What a stupid thing to say, based on your comment, Guardiola cannot coach Messi as he doesn't understand what it takes to be a midfield player, go back to sleep dude, you brain is weak
The biggest setback to Gasquet's career (and why he could not achieve more) was his serve. Players who began their career with either weaker or unreliable serves (Nadal & Djokovic) improved tremendously over the years, and Federer who had a strong serve adjusted with more precision and variance as he got older, Gasquet was never able to make his serve stronger or more reliable, greatly affecting his service hold percentage. His game was also structured around his powerful ground stroke, but as he got older and became slower on the court, this advantage would no longer be definitive enough to win consistently.
You can talk about his serve, but his forehand, in my opinion, is the biggest shot that held him back. He has one of the greatest one-handers of all time, but his forehand is weak in comparison.
@@POK2008 I'd have to strongly disagree. Gasquet's key weakness was his serve. At a pro level, being able to consistently hold serve becomes a key factor in determining whether the player can compete at the top and go further. The difference between the "top of the top" vs. those who were in the top 100, but had a lot of ups & downs often comes down to a very small % difference on whether the player can consistently hold their serves, especially their 2nd serve. Gasquet had 2 major issues with his serve: - His first serve, while not terrible by the overall tour standard, is by no mean a "big server". His first serve % however, slowly started to declined after he turned 30, and never got better. This also is apparent in his first serve power, and naturally his first serve hold percentage. Contrast to Nadal, who even at his worst point in his career, still maintained upper 60% first serve in rate (2015~2016), where as Gasquet struggled to hit upper 50%. - The bigger of the two issues is his 2nd serve hold rate. With a lower percentage first serve, in order to consistently hold the service game, a player must have a higher second serve hold rate. While Gasquet's DF rate have stabilized somewhat, his 2nd serve hold % is barely scraping by 50%, while the top competitors are 55%+. Please reference Alexander Zverev's service game (and return game) statistics, as Gasquet and Zverev have almost an uncanny similarities in their service game weaknesses. Andy Roddick had a mediocre backhand, almost a liability at times, but he was capable of going toe-to-toe with the best because his service games were one of the best. TL;DR - Gasquet doesn't land enough first serve to make up for his low second serve hold rate, which hurts overall performance more so than his mediocre forehand.
@@MaestroAbar I don’t disagree with you on his serve, but that same serve was able to get inside the top 10 and become a semifinalist at Wimbledon, which is a surface which favors a server. We have witnessed one of the greatest players of all-time, Rafa, reach the highest of heights with a serve that I don’t think anyone would say is big. Rafa probably has a higher win percentage of first and second serves than Gasquet because he is superior to most players after the return comes back. I think Gasquet could have gone top 5 if he had a superior forehand. His game has relied so heavily on the backhand wing that guys aren’t afraid at all to go to his forehand. If his forehand was anywhere near as good as his backhand that I think he could have reached top 5, even with a subpar serve.
@@MaestroAbaryou do realize he had and has a major back injury sustaining it at 29… so the serve was affected clearly not because he didn’t want to change it.
I agree that Gasquet's serve and forehand were not good enough to place him inside the top 20. It was only his amazing backhand that finished him inside the top ten at the end of the year three times in his career. Gasquet was also excellent at net. Superb volleys and a reliable overhead. When he was young, before he injured his back, he had a beautiful all-court game. There is nobody I would rather watch play tennis than Gasquet at age 20. Stunningly beautiful tennis. And it was Gasquet's amazing variety on the backhand and his net game that made grass his best surface. Gasquet's wins against Roddick and Wawrinka at Wimbleon were wonderful tennis. While I wouldn't call Gasquet a real dirt baller, his two career wins over Federer both came on red clay.
One of the most technically gifted player ever. Unfortunately, his physical genetics weren't as good as his technical talent. That's what prevented him from winning a couple of slams. However, it's a disgrace to call him lazy, he was a consistent top 10 player.
@@xav9258 He was clearly on the very side of genetic lottery: not very fast nor explosive, not very powerfull, short arms etc. We are not all created equal in term of natural athleticism
What's up with the mish mash of footage? You see him young, then old, then young, then old... should've been not too lazy to present the footage in proper chronological order, and show how he aged from start to finish...
