Sophia ATP 250

[stroke]

Watching Gasquet and his one hander, I am once again reminded why I think there is certainly an argument that he has the best one hander in game. Of course, there is also an argument for Roger and Stan. The argument for Roger is his is the only one that has ever held up and gotten the job done vs the Nadal forehand (albeit on hard only). That being said, he still stands alone there. But I for some reason still prefer Gasquet as my favorite one hander.

[stroke]

Sinner is probably the favorite left in the final 4 here. He looks like a top 5 player with a bullet.

[stotty]

Sinner is probably the favorite left in the final 4 here. He looks like a top 5 player with a bullet.

I like Sinner's chances. He's a good bet as a future grand slam winner.

I am not a Gasket fan. I find him all swirls and twirls and no real substance. Roger's is the best one-hander out there for me...it's so versatile and his slice is magnificent. Stan stands alone, though, when it comes to sheer firepower.

[stroke]

I like Sinner's chances. He's a good bet as a future grand slam winner.

I am not a Gasket fan. I find him all swirls and twirls and no real substance. Roger's is the best one-hander out there for me...it's so versatile and his slice is magnificent. Stan stands alone, though, when it comes to sheer firepower.

No doubt Roger's slice to me the best ever. Just magnificent. All 3 are just maestro's of the one handers. That being said, similar to how I feel about the Nadal forehand, the only shot that Gasquet may have that is superior to Fed is that shot. That being said, there is no doubt that the Fed one hander has been really the only one to stand up to Nadal(non clay) is a telling argument.

[don_budge]

No doubt Roger's slice to me the best ever.

There was a lot of talk about the improvement of his drive backhand after the equipment change but it is the slice that is his bread and butter. The forehand is obviously a tremendous weapon but it is the slice backhand that he uses to neutralise in order to get him in position to turn the tables and go back on the attack. Gasquet is a tremendous talent because I don't believe that he has the athletic skills commensurate with his tennis playing ability.

Sinner is what Sinner is. Another cookie cutter product of the mindless school of tennis. I watched him a bit against "The Demon". Wore him down and overpowered him with his depth. Kept what's his name pinned well back between the baseline. Di Minaur...that's his name. I couldn't remember it. He doesn't really make much of an impression on me. The real takeaway so far in this tournament is only a butterfly fart in the middle of the night...Denis Shapovalov. The number one seed in this tournament went out meekly against a ninety something ranked player in straight sets. "Denis the notso Menacing" was beaten by Radu Albot who was promptly dispatched in the next round.

The point is that Denis has gotten himself in position to be the top seeded player in an ATP 250 failed to deliver a meaningful performance to back it up. This is tremendously important for a player of his up and coming stature. It gets to a point where the player has that "deer in the headlights" look and they forget what got them there in the first place. It is all about performance. Performance being the sum total of a player's foundation of technique, psychological abilty to deal with the moment and the intangibles. Performance is seemingly nebulous factor and one that Roger Federer and the rest of the top players in the game have down to a science. This is my question to his new coach...can he get Denis in that space where he is able to deal with any and all factors in the moment? There has been very little evidence to support this so far. Some flashy performances but not so many of any substance. This was a real opportunity and it was another that slipped from his grasp. Denis has to get a handle on what I perceive to one of the real strengths of the Roger Federer "The Living Proof"...the slice backhand. The ability to play defence. The ability to neutralise the opponent and go back on the attack...intelligently. Technique is one thing and tactics are quite another.

Looking at this tournament as a whole this is a fine opportunity for Sinner and he shows much more promise that Shapovolav because he seems to really maintain his presence in the moment and not get ahead of himself. His opponent Pospisil is an interesting player who has the ability to change the rhythm of a match and has been getting some pretty good mileage out of his game as of late. But Sinner is a bit too sound for him defensively speaking. Remember defence wins. Not solely defence mind you. But it is the great intangible. The lesser of obvious attribute of the modern tennis player. Most of the attention is on the speed and power and it is the defence that gets the player to the finish line under the radar. Novak Djokovic is great defensively. So is Rafael Nadal. Andy Murray was. Roger is of course...Roger. A player like Stan Wawrinka for example is a bludgeoning player but he often lacks the defensive instinct. This instinct is essentially a one of guts. A performance must. If you don't have it there is nothing to rely on in many situations. You cannot just blast your way our of many situations...nope, you must slice and dice. Death by a thousand cuts.

[stroke]

Roger's slice is just a thing of beauty. I have never seen anyone who can do anything with it with what appears to be the same motion. He can slice it deep in the court, short in the court, or the drop shot with that same abrupt finish, this latest rendition of the slice by with the racquet tip pointing down at the finish.

Gasquet has been a great player for a long time. He is not a great athlete by male pro tennis player standards as you say. I saw a recent stat that he has more tour wins than any French player ever. That in itself is impressive, but he like pretty much all players in the last 15 years has been dominated by the 3. His backhand is beautiful though. He can do just about anything with it. It has not ever stood up to Nadal in 16 meetings though, the ultimate test for sure. Roger's has. I do for whatever reason like his next best, even more than Stan's. I remember one time after he lost to Nadal again on clay. He just said beating him on clay in just about impossible. Gasquet always seemed like a nice humble guy to me. Probably too nice to get the absolute best results on the pro circuit.

[stroke]

https://youtu.be/QelaYaZ1Aco

Battle of one handers, Stan vs Gasquet. Very easy on the eyes.

[don_budge]

https://youtu.be/QelaYaZ1Aco

Battle of one handers, Stan vs Gasquet. Very easy on the eyes.

Interesting statistics on Richard Gasquet...pretty darn impressive. 545-329 overall win loss...not too shabby. 33-106 versus the top ten speaks to his lack of success against "The Big Four". 2-18 against Federer, 0-16 against Nadal, 1-13 against Djokovic and a bit of a surprise but an indication of his strength against the lesser of "The Big Four" Andy Murray 4-8. He's a player alright. Great backhand in the video against Wawrinka. Gasquet might have been even tougher in another era. One less dependent upon power.