the Gael Monfils "athlete, what athlete?" thread

[kingraf]

For whatever reason, this has been a hot topic in world tennis over the last week and and a bit. So I thought I'd give it it's own thread. I'll set the ball rolling.

" guy is
insanely gifted ... No doubt
about it. I agree that he
should have had a better
career than me ..... He
hasn't ..." - Andy Roddick

Jim Courier: 'For my money
Gael Monfils is the best male
athlete that's ever played our
sport.'

"He's a great
athlete , maybe the best we've
had in tennis" - Andy Murray

" The best athlete that has
played our game may also
claim the best dancer," - Roger Rasheed

"Against Monfils,
we always expect to suffer. Monfils is the
most incredible tennis athlete I've
ever known. Who is
quicker than him? Who has this
power? This relaxation? This
flexibility? Nobody. But do we need all
that to be the best player? I don't think so" -Toni Nadal..

Hefty praise indeed for a man with all of four career titles. So your thoughts on the curious case of Gael Monfils?

[skyeman]

Was never good enough with Fed, Nadal, Dok and Murray around. And even if these four were not around. Would he have been number one?. Fitness is just not enough. Mentality, fitness, skill are all needed to win Slams.

And even in the lower ranked tourneys, not done that well.

Just not good enough.

Henman was another.

[Guest]

Simply put he doesn't have the balls or discipline required to make a champion. It kinda dispels the myth that all you need is a set of lungs to win.

What was displayed yesterday pretty much sums up the difference between someone who knows how to win and someone who doesn't. Andy dragged himself over the line whereas Monfils tried to flop over the line.

[Positively 4th Street]

The focus on his athleticism is so strong due to his other deficiencies. Even within a match he's incredibly up and down and this makes his highs appear higher than they actually are.

[kingraf]

Maybe his highs are really just high? http://70.img.v4.skyrock.net/700/gael-monfils-22/pics/1086454306_small.jpg

[JuliusHMarx]

If it weren't for his fitness, he might be one of the journeymen outside the top 50. It may well be his fitness that had enabled him to have a more successful career than some players more talented than himself.

[HM Murdock]

I think this is as much a reflection on tennis as it is on Monfils.

People of West African descent often have great athletic gifts due to, among other things, fast twitch muscle fibres. See the Jamaican athletic team. For that matter, see ANY great sprinter.

Monfils would seem to have these gifts.

Tennis is an overwhelmingly 'white' sport. The majority of players do not have the same genetic gifts as Monfils. They may of course have other gifts but that particular 'package' of gifts is less common in the Caucasian athlete.

The fact that there are so few players of Monfils' ethnicity makes his gifts stand out and appear unique (which they arguably are on the ATP). Are they remarkable in themselves? I can only offer a subjective judgement but I suspect if you compared Monfils to, say, LeBron James, he'd look pretty ordinary.

There are a couple of reasons I don't like the whole "Greatest Athlete The Game Has Ever Seen" thing though:

1) 'Athlete' is a hopelessly imprecise word. Think of the speed of foot, hand and eye of Federer  at his peak. It was almost supernatural. Think of the agility and endurance of Novak. Do we rate Monfils above these guys just because he has more raw power? Why do we ignore the fact that Monfils appears to be exhausted in long rallies and matches? His 5th set record is worse than Gilles Simon's. Endurance is part of athleticism too.

2) It's a weird thing to praise so highly for a tennis player. Monfils would not be considered in the top three forehand, backhands, serves, returns, volleys etc on tour. He hasn't won anything of note. So it's almost a case of "we have to say something. Will 'athletic' do?".

I would sum up my view as "He's a great athlete. But so what? He's a tennis player".

[laverfan]

There are many who are talented, but do not have the physical prowess to be great athletes.

Diego Schwartzman, for example.

[skyeman]

Agreed, talent is never enough on it's own. The perpetual winners in practically all sports have to be multi-faceted.

[HM Murdock]

There are many who are talented, but do not have the physical prowess to be great athletes.

