More Talented: Gasquet Or Murray?

After that fateful day way back when at Wimbledon their careers have moved in different directions. But who has the most innate talent? Gaquet or Murray?

I have to go with Murray, as I am not sure what else can explain Murray's three grand slam final appearances, his regular semi-final slam appearances, and his five years in the top five rankings of the world. It can't all be down to differences in stamina.

A better question would be who seems to work harder to get the best out of his game?

Murray by an absolute mile. A flashy and beautiful looking backhand does not cover the holes in Gasquet's game.

I think Murray is more talented, certainly has had more success

Tipsarevic

Hahahahah, man this Josiah deserves a kiss, beer, lotto winning ticket, whatever. Never fails to make my day

I think the question was answered today.

Who is the fittest was answered.

Was that the question?

Gasquet, usually for around an hour and then Murray usually for, well whatever time it takes him to bamboozle the fickle Frenchman

I actually used to be a huge Gasquet fan as along with Tsonga I anticipated a 2013-2016 spell with Nole, Andy, Tsonga and Gasguet slugging it out with Rafa.

What on earth was I thinking?? (mind you this was 2008!!!)

In fairness, particularly in the middle of 2nd set, thsi one fo the best all round Tennis matches of the year - but please Murray is clearly the more skillful

Gasquet.

Nore Staat wrote:I have to go with Murray, as I am not sure what else can explain Murray's three grand slam final appearances, his regular semi-final slam appearances, and his five years in the top five rankings of the world. It can't all be down to differences in stamina.

Then I will tell you.

Hard work, dedication, fitness, will to win, desire, competative mentality, drive to carry on.

There's 7. Let me know if you need help with anything else.

it also depends on what you call "talent". Is being mentally tough a talent? Are we talking in terms of pure shotmaking ability? What about tactical intelligence and reading of the game?

BB: if Gasquet's problems today were purely physical then that's simply not good enough from him I'm afraid. There's no way you should be physically shot after just an hour and a half in a R4 match, particularly against an opponent who was misfiring badly and making plenty of errors.

consigliare: and yet you are silent in your reasonings for your opinion that Gasquet is more talented than Murray, despite the fact that Gasquet has a second rate record compared to Murray within the sport.

consigliare wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I have to go with Murray, as I am not sure what else can explain Murray's three grand slam final appearances, his regular semi-final slam appearances, and his five years in the top five rankings of the world. It can't all be down to differences in stamina.

Then I will tell you.

Hard work, dedication, fitness, will to win, desire, competative mentality, drive to carry on.

There's 7. Let me know if you need help with anything else.

you could roughly wrap these into two though: fitness and mental ability (incl. stamina as well).

Athletically, Murray is more talented. He is taller, faster, stronger, fitter, and has more raw power in his shots. In terms of strokes, feel, touch, and flair I would say that Gasquet is more talented. But Gasquet is borderline smallish or at best average for the tour. He has never been known as one of the fittest and most damaging of all he plays to deep behind the baseline for too much of the match. Some of the same criticism that we see of murray in that respects.

Gasquet is all flair and no tennis brain...his talent alone carries him a fair way but when he needs to call on more than flair then he finds the cupboard is empty. Woeful underachiever. Oh, and that BH is overrated just because it looks nice. There are better SHBHs out there...Federer, Wawrinka, Almagro to name 3.

Except a wonderful backhand what is Gasquet better at? absolutely nothing, Murray has more strings to his bow, to me talent is all about having multiple dimensions to your game, Gasquet has always and willl only have one.

hawkeye wrote:But who has the most innate talent? Gaquet or Murray?

I am surprised that you are unwilling to accept that the 'better' player won. This 'innate' talent business and the implied innuendo is rather . Give Murray some credit for winning the match today.

Was there more talent on display when a double-fault gave Murray the second set?

But then Mozart tried an audacious arpeggio which turned into a bum note. At 4-5 advantage Murray, Gasquet attempted to find the outside of the box with a second service. The crowd groaned as it failed to clip the white line and Murray was handed the second set.

Here is something for your reading pleasure - http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2012-06-04/201206041338833641093.html

He has some tough matches ahead We will see what happens.

Sorry but there are people in permanent denial here.

Gasquet possesses a lovely back-hand and that is about it in terms of eye-catching shot play. In terms of shots in their armoury Murray has so much more than Gasquet which isn't all that hard to see from watching their latest encounter. If those in the Gasquet wish to can they please post which shots Gasquet has that Murray doesn't and what areas he is better than Murray in. Thanks.

CaledonianCraig.