He’s always been my favorite player. His backhand is the most beautiful shot on the tour. I really love his all court play. He’s good on all surfaces. He’s been on the tour for 20+ years … maybe he’s an underachiever, but I like him nonetheless
Aside being a very limited player, he has in my opinion, the best one handed backhand, better and more consistent than fed, and more versatile than Wawrinka.
@@seachangeseachangeThe most complete. Not necessary as devastating than Stan’s but more versatile. He made to number 7 by virtue of this shot only really
@@EtSlagFisseIndeed, I hardly see Gasquet frame a backhand or doing unforced errors with it, unlike Fed’s backhand. Wawrinka, the most devastating backhand but inconsistent and also not enough variety unlike Gasquet.
I agree that Gasquet has the best one-handed backhand of all time. Wawrinka fans will differ, but one need only watch Gasquet's Wimbledon quarter-final against Stan. Gasquet repeatedly set up backhand-to-backhand rallies, and he won the majority of them. Stan could only hit two or three backhands before making an error. Gasquet could rally off the backhand a dozen times flawlessly if necessary. And of course, Gasquet could drill the winner up the line even more reliably than Wawrinka. Stan won more big matches than Gasquet because he had a better serve and a better forehand. Same is true for Federer. By ATP standards Gasquet's serve was mediocre and his forehand was unorthodox. It was only Gasquet's backhand that made him a great player. It was his best shot. The backhand was Roger and Stan's weakest shot.
Gasquet went on to win over 600 ATP Tour-level matches, more than any French tennis player in history, including Yannick Noah. Among active players only Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Gasquet have more than 600 wins.
Sinner only has to win a few more tournaments and his career will be worth more than all French tennis players combined, since you're keen on that kind of stats collection.
Federer has retired. I said "active" players. There are a lot of great retired players who won more than 600 ATP matches: Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, etc.
I pointed that out because it is a surprising stat. Noah was the last Frenchman to win a major, and he had an excellent career. And yet, Gasquet won more matches in total. There is something to be said for longevity in this sport. Gasquet's career has spanned 20 years at an elite level. Very few pros can say that. Connors had a 20-year career. The great Johnny Mac didn't. This is an indication of talent.
Didn’t really give any info on his background and why maybe he might not have achieved more. Great career nonetheless. One of my fav players ever for his ability to get in the zone and play amazing tennis. He is still a hugely underrated player and always dangerous in a draw unless it’s Nadal or Djokovic 😅
Clickbait, if not plain stupid thumbnail. Plus, you better practice your french before starting a video about a french player. IRC, you got every french word / name wrong, it was quite comical.
@@mat3ization +1 If "lazy" has to describe something here, it's the real work put into this video, not Gasquet career. Clickbait is truly one of the worst plague of the internet age.
He choked in big tournaments. Up two sets to love twice against Murray and also against Wawrinka only to lose. Still, compiling over 600 tour level wins is a nice feat.
Richard is my favorite player. His issue was and still is endurance. He won so many of the 2 first sets and then losing in 5 more than anybody. I love Richard. At his very best, Richard is argueably the best player. He never had endurance. The most talent, shortest gas tank. Funnest player to watch.
His backhand is beautiful but has a very long windup. He has always been pushed around by more physical players He’s a combined 6-59 win/loss record vs Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray. Despite a beautiful, well-rounded game, he’s never had the weapons to win a slam. It’s why all of his titles have been ATP 500 & 250 level. Good enough against weaker competition but just a couple of notches below the best players.
Gasquet has worked harder than you could in 100 lifetimes. you are beyond rude and disrespectful for posting this. UA-cam won't let me tell you what I really think of you but use your imagination.
1. A coach changed(ruined) his forehand early into his pro career and 2. Three tennis monsters dominated shutting out almost everyone. Ritchie made three slam semi-finals each time losing to a monster.