Diego Schwartzman, for example.

True.

And when people wax lyrical about a player's talent in isolation, it's usually the same indicator of a flawed player as focusing on 'athleticism' in isolation. i.e. Nalbandian.

[kingraf]

Murdoch - You compare anyone with LeBron James, and they are going to come off a poor second. 6'8, 250lbs, 44" vertical leap, 4.5s 40-yard dash, you built a super athlete from the ground up, it would look a lot like him.

I take your point, re: tennis' "vanilla" feel. As a sport, tennis has not had the pick of the athletes, I don't think, at any point in history. But I don't think that's why Gael stands out.

1) athleticism is an imprecise word, granted, but as necessary as endurance is, its a lot easier to "manufacture" if you will. Djokovic being the prime example. Can't buy raw power. Bit like fast bowling in cricket, the medium trundlers, or even spinners may be more efficient, and able to probably produce longer spells, but there is something about 90mph bowling - it's not the visual aspect, as you genuinely can't see' thing, it's the fact that you know that this is something you're born with - it can be improved, but if you have it, you have it. You don't, you don't - no amount of C-vac, or beach runs in Miami on Christmas is going to replicate it, or foster it. Endurance is nice, but when a guy like Chris Froome takes up cycling professionally in 2007, and wins the TdF by 2013, you can understand why it doesn't quite excite as much. Endurance has always been the ugly step sister in the athleticism family tree.

2) I don't think it's a strange thing to comment on. Monfils is a freak athlete, and it's rightfully brought up. Its not normal to see people hit leaping forehands with their head parallel to row one, especially if that person is also capable of 120mph forehands, 145+mph serves, left handed winners, and ridiculous gets. Federer had freak footwork, but he wasn't the first, and despite the dearth in talent at the minute, won't be the last. Explosive Athleticism, in tennis at least, is a rarer gift.

You're summation is fair, and I'm simply not a big enough Monfils fan to justify a lengthy retort, save to say someone asked if Monfils was the best athlete on tour, I replied yes, and the last week has been snide remarks almost mocking my summation of this fact by a few people, you included. I've just responded.

[laverfan]

Can't buy raw power. Bit like fast bowling in cricket, the medium trundlers, or even spinners may be more efficient, and able to probably produce longer spells, but there is something about 90mph bowling - it's not the visual aspect, as you genuinely can't see'  thing, it's the fact that you know that this is something you're born with - it can be improved, but if you have it, you have it. You don't, you don't - no amount of C-vac, or beach runs in Miami on Christmas is going to replicate it, or foster it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKiuosfQjh4

Look at the what medium trundlers do to the Mighty Australia.

[Guest]

Fit man, weak brain, hes not stupid he just doesnt have any focus when he needs to

[invisiblecoolers]

God save the planet please.  

Nadal will beat him in a 100 meter sprint

Ferrer will beat him in 10 mile marathon

Tsonga will knock him out in the 2nd round in Boxing

Federer will knock him out in hitting bulls eye 90% of the time.

The one thing nobody can beat him is doing circus on the court, rather than giving the best athlete of all time he should be credited with the title "best circus star of court ever to take the racket"

[laverfan]

@iC... I think Baharami was, and still is, perhaps the Greatest Circus Star to ever hold a Tennis racquet, IMVHO.

[HM Murdock]

A couple of responses:

KR - Great post, well worded. I disagree about endurance. Everyone can improve their endurance but not everyone can achieve excellence. Someone like Michael Phelps has freakish levels of lactate clearing. He's right in the extreme end of the scale. This gives him a massive advantage over his rivals. He can go faster for longer. This is absolutely part of athleticism to me.

Also, I don't think I mocked you personally? I'm just generally scornful of trite epithets repeated over and over in the media.

IC - I agree very much with this. Monfils gets lots of adulation for his crazy leaps and on court tumbling, but what is the point of all that? Are other players not doing these things because they can't or because they are nonsensical things to do? That famous shot of Monfils striking a forehand in mid air: I've seen a number of players hit winners with a ball in that position by keeping their feet on the ground and reaching up!

