PDA

View Full Version : who has been the biggest waste of talent never to win a grand slam?


The FishEXpress
04-15-2008, 01:49 PM
Who has been the biggest waste of talent never to win a grand slam in the history of atp tennis?

drakulie
04-15-2008, 01:51 PM
Although, I wouldn't say waste of talent, my choice would be:

Todd Martin

Moose Malloy
04-15-2008, 01:53 PM
Mecir, Philippoussis, or Leconte

burosky
04-15-2008, 01:59 PM
I think it might be Marcelo Rios. He is one player who reached a #1 ranking without winning a single slam. Not a complete waste of talent though.

flyer
04-15-2008, 02:02 PM
I'd def have to go with Rios, Phillipousis as a dishonorable mention

Klatu Verata Necktie
04-15-2008, 03:02 PM
Rios is a tough name to avoid. I'd like to add David Nalbandian's name to the list.

flyer
04-15-2008, 03:40 PM
Rios is a tough name to avoid. I'd like to add David Nalbandian's name to the list.

hes def worth a mention

Vision84
04-15-2008, 03:48 PM
On top of the ones mentioned I will add Haas.

Nickognito
04-15-2008, 03:50 PM
Rios
Nalbandian
Leconte
Mecir

Ocean Drive
04-15-2008, 04:06 PM
Rios, Mecir, Philippoussis, Martin, Norman, Coria, Leconte, Haas...

daddy
04-15-2008, 04:25 PM
Rios for me. Simply because he had some amasing skills and whoever had the pleasure to see him knows what am I talking about. I agree with Ocean Drive on Mecir, Coria and Leconte. Haas was a spoiled rich kid and injuries did him no good. Jarryd was my favourite player never to do it back some decades ago.

As for the guys I was rooting for and who did it, Stich was deservably the wimby champ and I loved it. He could have been a guy without a slam but he won it and he deserved it. Krajicek and Ivanisevic pulled of the same, Phili was sadly left out.

couch
04-15-2008, 06:04 PM
Rios, Rios, and Rios.

spiritdragon
04-15-2008, 06:09 PM
mark phillipoussis. guy has major talent and should have definetely won at least one major.

jgreen06
04-15-2008, 06:26 PM
rios, henman, nalbandian

tennis_hand
04-15-2008, 09:39 PM
haas, nalbandian.

Tempest344
04-15-2008, 10:04 PM
Haas although Injuries really set him back
Nalbandian still has chances he isn't "done" yet

Henman as well although I think he never really had the confidence to win a grand slam....especially Wimbeldon

maverick66
04-15-2008, 10:10 PM
disagree with everyone saying haas. guy has had injury problems his whole career. rios is one that always comes to mind. so is nalby and gasquet is heading that way. gasquet mentally is no good. he has all the tools to be contending for the top spot but his head is questianable. and thats not just from his davis cup issues.

tennis_hand
04-15-2008, 10:39 PM
gasquet doesn't have all the tools. his forehand is weak.

Deuce
04-15-2008, 10:48 PM
"who has been the biggest waste of talent never to win a grand slam?"
Hicham Arazi. The man had extreme natural talent for the game oozing out of every pore.
He could hit shots that others could only dream of.
He also would routinely miss fairly easy shots.

Unfortunately, his mental game was as weak as his physical game was strong.

rafan
04-15-2008, 11:02 PM
Although never a fan of his I would go for Henman here because when I have watched him he has always played a stylish and -often- exciting match

MJ the ANGEL
04-15-2008, 11:11 PM
Even if he won 2 gran slams , i think marat Safin is THE BIGGEST waste of talent the tennis History has never had .

MJ the ANGEL
04-15-2008, 11:14 PM
Hello ,

I am a newbie , fan of tennis for 10 years
Serena and Vénus Willimas fan , i am also from France so correct me if i do too much mistakes i am here to improve my english .

joeri888
04-16-2008, 12:37 AM
Disagree with the names you guys pick. I think a waste of talent is someone not training and givin enough, who isn't mentally good. Like for instance Safin, although he still managed to win some. Nalbandian, in my eyes, has used his talents fairly well. He's got some weaknesses that he'll always have, and living in a federer age, he's made the most of it IMO. Just like Henman, who was more unlucky than wasting his talents

DJG
04-16-2008, 12:51 AM
Rios and Nalbandian

Both had/has an insane amount of talent. (David still has a chance, but it is tough at the top.)

Vision84
04-16-2008, 01:39 AM
I wouldn't add Henman. he had aamazing hands at the net but everything else just seem overshadowed by better players like Sampras and Agassi.

crawl4
04-16-2008, 02:29 AM
Philippoussis.. could have been as good as hewitt for us aussies. Nalbandian as well, i believe he will eventually win won though.

bluetrain4
04-16-2008, 06:13 AM
In my opinion, "waste" of talent means just that. Someone who took it for granted, threw it away, didn't use it to their full advantage for any number of reasons - partying, not working hard on the court, not working hard off the court, generally being unfocused, etc.