In the defense of Gasquet, not every player can be a big 3 player. He had a great carreer and was for a long time consistently in top 20 and present at big events. What I think is also really impressive is that even though we was not the "strongest player" he had his own game style which allowed him to have great head to heads against some oponents who were ranked above him and perceived as stronger. For instance he had a lot of wins and positive head to head against nishikori which I always find funny caus' nishi was almost always the favorite in theses match ups.
His shots didn't have the oooomph of the Big 3. Pretty backhand but it would break down in front of the Big 3. His forehand was the weaker wing. His serve was only average. His movement wasn't that great either.
It's not pronounced "Tarbé". It's pronounced "tarb". Do your homework.It's not "rack-ah-door" (2:00) It's "reh-coo-dare". 5:32: "He only won one title during that lapse of time." What?? "That lapse of time"?? Did time lapse? You mean during that PERIOD of time? Who writes this stuff? 5:51 He reached Grand Slam fourth rounds in " each and every one" of them. "Each AND every"?? Isn't that exactly the same as "every"? or "Each"? Why the redundancy? 6:03: His doubles partner at the Olympics was Julien "Benn-ah-toe" not Benété. I'm surprised you didn't pronounce your subject's name as "Gasket". So here's a question that's not answered here: "What happened to Richard Gasquet?" Isn't that supposed to be the topic? And yet it's unaddressed. What a waste of time.
@@craiglesuk1 Lots of American's pronounce the ending of that city 's name (and similar words) as "Ham." No one, for example, calls "Birmingham" "Birmingumm" but rather "BirmingHAM". Of course, in the UK, they pronounce it as you point out. Cairo, Illinois is pronounced "Kay roe" by its inhabitants. "Berlin" Vermont has the accent on the first syllable: "BERlnnn". If this vid is a mere bio, it should not state provocatively, "What happened to Richard Gasquet?"
Horrible you didn't mention his positive cocaine test came from kissing a girl who used coke in a club. This was proven and is why he was only banned for 2 months.
Good backhand but his forehand and serve are nothing special. You can't win at the highest level with just 1 phenomenal shot. Andy Roddick was the same way. The most successful players on the tour are in the top 10% on ALL of their strokes. You have to be a complete player.
It's been shown time and time again, that there's a huge leap from being a promising or great junior to being a great pro. Just look at all the junior Grand Slam winners and see just how many didn't make it.
That's mostly because by the time they reach 17-18 the best players are no longer on the junior tour. That is irrelevant for Gasquet though, as he was crushing competition at just 16. And in the 2005 clay season he looked like he could become a ATG.
Gasquet, in my opinion, has had a very good career. When you take into account the era that he played in, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, he achieved a lot. He has 16 career titles, along with a semifinal showing at Wimbledon and a win against Federer. I think what held him back the most, game wise, is his forehand. There is no doubt that he possess one of the greatest single-handed backhands of all-time, but his forehand was weaker in comparison, which I think has a lot to do with the grip he uses. If you look at the game over the past 20 years, the guys that have been the most successful have had a great forehand. I believe that if his forehand was a good as his backhand wing, he would have achieved a lot more. With that being said, he has had a great career that most guys on tour would love to have.
He Beats Federer and almost Nadal in Monte Carlo 2005. The rest of his career is trash if he could fight AT this level (and he was not especially on fire, he Beat Nadal many Times before this). Not talking about 20 slams like the 3 other aliens, but he obviously underperformed.
Definitely one of the best if not the best single-handed backhand in the world followed by Sampras and Wawrinka and Federer. I would definitely not call him lazy you dcik he could have improved his serves big time and get some muscles on him and build up the power in the serves.
His forhand was better in the early days, now it just looks like a bad imitation of Nadal's with not enough spin or power, backhand still doing great though.
