Ryan Harrison’s Post Federer Match Comments

I think based on Scoop’s posting that Harrison’s outlook is better than I thought it was. His observations are spot on, not only on what he saw when he played Federer (an understanding of another player’s game – it’s a big deal when Harrison can look across the net, see a few shanks from a top player, and see an opportunity, even if he couldn’t capitalize on it last year) but on areas he can improve on and especially things he can work into his game now to become a more mature match player. Harrison’s got huge fight and a good attitude and I think that’s why he’s the best of the young U.S. players. Effort and attitude trump talent. That’s why Federer’s so good – he’s enormous talent, plus incredible effort and world class attitude. He’s not just potential but potential plus action, he’s a true student of tennis.

All that said, still feel that to get to the dream area Harrison’s talking about, he needs both a strategy and to refine his weapons (mechanically). He needs to sharpen up (mechanically) his strokes – not just his serve percentage, take that forehand and work it so that he can find new angles and new parts of the court – get a Rios-like perception of the court to exploit and work his opponents’ weaknesses, something that will allow him to “play his game” without every match going to the third set in best of three or fifth set in best of five.

Call me crazy but I like the Isner (fitness) and Fish (forehand + fitness) approach for Harrison, or the Blake approach on the backhand. Isner got fit and that has allowed him to put his ferocious game on opponents; Fish got incredibly fit and reworked his forehand so that he can do more with the ball without such a huge weakness. Blake practiced his backhand so much that players no longer could pick on it. Even Roddick sharpened up his backhand so that he had a rally shot and so that he could even hit a few winners off that side. I think the same thing will help Harrison.

So you got to say he’s aware. He knows what he’s seeing. And he seems like he wants to start taking advantage of his observations during the course of a match, which is a fancy way of saying he can sniff blood in the water and seize momentum for wins.

Again I have problems with the mechanics of Harrison’s game – I think it’s got flaws – huge flaws, and that he’s got to get some stroke work. I think his strategy sometimes is just get to the ball – usually leads to a war of attrition and I think it’s better for him to start seeing things on court and taking advantage, early on, to run up the score on an opponent so that he’s off the court faster and saving energy for later rounds. I think if he’s going to start giving the top four trouble, and the keys to the kingdom runs through them, he’s got to improve in these areas, because those guys will probe your game and make you pay.

Why get ahead of ourselves. Harrison’s last few years have been successful. He is better in match play than some of his more talented U.S. peers (and way ahead of his actual peer group – the Kudlas, Socks, etc) and about even with the international ones, Tomic, Dimitrov, Raonic. And he is making the big boys think twice. It’s auspicious.

I think Scoop called all of this. But it’s hard to see Harrison’s next breakthrough without some serious improvement, the development of weapons, better exploitation of other players’ weaknesses during the course of match, getting out of the retriever mentality.

Andrew, nice analysis.

The three youngsters are good, but not great enough to be considered grand slam contenders.

Raonic is by far the best, but he seems to be prone to injuries. His return game is poor, movement is OK. Lacks patience.

I like Dimitrov for his beautiful one-handed BH, but not sure if it is good enough. Also I doubt his mental fitness.

Ryan has no weapons. It’s a serious liability. He is consistent on both wings, but can’t put away balls. Even in the second set, he did nothing to earn that break. Fed just decided to spray all over. Commentators mentioned that Fed played the two worst games in the season, but yet Ryan couldn’t win a set. That’s to bad.

No, Scoop. I don’t think Ryan did anything different in the second set. In fact, Fed was serving for the match and that’s when he began to shank left and right. It came out of no where.

That game when Fed got broke, Ryan played so passively- like Andy Murray left the ball short, but Fed started missing them. Fed continued to spray even in the tiebreak. I was wondering if Fed wanted to stay in the court longer for practice.

If Ryan couldn’t win that set in spite of Fed’s sudden off form, then it’s something to worry about. Again, no problem if he wants to be a top 30 player and if that’s all he wants to do it in his pro career. But to win a slam, sorry, he doesn’t have the weapons.

Scoop, Chang played in a different generation. I have never sat and watched his game, but if he really didn’t possess any weapons I don’t think he would win a major now. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t think it makes sense to chase after GOAT. Rod Laver rightly said that you cannot compare players of different generations. Anyway, that’s a totally different topic.

Let me get back to the issue of not having weapons. We don’t have to go any further than the current set of players to draw conclusions.

The main reason why Andy Murray hasn’t won a major yet is because he didn’t have a finishing shot or couldn’t make those finishing shots on a consistent basis like the top three. He has been passive and yes, he has been good at keeping the ball in play, but that hasn’t been enough. And from talent standpoint, he is much more than Harrison.

I agree with you and believe that fighting spirit can get you to higher places, can be quite effective against players of equal strength or even against slightly better players. However, against a player of superior skills and nearly equal mental strength, it simply can’t stand the test.

