle doesn´t mean to win the war ;)

Raquel
09-03-2005, 03:27 AM
Why sad? It´s too soon to say, a battle doesn´t mean to win the war ;)
Yes you're right. It's an exciting new generation of players and it should be good to see how they all do.

savesthedizzle
09-03-2005, 03:29 AM
Group B continues to validate my choice :) Too bad Djokovic and Verdasco have to play eachother, as they are not only my two favorites from this poll, but two of my favorites in general, but one member of group B is guaranteed to be in the 4th round :yeah:

Deivid23
09-03-2005, 03:36 AM
Group B continues to validate my choice :) Too bad Djokovic and Verdasco have to play eachother, as they are not only my two favorites from this poll, but two of my favorites in general, but one member of group B is guaranteed to be in the 4th round :yeah:

Why is it too bad? Both Verdasco and Djokovic are also two of my favourite players and I´ll tell you that if I had to choose a match to watch right now it would be this one for sure, so I think it´s great :shrug:

savesthedizzle
09-03-2005, 03:38 AM
Why is it too bad? Both Verdasco and Djokovic are also two of my favourite players and I´ll tell you that if I had to choose a match to watch right now it would be this one for sure, so I think it´s great :shrug:


Well I think it's a great matchup. It's only too bad they drew eachother and couldn't both get to the next round, in my opinion.

Deivid23
09-03-2005, 03:40 AM
Deivid! :sad:

How did I miss this without saying something before now? :p

Give him 2 years from now before making a final decision. For me :kiss: :p

Kudos to Group B in NYC though, they're playing well and lasting longer.


I realized you quoted me about Murray, well I may have been a bit harsh, both Monfils and him will be very good players in the future, that´s for sure. I just was pointing out the fact that I see much more potential in Verdasco Djokovic and Berdych.

Deivid23
09-03-2005, 03:41 AM
Well I think it's a great matchup. It's only too bad they drew eachother and couldn't both get to the next round, in my opinion.

Both have the game to get into an awful lot of 4th rounds in the future, so let´s not hurry and enjoy of their match on Sunday ;)

savesthedizzle
09-03-2005, 03:43 AM
Both have the game to get into an awful lot of 4th rounds in the future, so let´s not hurry and enjoy of their match on Sunday ;)

True, true. :yeah:

Merton
09-03-2005, 05:16 AM
I think Berdych stands a good chance to defeat André, let´s see

I agree, it is strange that nobody seems to think about this match. Perhaps people remember the previous match in AO 2004 but this is a different Berdych (and Agassi). I just hope that Tomas is consistent enough, then he has an excellent chance.

Action Jackson
09-03-2005, 06:35 AM
Here we got it :)

You got your wish now and enjoy the match.

I think Berdych stands a good chance to defeat André, let´s see.

It's these young guys and Nieminen keeping my interest up in this tournament. Berdych has a very good chance to win this, it will be interesting to see how he handles the crowd in this.

Hopefully Berdman serves well and mixes it up and hits plenty of backhands down the line. He is a bit inconsistent, but another big upset would be good.

pravda
09-03-2005, 05:18 PM
Gasquet isn't finished yet. Although he seems weak over 5 set matches.

pravda
09-03-2005, 05:19 PM
Andre will be too tough for Berdych in this match up.

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 09:48 AM
Gasquet the guy with no stamina and an injury has managed to win 2 5 set matches, this is huge for him, as he is showing that he can fight very well when he wants to. The 4th round rep of Group A.

Group B has taken it so far in this Slam and will hopefully continue the trend. Berdych well stupidly gave up a break he had in the 4th, and at least one of Djokovic/Verdasco will make the 4th round and have a good chance for the quarters.

vincayou
09-04-2005, 09:51 AM
Gasquet retired 9 times against 3 for his opponents in his career so far. Hopefully, this trend is about to stop. He's a survivor now! :yeah:

Peta Pan
09-04-2005, 09:58 AM
Hmm, I know that I would now rather vote for group B. I also have a lot more time for the members of group B with Richard being the exception from group A

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 10:00 AM
Hmm, I know that I would now rather vote for group B. I also have a lot more time for the members of group B with Richard being the exception from group A

Can't change now, have to stick with your choice. :p

I mean I just want to be proven right on this one.