Since his early days the tennis has changed, that is why he was forced to change. Today his forehand is way better than what it was 3 years ago, he makes lots of winner with it
As far as I know, Gasquet peak is that Monte Carlo 2005, where he hits flat and agressive forehands and backhands, close to the baseline (remind you someone ? Sinner) Why not making it safer, but thé way he changed his forehand and step back from baseline was a complete killer of his power. To me, it's a mix of Bad tactic choices (safer strokes) and mainly a complete loss in his confidence (afraid of his own power after early success) that explains the 1st point
Kinda funny how good the quality of this video is and you’re mispronouncing his name. It’s common to pronounce Richard like how King Richard pronounced it, but Gasquet’s first name is (phonetically) pronounced ‘ree-shard.’ And before you say how it’s just how French people pronounce it, that’s simply not true because it’s a name…how one pronounces their own name is how it’s pronounced. If you watched enough coverage of his games you’d know this. I will say though, commentators didn’t get it right for at first either
The answer is nothing really. The guy was a journeyman for the most part in his career with some good results and tournaments, but overall didn’t have the game to ever win a major.
He had a great carrer, considering his lack of major weapons, or a bigger serve And phsically, the wasn't like anything close to be a beast athlete. Overall, there were many players that were just better than him, and I am not just talking about the big 3. Andy, Wawrinka, Delpo, Ferrer, Berydch, Nishikori, Cilic, Tsonga, Raonic, plus the new gen, they were all better than him. His hype come from being a junior prodigy and getting great results at an Young age, but on a weak era. All in all, he won many titles, had great runs at the majors, reached masters finals, was a top 10 player at this peak and made the atp finals. He is much closer to being a overachiver than an under achiever
"What happened to Gasquet?" ... hahah...well, for starters. hes 38 years old and has won more than most todays players throughout his career. Nothing happened to him. He made a fortune and now plays for fun.
That thumbnail and name of the video is dumb... and clickbait... He is not lazy, he is just getting old, and whole vid is just about his results. Nowhere near some words about ´what happend to him´. Dislike
Leave Gasket alone....FATHER-TIME has called Richard's name about 10 years ago LOL....but Richard wants to finish his career in Paris at the Olympic Games by losing in the 1ST round ...
To call a player lazy with his accomplishments just makes you lose all credibility.
that was just a thumbnail
If he’s lazy then I’m a fucking bum lol
I think is very rude to call him lazy, especially from somebody who dont really understand what it takes to be a champion like him.
I agree, to have reached the top 7, 3 semi-final and 600 wins and still going strong today, players need to work extremely hard.
What a stupid thing to say, based on your comment, Guardiola cannot coach Messi as he doesn't understand what it takes to be a midfield player, go back to sleep dude, you brain is weak
600 atp wins and still playing while the joker,fed and nadal have all floundered in the dust.
Exactly, you dont get to stay at his level for 20 years being lazy, it's ridiculous
however tennis star is behind this channel, need to do something about this thumbnail. respect please
The biggest setback to Gasquet's career (and why he could not achieve more) was his serve. Players who began their career with either weaker or unreliable serves (Nadal & Djokovic) improved tremendously over the years, and Federer who had a strong serve adjusted with more precision and variance as he got older, Gasquet was never able to make his serve stronger or more reliable, greatly affecting his service hold percentage. His game was also structured around his powerful ground stroke, but as he got older and became slower on the court, this advantage would no longer be definitive enough to win consistently.
You can talk about his serve, but his forehand, in my opinion, is the biggest shot that held him back. He has one of the greatest one-handers of all time, but his forehand is weak in comparison.
@@POK2008 I'd have to strongly disagree. Gasquet's key weakness was his serve. At a pro level, being able to consistently hold serve becomes a key factor in determining whether the player can compete at the top and go further. The difference between the "top of the top" vs. those who were in the top 100, but had a lot of ups & downs often comes down to a very small % difference on whether the player can consistently hold their serves, especially their 2nd serve.
Gasquet had 2 major issues with his serve:
- His first serve, while not terrible by the overall tour standard, is by no mean a "big server". His first serve % however, slowly started to declined after he turned 30, and never got better. This also is apparent in his first serve power, and naturally his first serve hold percentage. Contrast to Nadal, who even at his worst point in his career, still maintained upper 60% first serve in rate (2015~2016), where as Gasquet struggled to hit upper 50%.
