that was just a thumbnail

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.

@@aransenojak987 Because the Big 3 had tougher careers and won everything. They each have over a 1000 wins.

Exactly, you dont get to stay at his level for 20 years being lazy, it's ridiculous

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.

lost 1st round of stuttgard in close matche afgainst herbert. a shame

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

it is crazy how it would have helped him

the less good-looking one?

@@huzcer Haha subjective but I'd probably say the more intense looking one!

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.

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.

he has this love for the game less for doing the effort in gym and believing in himself

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.

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

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.

It has never been proven. The judge said this contamination was not improbable. Shade.

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.

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

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?"

20mil