[philosophicalarf]

Gasquet.

Grosjean was the better player though.

[Dyraise]

Originally Posted by Grassquet

Gasquet's serve is underrated. Pretty good shot overall. But his fragile shoulder prevent him from using the full capacity of this shot.
And talking about his forehand would be a very long story but in a nutshell his forehand was pretty good in his young years. Then he modified it (with Benhabiles) and the shot turned into a wreck. Naturally, it was a good shot and he proves it when he uses his attacking forehand (lethal weapon) but his defensive and "waiting-shot" forehand was definitely altered, it's not his natural shot. Nevertheless I agree that Federer is more gifted than Richard in the forehand side of course.
Movement is not a technical skill so irrelevant in my point.

[Mystique]

Grosjean by a country mile. Gasquet is overrated.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Grassquet

Gasquet is more naturally talented than Federer. Hard to believe but that's true. However, in professional tennis, natural talent is just one of several factors in order to be successful. And Richard sucks big time in the others factors whereas Fed is quite excellent in all of them.

I dont know who is a bigger mug you or ossie ................

[SaFed2005]

Two of my favorite players! I feel that overall Grosjean was more talented. He had a better serve and a much better forehand = two of the most important shots in tennis. I also feel that Grosjean had the better all around game. As amazing as Gasquet is playing from 20 feet behind the baseline is not going to get you anywhere too often. He seems to need way too much preparation time to his his shots. Even his amazing BH, he needs a lot of time to actually hit them.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Dyraise

He's right.

Movement isn't a tennis talent. It's an athletic trait.

[leng jai]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

He's right.

Movement isn't a tennis talent. It's an athletic trait.

Tennis related body position and footwork isn't an athletic trait.

[fast_clay]

if you take court sense and overall shotmaking into account, you'd go with grosjean... grosjean actually converted his talent into results to the max pretty much...

what makes this choice reasonably hard is the fact that gasquet's talent is actively being used not to overcome his opponent, but to overcome several glaring technical deficiencies in his own game - most notably his forehand which belongs in another age... what a waste of talent...

Originally Posted by leng jai

Tennis related body position and footwork isn't an athletic trait.

yes... spacial awareness (shape around contact) is definitely not an athletic trait... and more a tennis specific (or instrument based sport) talent...

initial reaction and finding your way to that position is more athletic...

[green25814]

Grosjean by a country mile

Gasquet has a pretty backhand and fuck all else

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Grassquet

Gasquet of course. This kid is more talented technically than Federer but he wastes all the genius because he is mentally, tactically, physically and psychologically a massive joke.
Grosjean is the best player cause only results matter.

WTF are you smoking? Gasquet is a mental midget who is overrated by most people. He has a flashy backhand (I agree, pure joy to see that in full flight) but pretty much all else sucks most of the time.
Just coz he can run around hitting a few good looking single handers doesnt mean he is as talented as people make out of him. And dont even compare him with a guy like Federer. Federer can do more things with a tennis ball than that "kid" can dream of.

Grosjean is not only a more complete player (and even more fun to watch), he has had better results inspite of being a mental midget himself. He is better tennis player and thats the end of it.

[StatRacket]

Originally Posted by philosophicalarf

Gasquet.

Grosjean was the better player though.

Agreed. I believe results at a young age are a good measure of talent and Gasquet was one of the best juniors ever. In 2002 he won 2 boys' Grand Slams and was junior world number one. He was still young enough to play juniors in 2004. Also in 2002 he ranked in the top 200 at 16 years and 1 month. Back then a lot of people thought he would have a better career than Nadal (also a prodigy of course).

[Imperfect Angel]

Game wise, arguably Richard but physically, Sebastian hands down.

[Forehander]

Originally Posted by Grassquet

Gasquet's serve is underrated. Pretty good shot overall. But his fragile shoulder prevent him from using the full capacity of this shot.
And talking about his forehand would be a very long story but in a nutshell his forehand was pretty good in his young years. Then he modified it (with Benhabiles) and the shot turned into a wreck. Naturally, it was a good shot and he proves it when he uses his attacking forehand (lethal weapon) but his defensive and "waiting-shot" forehand was definitely altered, it's not his natural shot. Nevertheless I agree that Federer is more gifted than Richard in the forehand side of course.
Movement is not a technical skill so irrelevant in my point.

There is definitely technical skill involved when we talk about movement in tennis. Gasquet when watching live is very impressive and is clearly one of the most talented by miles, but he is no Federer, who seems to be on another planet when stepping onto the tennis court wielding a tennis racquet.

[Gagsquet]

Movement is an athletic skill. Rocketassist is right. Or at least it's 90% physical and 10% technical.
Roger is an awesome athlete, that's why his movement is so good. Almost zero technical skill involved at all.
It's all about being fast and agile. Both physical traits.

[Gagsquet]

Originally Posted by Mystique

He is better tennis player and thats the end of it.

You are right. But Gasquet was a better junior by a country mile. Then he fucked it up because natural talent is not enough in professional tennis and Gasquet sucks in all the others factors whereas Fed excels in all of them.