- The bigger of the two issues is his 2nd serve hold rate. With a lower percentage first serve, in order to consistently hold the service game, a player must have a higher second serve hold rate. While Gasquet's DF rate have stabilized somewhat, his 2nd serve hold % is barely scraping by 50%, while the top competitors are 55%+.
Please reference Alexander Zverev's service game (and return game) statistics, as Gasquet and Zverev have almost an uncanny similarities in their service game weaknesses. Andy Roddick had a mediocre backhand, almost a liability at times, but he was capable of going toe-to-toe with the best because his service games were one of the best.
TL;DR - Gasquet doesn't land enough first serve to make up for his low second serve hold rate, which hurts overall performance more so than his mediocre forehand.
@@MaestroAbar I don’t disagree with you on his serve, but that same serve was able to get inside the top 10 and become a semifinalist at Wimbledon, which is a surface which favors a server. We have witnessed one of the greatest players of all-time, Rafa, reach the highest of heights with a serve that I don’t think anyone would say is big. Rafa probably has a higher win percentage of first and second serves than Gasquet because he is superior to most players after the return comes back. I think Gasquet could have gone top 5 if he had a superior forehand. His game has relied so heavily on the backhand wing that guys aren’t afraid at all to go to his forehand. If his forehand was anywhere near as good as his backhand that I think he could have reached top 5, even with a subpar serve.
@@MaestroAbaryou do realize he had and has a major back injury sustaining it at 29… so the serve was affected clearly not because he didn’t want to change it.
I agree that Gasquet's serve and forehand were not good enough to place him inside the top 20. It was only his amazing backhand that finished him inside the top ten at the end of the year three times in his career. Gasquet was also excellent at net. Superb volleys and a reliable overhead. When he was young, before he injured his back, he had a beautiful all-court game. There is nobody I would rather watch play tennis than Gasquet at age 20. Stunningly beautiful tennis. And it was Gasquet's amazing variety on the backhand and his net game that made grass his best surface. Gasquet's wins against Roddick and Wawrinka at Wimbleon were wonderful tennis. While I wouldn't call Gasquet a real dirt baller, his two career wins over Federer both came on red clay.
Incredible background but unreliable forehand, also the senior tour is a different beast to the junior tour
One of the most technically gifted player ever. Unfortunately, his physical genetics weren't as good as his technical talent. That's what prevented him from winning a couple of slams. However, it's a disgrace to call him lazy, he was a consistent top 10 player.
His physical genetics, can you explain further as you've lost me.
@@xav9258 He was clearly on the very side of genetic lottery: not very fast nor explosive, not very powerfull, short arms etc. We are not all created equal in term of natural athleticism
@@loichervier7206 he just didn't work it has much as needed thats all only relying on playing a lot of matches and tennis training
What's up with the mish mash of footage? You see him young, then old, then young, then old... should've been not too lazy to present the footage in proper chronological order, and show how he aged from start to finish...
His refusal to hit the weight room was probably his biggest mistake.
it is crazy how it would have helped him
he hit some amazing backhands against Sinner…..I’m excited to see him play again
lost 1st round of stuttgard in close matche afgainst herbert. a shame
He’s always been my favorite player. His backhand is the most beautiful shot on the tour. I really love his all court play. He’s good on all surfaces. He’s been on the tour for 20+ years … maybe he’s an underachiever, but I like him nonetheless
Aside being a very limited player, he has in my opinion, the best one handed backhand, better and more consistent than fed, and more versatile than Wawrinka.
I don't know if it's the best, but it's the purest
Most consistent 1 hander on the tour.
@@seachangeseachangeThe most complete. Not necessary as devastating than Stan’s but more versatile. He made to number 7 by virtue of this shot only really
@@EtSlagFisseIndeed, I hardly see Gasquet frame a backhand or doing unforced errors with it, unlike Fed’s backhand. Wawrinka, the most devastating backhand but inconsistent and also not enough variety unlike Gasquet.