[TopoftheChops]

Monfils can dance well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO3IQtW8Dlc

[kingraf]

A couple of responses:

KR - Great post, well worded. I disagree about endurance. Everyone can improve their endurance but not everyone can achieve excellence. Someone like Michael Phelps has freakish levels of lactate clearing. He's right in the extreme end of the scale. This gives him a massive advantage over his rivals. He can go faster for longer. This is absolutely part of athleticism to me.

Also, I don't think I mocked you personally? I'm just generally scornful of trite epithets repeated over and over in the media.

IC - I agree very much with this. Monfils gets lots of adulation for his crazy leaps and on court tumbling, but what is the point of all that? Are other players not doing these things because they can't or because they are nonsensical things to do? That famous shot of Monfils striking a forehand in mid air: I've seen a number of players hit winners with a ball in that position by keeping their feet on the ground and reaching up!

Problem with Phelps is, while I appreciate that he's a superb athlete

1) he's a short distance swimmer, so he can't really go faster for longer, he can just go faster for longer than other short distance swimmers (except for king in waiting Chad le Clos)

2) He's not really the fastest swimmer in any distance, he's just really fast at his discipline. I appreciate that swimming styles are very different, and it takes a lot of skill to be a good butterfly expert, just don't know what it says about his overall athletic gifts. Not saying he isn't, just that I don't know if we'd praise a guy for being able to run 100m backwards or diagonally really fast, when Bolt is still clearly the fastest.

[HM Murdock]

2) He's not really the fastest swimmer in any distance, he's just really fast at his discipline. I appreciate that swimming styles are very different, and it takes a lot of skill to be a good butterfly expert, just don't know what it says about his overall athletic gifts. Not saying he isn't, just that I don't know if we'd praise a guy for being able to run 100m backwards or diagonally really fast, when Bolt is still clearly the fastest.

Phelps' best stroke is (was) indeed butterfly and two of his three world records are in that stroke.

The third world record however, is the 400m individual medley. I used to swim competitively and, believe me, this event is a killer. The switch of muscle groups as you switch strokes gives a similar burn to a triathlon transition and 400m is also a blooming tough distance. Similar to the 400m in athletics, it's a sprint but right at the extremities of what is a sprint. It hurts. Any further and pacing starts to come into play. Anyone who is a world record holder in that event is a beast.

The point about running backwards and sideways etc is more of a riposte to the number of medals Phelps holds. It's one I agree with - Phelps may have won loads of medals but he competes in a sport in which it is possible to do so. The medals alone should not rank him above a track and field athlete who has few opportunities.

But...

Imagine if athletics DID have events for running backwards and sideways as well as forwards. And imagine if all these events, with their different techniques and different muscle groups being worked, were all won by the same guy. That would be pretty darn impressive. That is what Phelps did in swimming. He won the Olympics at butterfly, freestyle and individual medley and has won silver medals at world championships for backstroke.

Phelps' gifts are clearly perfect for swimming: long arms, big feet, double jointed, low heart rate, freakish lactate clearing. But he'd probably be hopeless at track and field.

Getting back to Monfils', he might have made a great athlete or basketball player. He hasn't made a great tennis player. Some might argue this is purely due to having the wrong mindset but I think that's a bit simplistic. He doesn't hit a high number of wayward shots because he's enigmatic or not concentrating enough. He misses because he's not good enough at tennis (by professional standards). Which is why I think the hype about his athleticism misses the point. (I'm actually warming to Toni's comment in your OP, that seems about right to me).

[Guest]

Other sports aside, what you have in Monfils is the recipe for a monster. The problem you get is just a poor execution of talent.

He has the speed, the movement and a meaty FH. It's all wasted if you don't have direction. To me like Tsonga, he needs a coach. If you are to elevate your game you need someone with a different perspective. I don't buy this free spirit crap I have seen elsewhere. He is just another one in the line of wasted talent.

