Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,794 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Richard Gasquet was the next hyped up Next Gen in 2007, people predicted that he would be competing with Nadal to sweep up the slams for the decades to come. Yet in the end he has barely squeaked by with some 500's and his game has been completely stagnant since he first showed up on tour.

Image result for richard gasquet wimbledon 2007

Image result for richard gasquet 2019


For whatever reason Gasquet has stood defiantly behind the baseline and pretended that he is Wawrinka but instead with powder puff shots that opponent can take advantage of and put away. I find it really hard to believe that he never tried changing one aspect of his game or changing something in his technique so that he could compete with the best of the best. I remember once in a blue moon he decided to play aggressive all court tennis and it looked so natural and easy for him ... but then 10 seconds later he would go back to pushing the ball behind the baseline.

I'm curious if some more dedicated Gasquet fans can key me into his mindset and his choices over the past 12-13 years. It's not that he didn't have the money or sponsorship or that he couldn't hire a different coach, but at the tail end of his career , his age counterparts (Murray, Djokovic, Nadal (even Wawrinka? "shrug") have closer to 40 grandslams , while he has at best a 500.

Was his game really that limited that he couldn't change something to take his game to the next level or was he that limited mentally that he didn't have the champions mentality?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,793 Posts
No hope, he did what he could. He was just wildly hyped-up by the French who were desperate for someone to break Spanish hegemony at RG. Sheer delusion of Grandeur. They got Nadal instead, up to this day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
Richard Gasquet was the next hyped up Next Gen in 2007, people predicted that he would be competing with Nadal to sweep up the slams for the decades to come. Yet in the end he has barely squeaked by with some 500's and his game has been completely stagnant since he first showed up on tour.
Gasquet made his tour debut in 2002 and reached first Masters final in 2005 -- pointing out the year of 2007 makes little sense. Who in their right mind was predicting in 2007 he would be competing with Nadal for slams? With that serve and forehand? Really? (That French federation and media put enormous pressure on the kid when he was not even 16 but 11-12 years old deserves a whole different conversation.)
He's never won a 500 title, btw. But it still doesn't invalidate his career -- he's had an excellent one spending years in Top 10 and making it to GS second week 22 times.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,793 Posts
A great career for a journeyman, yes. Nothing for the hype the French created at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
i always felt he played too defensively, not able to pressure his opponents into errors, a beautiful flowing backhand for sure, but he lacked a truly strong consistent ground game
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,252 Posts
Nobody said he'd sweep slams for the decades to come.

You're making shit up
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,794 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
He was hyped up as a youngster. The French Media had him being the next greatest thing.

I find it bizarre that he didnt grow and develop the same way that great players did. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all changed over the years. They developed their games and did whatever they could to win. Nadal becoming more aggressive on hardcourt, Djokovic integrated volleys and improved his movement to become even better. Federer became more inventive in 2017 and stepped up to the baseline and became even more aggressive.

You'd figure that Gasquet would look around him and realize that something isnt working. And change his game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,032 Posts
I would pay good money to watch Gasquet, what a glorious trademark backhand. At least he has created some pleasant highlight reels, if not exactly a cabinet of trophies. Us Fedfans appreciate artistry, finesse and style you see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,317 Posts
Gasquet was overhyped at the beginning because of his backhand and the fact he played two massive matches against Federer early on. Everyone knew he was talented but it was obvious from the beginning that he didn't have the physique or weapons to dominate the tour. You can have the greatest backhand of all time but it doesn't matter if your forehand is below average and you don't a big serve to fall back on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clearwaters and MWW

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,537 Posts
Richard Gasquet was the next hyped up Next Gen in 2007, people predicted that he would be competing with Nadal to sweep up the slams for the decades to come.
March 2007, Bodo:

I want to start things off here with a few thoughts on a player many of you like, Richard Gasquet, aka Baby Federer. He was on my short list of players to take a good, long look at here at the Pacific Life Open, and I have to confess: the more I see the less I like. I’m going to write some critical things about him now, so I want to add the disclaimer that I have no feelings about this kid, personally, except as a tennis player. A certain kind of human machine, if you will, that exists apart from the substance of his character. Hail, he seems like a nice enough kid, but he’s a disaster as a tennis player (remember, we’re talking about high-level tennis here). In a way, he’s my ideal anti-tennis player. Gasquet is an extremely gifted player, but Baby Federer? Not in this lifetime, or any other. Not in any way, shape, or form.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,793 Posts
Well, by 2007 it was alredy pretty clear for everyone that Gasquet was nothing but a monstruously inflated by French media and tennis authorities giant bluff. At the end he didn't even come close to be a Santoro 2.0 (for the 'artistry' and all that shit Fedcultists talk so much about...)

For artistry go to ballet, boy.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,551 Posts
His peak bh is arguably one of the greatest ohbh of all time, but how often do you play a bh during a match? Let’s take a look at another fantastic ohbh like Wawrinka and latter has a bombastic serve which Gasquet doesn’t at all. You surely need two really great weapons to succeed in tennis, given his serve and almost boyish fh I think that he has stopped working on his game yonks ago when he was a kid instead of steadily improving it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakano

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,793 Posts
Thiem also has a fantastic OHBH, more effective than Gasquet's if you ask me. Then beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Not with that forehand...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
His serve is average and his forehand sucks. His backhand is overrated cause while he hits an awesome shot every now and then, most of them are just slightly better versions of his forehand. Plays way too defensively and his ground strokes are loopy and have no firepower. He also bends over harder for the big 3 than a whore would for a millionaire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,503 Posts
His serve is average and his forehand sucks. His backhand is overrated cause while he hits an awesome shot every now and then, most of them are just slightly better versions of his forehand. Plays way too defensively and his ground strokes are loopy and have no firepower. He also bends over harder for the big 3 than a whore would for a millionaire.
"Whore" and perenniaI pigeon esp. to NadaI 16-0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,228 Posts
Richie took Murphy to 5 sets on Wimbledon. So he should've beaten dull and DJ outside clay and DJ on clay. Could've also beaten dull at Rome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
He was overrated by French media and they put to much pressure on him. He was only 9 years old, when famous French Tennis Magazine put him on the cover with the title "the little Mozart of the French Tennis". Richard is obviously a huge talent, but his forehand has never been a weapon, his serve his too light and lacks of power. On top of this, he had to many injuries here and there. In fact, he has been very unlucky with the injuries. I can't remember a year when he did not have a least one. A pity he has only 250 titles. A guy like him would have deserved at least one Master 1000. 3 lost finals in the Masters 1000, and 3 SF in GS is not that bad but should have done better.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top