I agree that Gasquet has the best one-handed backhand of all time. Wawrinka fans will differ, but one need only watch Gasquet's Wimbledon quarter-final against Stan. Gasquet repeatedly set up backhand-to-backhand rallies, and he won the majority of them. Stan could only hit two or three backhands before making an error. Gasquet could rally off the backhand a dozen times flawlessly if necessary. And of course, Gasquet could drill the winner up the line even more reliably than Wawrinka. Stan won more big matches than Gasquet because he had a better serve and a better forehand. Same is true for Federer. By ATP standards Gasquet's serve was mediocre and his forehand was unorthodox. It was only Gasquet's backhand that made him a great player. It was his best shot. The backhand was Roger and Stan's weakest shot.
Gasquet went on to win over 600 ATP Tour-level matches, more than any French tennis player in history, including Yannick Noah. Among active players only Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Gasquet have more than 600 wins.
Forgot to mention Federer there
Sinner only has to win a few more tournaments and his career will be worth more than all French tennis players combined, since you're keen on that kind of stats collection.
So what if he won more matches than Yannick, he never won a slam! Gasquet was just LAZY!
Federer has retired. I said "active" players. There are a lot of great retired players who won more than 600 ATP matches: Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, etc.
I pointed that out because it is a surprising stat. Noah was the last Frenchman to win a major, and he had an excellent career. And yet, Gasquet won more matches in total. There is something to be said for longevity in this sport. Gasquet's career has spanned 20 years at an elite level. Very few pros can say that. Connors had a 20-year career. The great Johnny Mac didn't. This is an indication of talent.
If tennis doesn't work out, Richard can always take up acting by coming out as Michael Fassbender's long lost brother.
the less good-looking one?
@@huzcer Haha subjective but I'd probably say the more intense looking one!
Didn’t really give any info on his background and why maybe he might not have achieved more. Great career nonetheless. One of my fav players ever for his ability to get in the zone and play amazing tennis. He is still a hugely underrated player and always dangerous in a draw unless it’s Nadal or Djokovic 😅
Clickbait, if not plain stupid thumbnail.
Plus, you better practice your french before starting a video about a french player.
IRC, you got every french word / name wrong, it was quite comical.
No kidding! The "Ben uh Tay" was particularly brutal
@charlesvorones3612 les petits A 😂
@@mat3ization +1
If "lazy" has to describe something here, it's the real work put into this video, not Gasquet career.
Clickbait is truly one of the worst plague of the internet age.
He choked in big tournaments. Up two sets to love twice against Murray and also against Wawrinka only to lose. Still, compiling over 600 tour level wins is a nice feat.
One thing I never saw in Gasquet was that competitive fire and burning passion for the game that Roger, Rafa, Novak, Murray and other's have.
he has this love for the game less for doing the effort in gym and believing in himself
Richard is my favorite player. His issue was and still is endurance. He won so many of the 2 first sets and then losing in 5 more than anybody. I love Richard. At his very best, Richard is argueably the best player. He never had endurance. The most talent, shortest gas tank. Funnest player to watch.
His backhand is beautiful but has a very long windup.
He has always been pushed around by more physical players
He’s a combined 6-59 win/loss record vs Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray.
Despite a beautiful, well-rounded game, he’s never had the weapons to win a slam.
It’s why all of his titles have been ATP 500 & 250 level. Good enough against weaker competition but just a couple of notches below the best players.
He 's one of those players you enjoy to see playing 🎾👏
Gasquet has worked harder than you could in 100 lifetimes. you are beyond rude and disrespectful for posting this. UA-cam won't let me tell you what I really think of you but use your imagination.
1. A coach changed(ruined) his forehand early into his pro career and 2. Three tennis monsters dominated shutting out almost everyone. Ritchie made three slam semi-finals each time losing to a monster.
Interesting re the forehand. Who was the coach if you know? And what did they try and change?
@@rochymatt Tarique something he is named in his book
In the defense of Gasquet, not every player can be a big 3 player. He had a great carreer and was for a long time consistently in top 20 and present at big events.
What I think is also really impressive is that even though we was not the "strongest player" he had his own game style which allowed him to have great head to heads against some oponents who were ranked above him and perceived as stronger. For instance he had a lot of wins and positive head to head against nishikori which I always find funny caus' nishi was almost always the favorite in theses match ups.