[kingraf]

Other sports aside, what you have in Monfils is the recipe for a monster. The problem you get is just a poor execution of talent.

He has the speed, the movement and a meaty FH. It's all wasted if you don't have direction. To me like Tsonga, he needs a coach. If you are to elevate your game you need someone with a different perspective. I don't buy this free spirit crap I have seen elsewhere. He is just another one in the line of wasted talent.

I tend to agree, there are players who can get away with not having a coach, Murray, I think is one - Monfils isnt. I also dont buy that he simply isnt good enough. Guy made top 50 as a teenager. Peaked at 7, has wins over three of the big four, has made two Masters finals.... I mean these are better stats than the likes of Dimi and Kei... who I'm told have the talent.

[Guest]

Other sports aside, what you have in Monfils is the recipe for a monster. The problem you get is just a poor execution of talent.

He has the speed, the movement and a meaty FH. It's all wasted if you don't have direction. To me like Tsonga, he needs a coach. If you are to elevate your game you need someone with a different perspective. I don't buy this free spirit crap I have seen elsewhere. He is just another one in the line of wasted talent.

I tend to agree, there are players who can get away with not having a coach, Murray, I think is one - Monfils isnt. I also dont buy that he simply isnt good enough. Guy made top 50 as a teenager. Peaked at 7, has wins over three of the big four, has made two Masters finals.... I mean these are better stats than the likes of Dimi and Kei... who I'm told have the talent.

I agree. He is talented. I support Roddicks view in terms of the frustration of seeing a phenominal athlete with the tools, but just can't apply himself to get the best out of it. It is just plain frustrating. If he had a B game, he could've done more I feel.

[sirfredperry]

Monfils would be better on the stage or in a circus. Performer? Yes. Great, or even fairly good, tennis player? No.

[kingraf]

Other sports aside, what you have in Monfils is the recipe for a monster. The problem you get is just a poor execution of talent.

He has the speed, the movement and a meaty FH. It's all wasted if you don't have direction. To me like Tsonga, he needs a coach. If you are to elevate your game you need someone with a different perspective. I don't buy this free spirit crap I have seen elsewhere. He is just another one in the line of wasted talent.

I tend to agree, there are players who can get away with not having a coach, Murray, I think is one - Monfils isnt. I also dont buy that he simply isnt good enough. Guy made top 50 as a teenager. Peaked at 7, has wins over three of the big four, has made two Masters finals.... I mean these are better stats than the likes of Dimi and Kei... who I'm told have the talent.

I agree. He is talented. I support Roddicks view in terms of the frustration of seeing a phenominal athlete with the tools, but just can't apply himself to get the best out of it. It is just plain frustrating. If he had a B game, he could've done more I feel.

If he had an A game he could have done more... He goes out to entertain, and I think he's happy doing that. He once said he enjoys tennis, but the most important thing in his life is his life. Cant be too mad at that. Vince van Gundy once said youd be suprised at the amount of basketballers who arent too bothered about not winning a title... Can't see any reason why tennis would be any different. Some people are happy enough being paid stupid money to see the world, and pull off a showstealing performance here or there.

[whocares]

to be fair to KingRaf, "the best athlete on the men’s tour" infamous wording to describe Monfils is something you can find elsewhere on many tennis dedicated websites. the same people also often add that he's the weakest player from a tactical pov though
 
I dont think his shots are bad by professional standarts. his forehand, serve and DHBH are pretty solid (either flat or with topspin). I dont recall seeing much slice though and his volleying is suspect.
it's quite interesting that he cannot find a coach (hardly had one in the last 18 months or so) as most coaches would probably tell him to play agressive tennis with the weapons he has.
it's like playing Gilles Simpon game plan with Tsonga shots!

[Silver]

As an individual 'athlete', quite possibly.

As a 'tennis athlete', absolutely not. I would argue that Novak is the best in that regard (Federer or Nadal at peak are also in the argument). That's how I view it; he has obvious gifts that don't necessarily translate within the sport he's selected as his profession.