Peta Pan
09-04-2005, 10:07 AM
Can't change now, have to stick with your choice. :p
I know that :p I just wish I hadn't jumped in so quick :rolleyes: I mean Tomas is in Group B, that should have swayed me!

I sure hope you ARE proved right!

delsa
09-04-2005, 10:30 AM
Hmm, I know that I would now rather vote for group B. I also have a lot more time for the members of group B with Richard being the exception from group A
That's why despite being a fan of Gasquet and liking Monfils very much i voted for group B... :p
I suspect GeorgeWHitler to have volontarily singled out Gasquet btw... ;)

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 10:37 AM
I know that :p I just wish I hadn't jumped in so quick :rolleyes: I mean Tomas is in Group B, that should have swayed me!

I sure hope you ARE proved right!

There were reasons I put the groups in the way that I did, hype was one of them, there are others.

These 8 had to be balanced and at the same time I could have included Wawrinka, but I chose not to. I gave my reasons earlier in this thread as to why I chose B.

The good thing is that it actually discusses tennis and while we don't know the future, these players do have the potential to do quite well and win Slams. People always think Federer and Nadal are going to be winning forever, that's the thing death is forever and not domination.

~EMiLiTA~
09-04-2005, 10:44 AM
group B...more raw talent

its.like.that
09-04-2005, 10:50 AM
I still think it was slightly premature to include del Potro.

Unless it is aesthetically pleasing to have the groups balance out with the same number of players.

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 10:51 AM
I still think it was slightly premature to include del Potro.

Unless it is aesthetically pleasing to have the groups balance out with the same number of players.

I'll be right with del Potro, as long as he doesn't have too many injury problems, at the same time one had to come from left field.

~EMiLiTA~
09-04-2005, 10:55 AM
according to my Argo friend who goes to watch a lot of futures there, he thinks del Potro is the next best thing...thinks he has more talent than Nadal and co. i've never seen del Potro play so i can't comment...

pravda
09-04-2005, 10:58 AM
Gasquet the guy with no stamina and an injury has managed to win 2 5 set matches, this is huge for him, as he is showing that he can fight very well when he wants to. The 4th round rep of Group A.

Group B has taken it so far in this Slam and will hopefully continue the trend. Berdych well stupidly gave up a break he had in the 4th, and at least one of Djokovic/Verdasco will make the 4th round and have a good chance for the quarters.

Huge props to Richard. He will learn alot from these 5 set battles and it's good to see him come through. To be honest I didn't think he was a huge fighter but he seems to be improving in this area. Group B is better if you look at all the players but Group A is better because Gasquet is the most talented of the lot. Gasquet could carry Group A to victory over the course of time.

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 11:03 AM
Huge props to Richard. He will learn alot from these 5 set battles and it's good to see him come through. To be honest I didn't think he was a huge fighter but he seems to be improving in this area. Group B is better if you look at all the players but Group A is better because Gasquet is the most talented of the lot. Gasquet could carry Group A to victory over the course of time.

Yes, he will learn from that, it just depends on how he uses it in the future. Anyone can do it in one tournament, it will be an interesting progression for him, but Gasquet is not going to be that much better than the other 7 to carry them by himself.

its.like.that
09-04-2005, 11:06 AM
Baghdatis has been the most disappoting in recent times.

I hope he can stay injury free, and have another solid campaign at the AO 2006.

pravda
09-04-2005, 11:07 AM
Djokovic will be the best of group B i think. I really love this guy :yeah:

pravda
09-04-2005, 11:08 AM
Baghdatis has been the most disappoting in recent times.

I hope he can stay injury free, and have another solid campaign at the AO 2006.

How come Bagdahtis isn't playing many tournaments? Has he been injured?

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 11:12 AM
Baghdatis has been the most disappoting in recent times.

I hope he can stay injury free, and have another solid campaign at the AO 2006.