It’s law of conservation of energy. Between two players of equal skills, the one with better mental energy is likely to win. However, between two people of unequal skills, but nearly equal mental strength, the equation favors the player with better skills.

After struggling for a few years now at the very top level, Murray is finding it in a harsh way that he needs to work on his game to beef up his serve and hit winners. I thought he did well against Djokovic in AO this year because he made some adjustments to those areas of his game. But he lost because of Law of Conservation of Energy. While Djokovic and Murray were nearly equal in their skill level, Djokovic won because of his slightly superior mental energy.

Another example of a player with tremendous fighting spirit, but can’t win majors anymore is the other famous Andy- our very own Roddick. He is another guy who relied on his serve and fighting spirit, but lacked major weapons in ground strokes (years back, his forehand was a weapon, but not anymore). Guess what, he hasn’t been able to win majors either.

I am not saying Ryan Harrison wouldn’t improve his game. My theory is that he can’t win a major or even get close unless he acquires those much needed skills. I will be very pleased if he does improve and reach his goals.

Maybe Harrison and Russell are are America’s best competitors right now. He seems to arch his back a lot on the serve. Looks painful.

90s tennis was excelent! Michael Chang was outstanding. That’s an example of someone who would have had more majors if not for Pete Sampras.

I agree with Michael on everything except two aspects of Harrison’s game when compared with Berdych, Monfils, Cilic, Gasquet

1) Harrison has grown up on the pro tour. In this aspect he’s unlike those four players and more like Serena and Venus Williams, or even Nadal. He’s foregone juniors, skipping out after age 16 and favoring the pro game and its rigors to the juniors. He has no junior slam to his name. Probably because his parents knew at some level they meant very little and had other players’ examples – Sampras, etc. who forewent most of juniors too, to decide against exposing Harrison’s game to more juniors.

2) Harrison’s got way more desire than those four players. He’s more of a gamer – seems to love the game more and care more about it. In that aspect, even if he was shoved into the game initially, he looks at it as his life and he seems to take to it. Monfils is more about the crowd than the competition, same for Gasquet. Berdych sometimes gives up. And Cilic has become one of the worst of the big men. I don’t think any of them compare with Harrison when it comes to who wants the win more out there. And in contrast to them, I think he will put the work in and accept some coaching (his game already looks a lot better than last year).

This is coming from somebody (me) who finds a lot NOT to like in Harrison’s game. His forehand has some junk in it. His backhand could be cleaner. His game could be more innovative. He could use some actual strategy out there. He would benefit from knowing the game a lot better. A scout would do wonders for him to help him prepare for matches.

But then again we have examples on tour of players whose games have improved. Jurgen Melzer’s game is way more solid than before. All the U.S. players, Roddick Isner Fish Blake – all of them enjoyed some top 10 ball and rode into the top of the game on the back of improvement. Maria Sharapova sometimes hits a mechanically unsound forehand (though in comparison to Harrison’s, it’s as beautiful as she is), but we can’t doubt her champion’s record.

But proof’s not there yet, no doubt. But he loves the game. Here’s hoping for good things. It looks awful hard given that his game requires a lot of effort – it could be way easier and his work is cut out for him (Agassi, with some of tennis’ best groundstrokes, had to do a heck of a lot to put himself in the running for slams – Harrison doesn’t have that part of his game squared away). But can’t doubt the kid’s effort. He throws everything he has at his opponents. He’s still learning. And for what it’s worth he probably can improve a heck of a lot. That should be enough to shove him into the top 30. From there who knows.

Thomas Johannson had one of the most powerful serves. He was playing in the late 1990s, and he was one of 20 men with 120+ mph on his serve, and a handful of men reaching as high as 136 mph on some serves as well. A 5’11” fellow with a 136 mph serve, powerful movement, solid two-handed backhand, and game sense. His Australian Open was no fluke. And he carried his doubles parter Simon Aspelin to Olympic Silver in 2008. He also won his last meeting with Agassi in the Stockholm final, which I knew he was going to win. He got to play in front of his home crowds, and beat Andre. Usually, Andre got to play Thomas in America, and Thomas’ confidence was stifled in those meetings. Thomas got the last hurrah.

I agree with Michael on Gilbert but I also agree with Scoop. Gilbert had a successful career but faced problems at the slams. Blake has had a better slam career, though has never advanced beyond his 3 QF.

The last U.S. player not named Roddick or Agassi to make a slam semifinal? Robby Ginepri at the 2005 US Open, 7 years ago.

I would argue that Harrison has way more talent than Gilbert, but Gilbert showed a far deeper understanding of the game. As far as the pantheon of U.S. players goes, I think it could be argued that Harrison has the appropriate talent level to make a dent and make at least a slam QF in his career. I’d argue he’s probably more competetive (as in defiant) than a player like Blake, but less talented (in terms of weapons outside the heart of a lion). Give Harrison an Agassi or Gilbert-like knowledge of strategy, and I think he can carve out a slam semifinal, possibly a Masters title or several.