Great job. My favorite player.
I never known because he never have change his terrorific forehand
His shots didn't have the oooomph of the Big 3. Pretty backhand but it would break down in front of the Big 3. His forehand was the weaker wing. His serve was only average. His movement wasn't that great either.
It's not pronounced "Tarbé". It's pronounced "tarb". Do your homework.It's not "rack-ah-door" (2:00) It's "reh-coo-dare".
5:32: "He only won one title during that lapse of time." What?? "That lapse of time"?? Did time lapse? You mean during that PERIOD of time? Who writes this stuff?
5:51 He reached Grand Slam fourth rounds in " each and every one" of them. "Each AND every"?? Isn't that exactly the same as "every"? or "Each"? Why the redundancy?
6:03: His doubles partner at the Olympics was Julien "Benn-ah-toe" not Benété.
I'm surprised you didn't pronounce your subject's name as "Gasket".
So here's a question that's not answered here: "What happened to Richard Gasquet?" Isn't that supposed to be the topic? And yet it's unaddressed. What a waste of time.
sounds like an AI voice-over
@@OfficialWorldChampion Yeah it kinda does. Lotta that goin' around nowadays...
@@paules3437 yep, that’s what the internet is turning/ has turned into unfortunately.
If I might add Nottingham to the list which is pronounced Notting-um, not Notting-ham. And yes, this is just a bio of his career…
@@craiglesuk1 Lots of American's pronounce the ending of that city 's name (and similar words) as "Ham." No one, for example, calls "Birmingham" "Birmingumm" but rather "BirmingHAM". Of course, in the UK, they pronounce it as you point out.
Cairo, Illinois is pronounced "Kay roe" by its inhabitants. "Berlin" Vermont has the accent on the first syllable: "BERlnnn".
If this vid is a mere bio, it should not state provocatively, "What happened to Richard Gasquet?"
9 minutes about gasquet and didn't talk about his backhand, different from any stuff, nice video
Kind of crazy you could do 10 minutes on gasquet without mentioning even once that he has the most beautiful backhand in the history of the sport.
Horrible you didn't mention his positive cocaine test came from kissing a girl who used coke in a club. This was proven and is why he was only banned for 2 months.
It has never been proven.
The judge said this contamination was not improbable.
Shade.
I love him. I don't know how much he won or how much he lost... But nobody ever understood one handed backhand like this guy.
Good backhand but his forehand and serve are nothing special. You can't win at the highest level with just 1 phenomenal shot. Andy Roddick was the same way. The most successful players on the tour are in the top 10% on ALL of their strokes. You have to be a complete player.
It's been shown time and time again, that there's a huge leap from being a promising or great junior to being a great pro. Just look at all the junior Grand Slam winners and see just how many didn't make it.
That's mostly because by the time they reach 17-18 the best players are no longer on the junior tour. That is irrelevant for Gasquet though, as he was crushing competition at just 16. And in the 2005 clay season he looked like he could become a ATG.
Nobody is lazy, anyone is depending on the offer he has and the environment
Idk bout that you always have choices
Gasquet is the one that the streets wont forget.
Gasquet, in my opinion, has had a very good career. When you take into account the era that he played in, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, he achieved a lot. He has 16 career titles, along with a semifinal showing at Wimbledon and a win against Federer. I think what held him back the most, game wise, is his forehand. There is no doubt that he possess one of the greatest single-handed backhands of all-time, but his forehand was weaker in comparison, which I think has a lot to do with the grip he uses. If you look at the game over the past 20 years, the guys that have been the most successful have had a great forehand. I believe that if his forehand was a good as his backhand wing, he would have achieved a lot more. With that being said, he has had a great career that most guys on tour would love to have.
He Beats Federer and almost Nadal in Monte Carlo 2005.
The rest of his career is trash if he could fight AT this level (and he was not especially on fire, he Beat Nadal many Times before this).
Not talking about 20 slams like the 3 other aliens, but he obviously underperformed.
His “biggest” weapon - backhand: nice to look at but not effective. No improvement since turning pro. Has he even won any Masters 1000?