He who is disappointing now, maybe devastating in the future, that's the thing it can change at any point.

Marcos is a bit down at the moment, the thing that is not really good is that he and his coach left after he was injured with the tennis elbow and those months he missed had put him back a bit. The coach he had was a very good one, suited well with Marcos.

its.like.that
09-04-2005, 11:13 AM
How come Bagdahtis isn't playing many tournaments? Has he been injured?

apparently he has been somewhat injury plagued, and yes, this is why he hasn't been playing in too many tournaments.

here is his 2005 record:

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=30021121

his only real highlights this year have been winning the Cordoba Challenger, and making the 4th round at the Aussie Open. those points will be vital for him to defend if he wishes to keep his ranking in the top 100 I would imagine.

delsa
09-04-2005, 11:14 AM
There were reasons I put the groups in the way that I did, hype was one of them, there are others. Baghdatis is hyped? Or it's one of the other reasons that made you put him in group A?

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 11:21 AM
Baghdatis is hyped? Or it's one of the other reasons that made you put him in group A?

del Potro and Baghdatis are the others and they needed to put in seperately, hence when won has won a junior Slam and the others haven't, then the choice is easy. Why I structured the groups the way I did isn't that important.

vincayou
09-04-2005, 12:25 PM
Group A will prevail. But my faith in marcos is not so high anymore.

delsa
09-04-2005, 12:58 PM
Group A will prevail. But my faith in marcos is not so high anymore.
How come you're so sure of it? Do you know something we don't?

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 12:59 PM
How come you're so sure of it? Do you know something we don't?

Anything that either deivid or myself like, it's a guarantee that vincayou will be against it.

delsa
09-04-2005, 01:02 PM
Anything that either deivid or myself like, it's a guarantee that vincayou will be against it.
Well, that's great. Maybe that's to counter-balance the majority of opinions.

vincayou
09-04-2005, 01:14 PM
How come you're so sure of it? Do you know something we don't?

I'm sure of nothing :rolleyes:
But I think that Murray and Monfils are strong mentally to achieve big things. And I think that Gasquet is technically up there. And I have always liked marcos.
And I prefer to root for my favourites if you see what I mean.

Berdych never inspired me and I don't know him well. I quite like Verdasco but I seriously doubt his will to achieve things at the higher level. Djokovic might f*** up prediction though with this Del Potro guy. Novak is :yeah:, I wish he was in group A.

vincayou
09-04-2005, 01:16 PM
Anything that either deivid or myself like, it's a guarantee that vincayou will be against it.

:lol: There is probably some truth in what you say.
I tend to disagree with people just for the sake of it.

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 01:19 PM
Well, that's great. Maybe that's to counter-balance the majority of opinions.

In this case I am clearly in the minority and that's good enough.

revolution
09-04-2005, 01:21 PM
THe group that wins is the one that has a representative go furthest, I think they will all go out fourth round, with Ginepri downing Gasquet.

hitchhiker
09-04-2005, 01:41 PM
youngsters? tennis dies when agassi retires.

delsa
09-04-2005, 02:04 PM
I'm sure of nothing :rolleyes:
But I think that Murray and Monfils are strong mentally to achieve big things. And I think that Gasquet is technically up there. And I have always liked marcos.
And I prefer to root for my favourites if you see what I mean.

Berdych never inspired me and I don't know him well. I quite like Verdasco but I seriously doubt his will to achieve things at the higher level. Djokovic might f*** up prediction though with this Del Potro guy. Novak is :yeah:, I wish he was in group A.

I agree when you talk about their qualities etc...But it was quite an affirmative sentence for something you're not sure of, that's all... ;)

delsa
09-04-2005, 02:05 PM
youngsters? tennis dies when agassi retires.
:lol: in your dreams only... ;)

Action Jackson
09-04-2005, 02:06 PM
:lol: in your dreams only... ;)

Hitch is the MTF comedian and does a great job.

vincayou
09-05-2005, 12:29 PM
One champion left in each group : Verdasco and Gasquet.