[invisiblecoolers]

A couple of responses:

KR - Great post, well worded. I disagree about endurance. Everyone can improve their endurance but not everyone can achieve excellence. Someone like Michael Phelps has freakish levels of lactate clearing. He's right in the extreme end of the scale. This gives him a massive advantage over his rivals. He can go faster for longer. This is absolutely part of athleticism to me.

Also, I don't think I mocked you personally? I'm just generally scornful of trite epithets repeated over and over in the media.

IC - I agree very much with this. Monfils gets lots of adulation for his crazy leaps and on court tumbling, but what is the point of all that? Are other players not doing these things because they can't or because they are nonsensical things to do? That famous shot of Monfils striking a forehand in mid air: I've seen a number of players hit winners with a ball in that position by keeping their feet on the ground and reaching up!

Yup, and I get so much irritated on his useless media hype, a few days back ATP posted an article "Flying French man", I went and saw the video and all I see was a failed shot which his opponent won the point, what exactly was the use of the point is still a mystery to me, and Monfils might have ended up damaging his knee cap in the process.

ATP and media need to understand a shot is meaningless if its not gonna win you a point, but wishing ATP and media grow up is like asking my 70 year old Uncle to learn French, just not gonna happen. 

[kingraf]

They hardly only do it with Monfils, and THAT forehand, takes special athleticism. I mean he's two feet away from the line judges. There's no way a smash from that far back, at that height is a better option than a forehand - only issue is, you can't really use the fingers if a kitkat to count the amount of players who can get a decent forehand off from that height.

[invisiblecoolers]

They hardly only do it with Monfils, and THAT forehand, takes special athleticism. I mean he's two feet away from the line judges. There's no way a smash from that far back, at that height is a better option than a forehand - only issue is, you can't really use the fingers if a kitkat to count the amount of players who can get a decent forehand off from that height.

How many times did he win a point playing such a way? once in blue moon?   

[socal1976]

KR is right on this one, never been an athlete like Monfils in terms of raw athleticism in the sport. But he just lacks the intelligence and work ethic to be anything other than what he is a good pro who will never lift the big trophies. No one has his natural power and speed combination. Who hits more mphs on their forehand and serve combined? Who has that kind of height with that kind of speed and court coverage. Monfils lets remember was the best junior in the world by quite some distance showing the talent he possessed. But he hasn't really improved at all since he was 18 or 19 and has awful footwork and shot selection combined with a lack of mental toughness. In terms of raw athleticism he is better than Murray, Nadal, and Djoko.

[kingraf]

Yeah, Gael does tend to be the architect of his demise - he's forehand is massive, to borrow a cricket phrase, once he hits it, it stays hit. Seen numerous forehand winners hit by him which were a metre or two away from Nadal, Murray, Djoko, and they didn't move. Not a metre, that's real power... I mean how many players with only four career titles, have made it to two Masters finals? Made a Grand Slam semi final? Four Grand Slam quarter finals? Much is said about his fitness, but he's beaten Ferrer in a five setter. 21 ATP finals!! Surely it's not just a case of "not a very good tennis player" when you're 5-16 in finals, and have peaked at 7?

[kingraf]

They hardly only do it with Monfils, and THAT forehand, takes special athleticism. I mean he's two feet away from the line judges. There's no way a smash from that far back, at that height is a better option than a forehand - only issue is, you can't really use the fingers if a kitkat to count the amount of players who can get a decent forehand off from that height.

How many times did he win a point playing such a way? once in blue moon?   

How many times do you win a point off a smash 14 feet behind the baseline? I'd wager less often than that

[socal1976]

KR, if you put Monfils body on Ferrer's heart, mind, and work ethic that combination would win 20 plus slams if healthy. But hey you are right the guy isn't a failure I mean he is a constitent top 20 or 30 guy and has made some good runs in big events and won some events as well and will retire most likely a multimillionaire as long as he doesn't go all MC Hammer with his winnings.

[Sponsored content]