Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Oh... are we now on the "Make F.Gonzales Great" train?
:)))))))
The guy didn't do anything worth mentioning, except being a title-fooder for Roger Federer.

But I guess he's getting noticed now when we pointed out that Federer was feasting on that trash generation.
We realise over and over again that you Boss have no idea of tennis because you have watched this 2014 and later
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Gonzalez's slam results were horrible. They were mostly all first and second and third round exits. That's really all I need to know about the kind of player he was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
As one of Gonzo's maddest fans, I would love to make the big reveal - the problem was never with the backhand. It was all about point construction. Gonzo was one of the rare guys who relied on hot streaks to win him matches against players ranked close to him or above. His returning was the biggest liability. Never recovered quickly enough in the few times he actually retrieved. And his pushy forehands were really pushy. We often underestimate the power of someone like Novak (my current fav) when compared to someone like Gonzo. Novak might have much less average and peak speed on the forehand but he knows HOW to play with it on a normal day. Gonzo was roasted by anyone who could take time away, even on clay. Check his records Vs Federer, Davydenko and others who played close to the baseline. Also check his records Vs Serve Bots (Includes botdick). The guy had a very flawed game fundamentally. But I absolutely loved him for one thing - I have never seen a player better when he redlines - not rogie 2007, not Wawrinka 2015, no one. But it was not difficult to figure out how to contain this beast, which Federer did pretty well. Check out the first set of their AO final.

Gonzos backhand was just another aspect of his weak point construction, not a weakness by itself per se. Tennis is Far too complicated for a reduction to FH 100 BH 60 sort of an understanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
For an unnecessary but related recommendation l, see Gonzo Vs Gasquet AO 2009 - a match in which Gonzo used his backhand quite well. It's a shot feast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,315 Posts
As one of Gonzo's maddest fans, I would love to make the big reveal - the problem was never with the backhand. It was all about point construction. Gonzo was one of the rare guys who relied on hot streaks to win him matches against players ranked close to him or above. His returning was the biggest liability. Never recovered quickly enough in the few times he actually retrieved. And his pushy forehands were really pushy. We often underestimate the power of someone like Novak (my current fav) when compared to someone like Gonzo. Novak might have much less average and peak speed on the forehand but he knows HOW to play with it on a normal day. Gonzo was roasted by anyone who could take time away, even on clay. Check his records Vs Federer, Davydenko and others who played close to the baseline. Also check his records Vs Serve Bots (Includes botdick). The guy had a very flawed game fundamentally. But I absolutely loved him for one thing - I have never seen a player better when he redlines - not rogie 2007, not Wawrinka 2015, no one. But it was not difficult to figure out how to contain this beast, which Federer did pretty well. Check out the first set of their AO final.

Gonzos backhand was just another aspect of his weak point construction, not a weakness by itself per se. Tennis is Far too complicated for a reduction to FH 100 BH 60 sort of an understanding.
You're trying to be too philosophical.

His backhand was technically 'dodgy' at best. You see how dodgy it is when he can't stand still and line it up.

You've just said that it's about point construction and then you've said that he suffered against opponents who took his time away. Which is it?

His backhand suffered most when we consider the latter. When he couldn't stand still and stiff-leg it (like leng jai said), it suffered. He didn't have a sufficient "rally" backhand, hence why the slice became such an important part of his arsenal.

When it wasn't a slice, it was either a dodgy shot, an error or on the rare occasion, a miraculous winner. The truth of the matter is that the shot wasn't technically sound enough to utilise as a shot in which you can set up points, prolifically. That's why he would run around his backhand, especially on the AD side return, and go for hail Mary forehands that he pulled off sometimes and failed on a lot. For what it's worth, that's why I liked him so much pre-Stefanki. He was good entertainment (and still was after, to a much lesser degree).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
We realise over and over again that you Boss have no idea of tennis because you have watched this 2014 and later
Right, except for I started following and playing tennis before you were born.
Think 80s and Slobodan Zivojinovic.
Now, go to your room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
You're trying to be too philosophical.