Overall, so far:
groupA scores 195 points (150* + 35 + 5 +5)
groupB scores 300 points (150* + 75 + 75 + 0)

*still in course.

Even a victory of riche combined to a defeat of Verdasco will not be enough (a victory is worth 100 points).

Action Jackson
09-06-2005, 08:53 AM
One champion left in each group : Verdasco and Gasquet.

Overall, so far:
groupA scores 195 points (150* + 35 + 5 +5)
groupB scores 300 points (150* + 75 + 75 + 0)

*still in course.

Even a victory of riche combined to a defeat of Verdasco will not be enough (a victory is worth 100 points).

Too bad I am not using the Entry system to judge these performances.

Well it's up to Verdasco to make it a clear victory for Group B in this event, by making it to the quarters. Though in the number of wins they have already outshone Group A.

Chloe le Bopper
09-06-2005, 09:16 AM
I wanted to vote for B all along, but Gasquet has been holding be back. I will cave eventually ;)

Shabazza
09-06-2005, 10:48 AM
Verdasco should beat Jarrko :) - Gasquet alone, doesn't do it for group A

safdem
09-06-2005, 11:00 AM
Gasquet, Monfils, Murray, Baghdatis.
i see a lot of pure talent in richard and andy

its.like.that
09-06-2005, 11:02 AM
nice work on behalf of Verdasco, the lone representative from south of the equator.

Action Jackson
09-06-2005, 11:47 AM
I wanted to vote for B all along, but Gasquet has been holding be back. I will cave eventually ;)

It's not like it's a timeframe that is needed for this one.

Get with the strength and vote Group B.

kundalini
09-06-2005, 06:24 PM
I know Verdasco has done well in this tournament but the more I see of him the less impressed I get. He was doing everything possible to hand victory to Djokovic by the end of the fifth set, just his lead was so big, and Djokovic went for too many shots in that last game and he ended up winning.

Sure Verdasco has great shots, has the odd amazing win. But he is so erratic I can't even imagine him winning Masters and GS. If you're going to mention Verdasco, why not Muller? Another giant killer who fluctuates from brilliant to absolutely useless.

Anyone in the least surprised he went to pieces against Niemenen? Could he have asked for a better draw? A better chance to get through?

In the long run he will let down Group B.

Djokovic is going to have to be unbelievably good if Group B are to win.

Right now, neither Verdasco nor Berdych look like they want to be champions. Of course in a year's time much may have changed.

I wonder is this a case of Group A (physically unfit) versus Group B (mental struggles)?

Group A needs to hire a good fitness trainer before they can achieve their potential.

Group B needs to hire a good sports psychologist before they can achieve their potential.

silverwhite
09-06-2005, 06:31 PM
I wonder is this a case of Group A (physically unfit) versus Group B (mental struggles)?


Monfils and Djokovic would be counter-examples for this.

vincayou
09-06-2005, 06:33 PM
Monfils and Djokovic would be counter-examples for this.

No way is Monfils having mental struggles.

Chloe le Bopper
09-06-2005, 06:39 PM
No way is Monfils having mental struggles.
Well, he probably should have been able to put Djokovic away. That was mental ;)

kundalini
09-06-2005, 06:51 PM
Accept your point.

To clarify, there are 2 players (at least) in Group A whose fitness is costing them matches right now.

And 2 players in Group B who appear to be struggling mentally to fulfil their potential.

vincayou
09-06-2005, 06:59 PM
Well, he probably should have been able to put Djokovic away. That was mental ;)

No! :mad:
He was outsmarted, it's different. :worship:

C3PO
09-06-2005, 07:54 PM
Group A because of Gasquet, Monfils and Murray ... It's tempting to go for Group B because they are under-hyped, so it's the politically incorrect choice if I dare say .. But seriously, in Group B I only see Djokovic as a future great player (though I've never seen Del Potro so I can't judge him for the moment).
I've seen Verdasco today: he hits the ball very hard, he is very talented but what about his WTA mentality? :o That was weak! And he is already 22 by the end of the year :o .

silverwhite
09-06-2005, 07:57 PM
Group A because of Gasquet, Monfils and Murray ... It's tempting to go for Group B because they are under-hyped, so it's the politically incorrect choice if I dare say .. But seriously, in Group B I only see Djokovic as a future great player (though I've never seen Del Potro so I can't judge him for the moment).
I've seen Verdasco today: he hits the ball very hard, he is very talented but what about his WTA mentality? :o That was weak! And he is already 22 by the end of the year :o .