I'm flattered that you liked this old article of mine so much that you brought it back.

IMO innate talent shouldn't be judged on one match alone. Also when I was talking about talent I was really referring to pure tennis skills and not the sort of tactics that Murray was able to use to his advantage in his latest match with Gasquet. Gasquet is known for his pure skills but is sort of famous for not being so strong in other areas.

I will use another couple of my old articles to demonstrate this.

First this one about talent. There are some that feel that Murray is more talented than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic despite his lack of trophies compared to them. So a win doesn't necessarily demonstrate talent?

https://www.606v2.com/t28299-murray-is-the-most-talented-of-them-all

Also no matter how much talent a player may possess if their opponant can destract or unsettle them they may not be able to use it. Gasquet is the artistic type and very prone to being unsettled. He should have read my Coaching Advice For Andy's Opponants. This particular bit was perhaps relevant. (This is cut from a longer article hence the talk of video's etc but this is the bit that Gasquet should have been aware of)

The second bit of advice will involve watching three videos.

The first is Murray's first set against Kukushkin in Brisbane this year. This is how Murray might act. If he does so take no notice. He is not going to retire injured and give you the match so don't get your hopes up. The temper tantrums he is having will ultimately benefit him and not you if you take too much notice. Watch it a few times if it helps so you won't be too startled or surprised when you are faced with the real thing.

The second is Murray serving at break point down in the 4th set of the US Open final against Nadal. He chooses that moment to change his wristbands slowing up play and attempting to disrupt his opponant. (Well done Nadal for staying strong on this occasion). Expect the unexpected.

https://www.606v2.com/t21632-coaching-advice-for-andy-s-opponents

On reading it again I can't help thinking that also poor Neiminen should have read the first bit before his match with Murray... I am also reminded of how poorly some players respond to Murrays tactics. It is not as if he's doing anything new. Maybe like me they just don't watch many Murray matches...

Keep sucking on those sour grapes hawkeye.

I see you have no offering of range of shots you believe Gasquet is better than Murray. Kind of ends any sort of debate there may have been.

laverfan

I admit that Murray's "talent" may have caused Gaquet to double fault but this article was meant to be about tennis talent (as in ball striking, movement and traditional tactics involving a raquet and a ball)... not other sorts of "talents".

Murray's backhand is probably better (Gasquets BH is slightly overrated as it is pretty), his forehand is better, his serve is better, his return of serve is better (Muzz is one of the best returners of serve in the game) and his movement is better.

hawkeye wrote:laverfan

I admit that Murray's "talent" may have caused Gaquet to double fault but this article was meant to be about tennis talent (as in ball striking, movement and traditional tactics involving a raquet and a ball)... not other sorts of "talents".

Then it's got to be Murray. Look at the stats from yesterdays match. In all but first serve in % Murray comes out on top (break points won have been incorrectly tranposed).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18316074

Gasquet has lots of talent as does Murray but as we all know talent is only one part of the game. Fitness and mentality play a huge part also.

hawkeye wrote:CaledonianCraig.Maybe like me they just don't watch many Murray matches...

It's great to see hawkeye giving us some amusing quips so we end the Jubilee celebrations in style!!

Of course you don't watch many Murray matches - which means you haven't a clue what skills he has

So why have you just written 'war and peace' about his skills / tactics?

Or do you watch is matches?

Or do you cherry pick certain matches to watch, i.e. 1 in 10, and make a judgement?

Whatever the answer, as usual you just do not have a clue about what good Tennis is

Mad for Chelsea wrote:it also depends on what you call "talent". Is being mentally tough a talent? Are we talking in terms of pure shotmaking ability? What about tactical intelligence and reading of the game?

BB: if Gasquet's problems today were purely physical then that's simply not good enough from him I'm afraid. There's no way you should be physically shot after just an hour and a half in a R4 match, particularly against an opponent who was misfiring badly and making plenty of errors.

Didn't I hear he was throwing up on court against Dimitrov?

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:it also depends on what you call "talent". Is being mentally tough a talent? Are we talking in terms of pure shotmaking ability? What about tactical intelligence and reading of the game?

BB: if Gasquet's problems today were purely physical then that's simply not good enough from him I'm afraid. There's no way you should be physically shot after just an hour and a half in a R4 match, particularly against an opponent who was misfiring badly and making plenty of errors.

Didn't I hear he was throwing up on court against Dimitrov?

was he? I didn't see, I'll have a look and see if I can find anything. Then again, he only got back into the Dimitrov match when Dimi got vicious cramp serving for the second set at 5-4 (he lost the next three games) IIRC.

just checked: it seems Gasquet was indeed throwing up after the same rally which saw Dimitrov cramp up. I still question his physical conditioning TBH, he should be able to play more than an hour and a half before wilting.