His backhand was technically 'dodgy' at best. You see how dodgy it is when he can't stand still and line it up.

You've just said that it's about point construction and then you've said that he suffered against opponents who took his time away. Which is it?

His backhand suffered most when we consider the latter. When he couldn't stand still and stiff-leg it (like leng jai said), it suffered. He didn't have a sufficient "rally" backhand, hence why the slice became such an important part of his arsenal.

When it wasn't a slice, it was either a dodgy shot, an error or on the rare occasion, a miraculous winner. The truth of the matter is that the shot wasn't technically sound enough to utilise as a shot in which you can set up points, prolifically. That's why he would run around his backhand, especially on the AD side return, and go for hail Mary forehands that he pulled off sometimes and failed on a lot. For what it's worth, that's why I liked him so much pre-Stefanki. He was good entertainment (and still was after, to a much lesser degree).

Indeed Gonzos backhand was dodgy, but that wasnt the reason for his failures. It is that his forehand that had an exceptional hit rate - which gave a semblance of stability to his game. All other parts of his game depended on his being on a very hot streak. This includes return, net game, general anticipation etc. On his best days, his backhand, along with all of those would just hit the roof. The only rally game he had, was on slower hard courts or clay where his forehand could be incredibly stable and his opponents could not just beat him with advances forward and angles. An example would be his matches vs. Davydenko (6-0) where Davy seemed to have almost all of Gonzos weaknesses - the good return, quick play, angles, flatter groundstrokes (less height) and good movement. Also his matches Vs Hewitt on faster courts.

As for the point construction vs. taking time away, it's one and the same thing. He would get pushy so often in points even with his forehand, and he didn't have a good aggro return game either. So defeating him was mostly about closing up his window of ultra powered shots, which was done by taking away his time. To put it in other words, his weak point construction vs. top players allowed them to take time away so often and eventually ended in his misfiring completely or just plain beaten by angles. And his return game didn't help either.

And though the slice looked pathetic, it allowed him to just stay in the point Vs non aggressive opponents on slower courts - where he had his most success.

One thing he had going for him was his serve which I felt kept him in games he would have otherwise lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,315 Posts
Indeed Gonzos backhand was dodgy, but that wasnt the reason for his failures. It is that his forehand that had an exceptional hit rate - which gave a semblance of stability to his game. All other parts of his game depended on his being on a very hot streak. This includes return, net game, general anticipation etc. On his best days, his backhand, along with all of those would just hit the roof. The only rally game he had, was on slower hard courts or clay where his forehand could be incredibly stable and his opponents could not just beat him with advances forward and angles. An example would be his matches vs. Davydenko (6-0) where Davy seemed to have almost all of Gonzos weaknesses - the good return, quick play, angles, flatter groundstrokes (less height) and good movement. Also his matches Vs Hewitt on faster courts.

As for the point construction vs. taking time away, it's one and the same thing. He would get pushy so often in points even with his forehand, and he didn't have a good aggro return game either. So defeating him was mostly about closing up his window of ultra powered shots, which was done by taking away his time. To put it in other words, his weak point construction vs. top players allowed them to take time away so often and eventually ended in his misfiring completely or just plain beaten by angles. And his return game didn't help either.

And though the slice looked pathetic, it allowed him to just stay in the point Vs non aggressive opponents on slower courts - where he had his most success.

One thing he had going for him was his serve which I felt kept him in games he would have otherwise lost.
Alright, understood.

Like most people (I think), I started watching him in 2002. He was an exciting player with a good personality. It did feel like he had to be redlining it to win big matches and that he wasn't capable of "playing within himself". He improved in that regard later on in his career, with a bit more court nouse, but I felt as though his spark had gone. Obviously players were able to understand what they were up against, but I felt that a bit more of the recklessness would have done him good in being able to close out big matches. I don't think his physicality was where it needed to be to be able to combine a more steady game style (longer rallies) and doing it match after match in best of 5.

There's no reason that a player with his capabilities could only reach 2 Masters Series finals. I think the best of 3 set format is where he was most likely to achieve a lot more. He was also capable of playing on all surfaces.
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top