Yes. I chose Group A because it was the less politically correct answer. :ras:

Chloe le Bopper
09-06-2005, 08:36 PM
WTA mentality?

vincayou
09-06-2005, 09:22 PM
Yes. I chose Group A because it was the less politically correct answer. :ras:

Group B is so much the snobbish choice. :p

revolution
09-06-2005, 10:02 PM
Well, neither group won, as both had their final representative taken out in the same round.

In a year or two's time, I'm sure the top 50 will contain all eight of these.

Chloe le Bopper
09-06-2005, 11:12 PM
No, seriously - WTA mentality? My Sexist Bullshit Meter is beeping.

Action Jackson
09-07-2005, 06:48 AM
I've seen Verdasco today: he hits the ball very hard, he is very talented but what about his WTA mentality? :o That was weak! And he is already 22 by the end of the year :o .

What are you talking about with WTA mentality?

C3PO
09-07-2005, 06:53 AM
What are you talking about with WTA mentality?
Lol have you seen Verdasco match yesterday? :o .. I've rarely seen a male player just hitting the ball with no tactic like Verdasco yesterday.. It reminds me some WTA matches, that's all. :o

Action Jackson
09-07-2005, 07:03 AM
Lol have you seen Verdasco match yesterday? :o .. I've rarely seen a male player just hitting the ball with no tactic like Verdasco yesterday.. It reminds me some WTA matches, that's all. :o

I think I have watched tennis before and yes I did see this match, he was totally outsmarted and outhought. You must not have seen Söderling, Enqvist, PimPim Almagro, The Poo Gonzalez, Calleri or Roddick play on their bad days if you think that is rare.

Action Jackson
09-07-2005, 07:06 AM
For those who care, here are the points that will be allocated for each round of the Slam. These points will be added together and the respective totals will be there. These points were the ones that were decided in the who would have better overall results Hewitt or Roddick in the Slams

- If one member misses a Slam due to injury, then it will be taken against the other 3.
- If one fails to qualify like del Potro then they will have a 0 pointer.

The points are these.

W: 1200
RU: 500
SF: 280
QF: 140
R4: 80
R3 : 40
R2: 20
R1: 1


Group A

Gasquet 80
Monfils 1
Murray 20
Baghdatis 1

Total: 102

Group B

Berdych 40
Verdasco 80
Djokovic 40
del Potro 0

Total: 160

Chloe le Bopper
09-07-2005, 07:15 AM
What are you talking about with WTA mentality?
Sexist bullshit :)

Sort of like when somebody says "you throw like a girl". Yeah, most guys wish they could throw like Jenny Finch ;)

Action Jackson
09-07-2005, 07:22 AM
Sexist bullshit :)

Sort of like when somebody says "you throw like a girl". Yeah, most guys wish they could throw like Jenny Finch ;)

Well you know how much of a fan of the WTA I am. I am not sure I think I gave more than enough examples of guys playing brainless tennis at times. :)

delsa
09-08-2005, 12:55 AM
In the group A despite the loss even the weak links won at least won one point...
Group B will have more results as a whole i think but maybe Gasquet could have great results for group A. That's what it looks like seeing the recent results at least.
I choose the politically correct option according to you Silverwhite? I'm torn because as i said i didn't choose with heart but with head there...So maybe... ;)

Action Jackson
09-08-2005, 06:17 PM
In the group A despite the loss even the weak links won at least won one point...
Group B will have more results as a whole i think but maybe Gasquet could have great results for group A. That's what it looks like seing the recent results at least.
I choose the politically correct option according to you Silverwhite? I'm torn because as i said i didn't choose with heart but with head there...So maybe... ;)

Well Group B showed the dominance and will continue to do so, well hopefully anyway.