Dont use this type of rude words for any athelete 😶😑😐
Lazy????? Talk about clickbait. Pfff as the French say.
I watched him play in the first round. He looked good lol.
I love the background music!
Definitely one of the best if not the best single-handed backhand in the world followed by Sampras and Wawrinka and Federer. I would definitely not call him lazy you dcik he could have improved his serves big time and get some muscles on him and build up the power in the serves.
His forhand was better in the early days, now it just looks like a bad imitation of Nadal's with not enough spin or power, backhand still doing great though.
Since his early days the tennis has changed, that is why he was forced to change.
Today his forehand is way better than what it was 3 years ago, he makes lots of winner with it
As far as I know, Gasquet peak is that Monte Carlo 2005, where he hits flat and agressive forehands and backhands, close to the baseline (remind you someone ? Sinner)
Why not making it safer, but thé way he changed his forehand and step back from baseline was a complete killer of his power.
To me, it's a mix of Bad tactic choices (safer strokes) and mainly a complete loss in his confidence (afraid of his own power after early success) that explains the 1st point
He has a fantastic game but not the power of the top guys
3:48
No, thats Djokovic
Sort the messed up video clips.. all over the place.
Kinda funny how good the quality of this video is and you’re mispronouncing his name. It’s common to pronounce Richard like how King Richard pronounced it, but Gasquet’s first name is (phonetically) pronounced ‘ree-shard.’ And before you say how it’s just how French people pronounce it, that’s simply not true because it’s a name…how one pronounces their own name is how it’s pronounced. If you watched enough coverage of his games you’d know this. I will say though, commentators didn’t get it right for at first either
Nah, he gave his best vs Sinner
The answer is nothing really. The guy was a journeyman for the most part in his career with some good results and tournaments, but overall didn’t have the game to ever win a major.
He had a great carrer, considering his lack of major weapons, or a bigger serve
And phsically, the wasn't like anything close to be a beast athlete.
Overall, there were many players that were just better than him, and I am not just talking about the big 3.
Andy, Wawrinka, Delpo, Ferrer, Berydch, Nishikori, Cilic, Tsonga, Raonic, plus the new gen, they were all better than him.
His hype come from being a junior prodigy and getting great results at an Young age, but on a weak era.
All in all, he won many titles, had great runs at the majors, reached masters finals, was a top 10 player at this peak and made the atp finals.
He is much closer to being a overachiver than an under achiever
All sizzle no steak
one of the better french players
Top 20 player for 5 plus yrs, not bad. Struggled a bit in slams. Tsonga, Monfils, Leconte, Noah............had better records in the French coterie.
Still playing at his age... hardly lazy!!
He's almost 40, give him a break. He is not Nick Kyrgios, who IS lazy.
"What happened to Gasquet?" ... hahah...well, for starters. hes 38 years old and has won more than most todays players throughout his career. Nothing happened to him. He made a fortune and now plays for fun.
20mil
Mentality/ out of weight / positioning on court is terrible, cant let him be aggresive
He was the biggest disappointment that I saw and should of at least won WImbledon as he had the perfect game for it. Such a shame.
His legs always seemed to short he didn’t have great movement but otherwise was very talented
He always seemed to be on Fed’s highlight reel.
That thumbnail and name of the video is dumb... and clickbait... He is not lazy, he is just getting old, and whole vid is just about his results. Nowhere near some words about ´what happend to him´. Dislike
What an absurdly disrespectful premise.
Leave Gasket alone....FATHER-TIME has called Richard's name about 10 years ago LOL....but Richard wants to finish his career in Paris at the Olympic Games by losing in the 1ST round ...
Good video but the names in French were butchered savagely 😂.
Came just to dislike the video for calling him lazy in the thumbnail. Have some respect.
Under rated player. Hes better than federer
20 mill career earnings.
I heard he blew a Gasket.
A good player yes, but definitely not in the same league as Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer.
These UA-cam channels are just ofensive...
What a useless video! Just a recap of his career? Totally pointless!
Great video but the most awful pronunciation of French names and places XD
Still loved it amazing job