Interestingly (and verging off-topic slightly) I was talking to Clinton Ferreira (ex-doubles player, some sort of cousin of Wayne I think) and he said he believed tennis more than any other sport was a mental battle first and foremost. We mentioned Gasquet, and he said "he doesn't have what it takes to be a top player up here" pointing to his head. For me, the physical and mental are linked: when you're tired your thinking process isn't as clear as it should be, but equally when you're mentally struggling (your opponent has gained the upper hand say) you tend to feel the physical effects a lot more...

hawkeye wrote:CaledonianCraig.
First this one about talent. There are some that feel that Murray is more talented than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic despite his lack of trophies compared to them. So a win doesn't necessarily demonstrate talent?

https://www.606v2.com/t28299-murray-is-the-most-talented-of-them-all
...

I think I've heard it all now.

Cons
Remember everyone is entitled to an opinion - doesn't make them right though. I don't think many sensible people would consider anyone but Federer as the most naturally gifted shotmaker of the top players. However, top level tennis is about more than just shotmaking - you won't make the very top without great mental strength and athleticism, which is where NAdal and now Djokovic excel (allied in both cases to a great understanding of their own game and how to best exploit its strengths and the weaknesses in their opponents).

As for the comparison between Murray and Gasquet, all RG has going for him is an aesthetically pleasing and sometimes effective single-handed backhand groundstroke. The forehand is very hit or miss, he doesn't have a particularly dominating serve and no real net game. Murray, for all the deficiencies in his second serve and in-to-out forehand, offers more in just about every aspect of the game - as a serious question, would you take Gasquet's SHBH or Murrays double hander as the better and more reliable shot (rather than prettiest)?

Add to which Andy's work ethic (going from being a young player with questionable fitness to being one of the fittest and fastest players on the tour) and better mental strength (something wehre he still falls short of the very best, but where he is usually pretty good, certainly a couple of levels better than Gasquet), and it is clear why one of them is a regular winner of MS level events, reaches the late stages of slams on a reliable basis and has been ranked consistently in the top 4 for several years, while the other hovers around the top 16-25 mark.

To add to dummy_half's excellent post.

Style is not talent. It could be argued that Gasquet is all style and no substance.

Talent- Gasquet beat Federer as a teenager on clay, (Fed is a top 10 great on clay,). how many teenagers do you think Fed has lost to?, he beat 3 time Wimbledön finalist Roddick in Wimbledon 07, he came back from twö sets down, but thats nöt the most amazing stat, it was his winner-unforced errors ratio- 93w-29ue, if you think Murray eclipsed Richard because he had more talent, then I dont know how to define the word anymore.

So you point to one paltry achievement in Gasquet's career as evidence. Sorry but bad mistake - if we are talking achievements in tennis here Murray has achieved so much more than Gasquet.

kingraf wrote:Talent- Gasquet beat Federer as a teenager on clay, (Fed is a top 10 great on clay,). how many teenagers do you think Fed has lost to?, he beat 3 time Wimbledön finalist Roddick in Wimbledon 07, he came back from twö sets down, but thats nöt the most amazing stat, it was his winner-unforced errors ratio- 93w-29ue, if you think Murray eclipsed Richard because he had more talent, then I dont know how to define the word anymore.

Mmm. A teenage Murray beat Federer on hard court (Fed is probably the top hard court great). Murray beat 3 times Wimbledon finalist Roddick in Wimbledon 2006 in straight sets whilst still a teenager. He has a better head to head record against both of these players than Gasquet. He has now beaten Gasquet 4 times in GS events (clay twice, grass twice).

I'm not sure what your point is.

Nore Staat has hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between style and talent. Gasquet has a backhand that is beautiful to watch when it's functioning well, but although it looks prettier I'd still take Murrays backhand all day every day.

In terms of other areas that people may call 'talent' I don't think Gasquet gets near Murray. Invention, soft hands, volleying, ground strokes... Murray is better at all of them.

I remember Federer was asked why Gasquet hasn't maximised his potential and Federer said that the assets that RG has are very flashy and obvious, which mask the fact that there are a number of things he doesn't do as well. It was a really fair comment, and just proves that so many people base their judgements on superficial qualities.

To conclude, Murray is way better in all departments and is by far the more talented. Where Gasquet wins is he executes what he has with more style. That doesn't make him more talented.

Murray was the most talented except for maybe Fed, he just developed his game wrong which is a real shame.