Deivid23
09-10-2005, 01:49 PM
Lol have you seen Verdasco match yesterday? :o .. I've rarely seen a male player just hitting the ball with no tactic like Verdasco yesterday.. It reminds me some WTA matches, that's all. :o

If Verdasco were a smart player he would already be top 10, so it sounds like you´ve never noticed him before

Action Jackson
09-14-2005, 02:41 AM
If Verdasco were a smart player he would already be top 10, so it sounds like you´ve never noticed him before

This is true, well I mean if Davydenko can make the top 10 and hold his place there, then Verdasco easily has the potential to do, but the mind is the problem.

Next week should be interesting as Berdych will be playing Davis Cup promotion tie and I wonder how many of these players will do well or fall flat in this environment.

+alonso
09-14-2005, 08:36 PM
:yeah: I red all your comments and of course Verdasco has a lot of potencial, and the problem is only his mind.!!
true! Feña in a bad day!:rolleyes: Did anybody see Feña/Davydenko (Cinci) ??
he hit the ball soo hard without thinking about!! and you can give him the point and he still won't gonna take it!


i think verdasco needs to work in his mind! :p coz he has the game!!! like eveybody says!

oh! about the poll! i voted for the 2nd group too; and i feel good to know i picked the right one! Del potro is still very very young.. but he'll surprise us the next years...

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 08:30 AM
oh! about the poll! i voted for the 2nd group too; and i feel good to know i picked the right one! Del potro is still very very young.. but he'll surprise us the next years...

Good choice and hopefully we will be proven right. :)

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 08:12 PM
Well Group B showed the dominance and will continue to do so, well hopefully anyway.

Not at Wimbledon. :) In any case, I like all the players in the groups but I don't think Murray belongs talent-wise with the rest. The other players listed are much more talented thah him.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 08:15 PM
Not at Wimbledon. :) In any case, I like all the players in the groups but I don't think Murray belongs talent-wise with the rest. The other players listed are much more talented thah him.

Not relevant until Wimbledon 2006.

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 08:20 PM
Not relevant until Wimbledon 2006.

Why? Verdasco played there and won a match. Djo played an won 2. Berdman won two. Gasquet, Murray and Monfils did just a little bit better. Broup B did better at the Open.

vincayou
09-15-2005, 11:13 PM
Why? Verdasco played there and won a match. Djo played an won 2. Berdman won two. Gasquet, Murray and Monfils did just a little bit better. Broup B did better at the Open.

You didn't get the most important rule, it's only relevant when group B wins. :lol:

Deivid23
09-15-2005, 11:19 PM
Why? Verdasco played there and won a match. Djo played an won 2. Berdman won two. Gasquet, Murray and Monfils did just a little bit better. Broup B did better at the Open.

It could count since Laver´s era if u want.

vincayou
09-15-2005, 11:20 PM
It could count since Laver´s era if u want.

Verdasco was a bad match up for Laver.

Deivid23
09-15-2005, 11:25 PM
Verdasco was a bad match up for Laver.

:lol:

NYCtennisfan
09-16-2005, 12:11 AM
You didn't get the most important rule, it's only relevant when group B wins.

LOL! I know. ;)

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 12:19 AM
You didn't get the most important rule, it's only relevant when group B wins. :lol:

When did this thread start? That's right after Wimbledon, therefore the results only count from when the thread date was launched.

Simple in reality.

*julie*
09-16-2005, 12:40 AM
I would be curious to know what the result would be considering the whole year though.
Group B might also lead imo :rolleyes:

its.like.that
09-16-2005, 12:43 AM
I don't like Marcos being in group A. He deserves better.

:(

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 12:44 AM
I would be curious to know what the result would be considering the whole year though.
Group B might also lead imo :rolleyes:

At the end of the US Open 2006 then it will be clearer.

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 12:45 AM
I don't like Marcos being in group A. He deserves better.

:(

Marcos better keep injury free for the rest of the season, that is more important.