Chronically injured players, in my opinion, don't really "waste" their talent. I don't know much about Phillipousis' off-court life during tennis, so I can't say for sure. But, if the reason he is considered a waste of talent is because of the injuries, then I'd have to disagree.

Someone like Mecir, who simply seizes up mentally on big occasions, I wouldn't consider them a waste of talent either.

So, my vote goes for Rios. Capriati could have owned this title for the women if she had not had her remarkable comeback.

Ocean Drive
04-16-2008, 06:58 AM
I never put Henman down (He is in my top 3 favourite players of all time) because I don't think he wasted his talent, he was just incredibly unlucky at times, the time he threw the racket towards the ball girl, we all know what happened against Ivanisevic, the heavens let out...

Henman could have been crowned Wimbledon champion in 2001 and French Open champion of 2004.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
04-16-2008, 07:03 AM
Mecir, in a huge way. Philippoussis, him I really believed would have but he had so many injuries from doing rather reckless things, or at least unusual things for a tennis player on tour. I always wanted El Anouyi (sp) to win one because I think the celebrations would have been exception.

maverick66
04-16-2008, 08:11 AM
gasquet doesn't have all the tools. his forehand is weak.

guy has moments where he is unreal. people used to flock to his courts at challengers when he was a kid to watch him play. that guy has everything you need to be a top 5 player but always seems to fade out in the second week of a major. or when he was gona really break through and win some huge title he finds a way to lose.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-16-2008, 08:15 AM
I will give the ladies some love and point out Kournikova * must less a title*, Jankovic, Vaidisova and Ivanovic in there, but those last three are still young and will get many more chances.
Todd Martin

I also have to agree with Nalbandian and . The US open seems to be the scene of the crime with those two. Also frenchman Cedric Pioline is up there, and the grand daddy of them all is Marcelo Rios. :)

Ocean Drive
04-16-2008, 08:43 AM
Mecir, in a huge way. Philippoussis, him I really believed would have but he had so many injuries from doing rather reckless things, or at least unusual things for a tennis player on tour. I always wanted El Anouyi (sp) to win one because I think the celebrations would have been exception.

I also, would have loved to have seen Younes El Aynaoui win a slam, such a fun character, I remember the 2003 Australian Open pretty fondly, when he beat Hewitt in 4, served brilliantly and his forehand was dynamite. Then he got screwed over by a line judge against Roddick and lost 21-19 in the final set.

Morrissey
04-16-2008, 09:48 AM
Rios, Nalbandian & Haas

theProdigy
04-16-2008, 10:00 AM
hard for me to say but i think it's blake. so talented and athletic but doesn't have the mental game.

TheRed
04-16-2008, 12:29 PM
Henman is not even close to wasting talent. In fact, he maximized his talent, and played above his level. He had average groundstrokes, above average volleys (compare his to edberg, Mac, Sampras), average serves and good but not great movement. His talent should've made him a top 15-25 but instead, he was consistently 5-10 for a good part of his career.

k_liu
04-16-2008, 12:33 PM
hard for me to say but i think it's blake. so talented and athletic but doesn't have the mental game.


I hate to agree with you... I've been waiting for Blake to get his mental game together but it seems like a lost cause.

Blake win a grand slam and prove me wrong, please!!!

Djokovicfan4life
04-16-2008, 12:59 PM
I will give the ladies some love and point out Kournikova * must less a title*, Jankovic, Vaidisova and Ivanovic in there, but those last three are still young and will get many more chances.
Todd Martin

I also have to agree with Nalbandian and . The US open seems to be the scene of the crime with those two. Also frenchman Cedric Pioline is up there, and the grand daddy of them all is Marcelo Rios. :)

Why Jankovic? Didn't she play the most matches last year? Seems like a hard worker to me.

veroniquem
04-16-2008, 01:00 PM
I would say Nalbandian and Davydenko.

SempreSami
04-16-2008, 01:19 PM
I never put Henman down (He is in my top 3 favourite players of all time) because I don't think he wasted his talent, he was just incredibly unlucky at times, the time he threw the racket towards the ball girl, we all know what happened against Ivanisevic, the heavens let out...

Henman could have been crowned Wimbledon champion in 2001 and French Open champion of 2004.

I agree entirely.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-16-2008, 01:23 PM
Why Jankovic? Didn't she play the most matches last year? Seems like a hard worker to me.

She may seem like a hard worker, but from what she said is she didn't like practicing so she played a lot of matches. But if she can beef up her serve, curtail her schedule, she should be able to capture a grand slam title. Plus she just started working with Harold Solomon, so things might be looking up for her.

soyizgood
04-16-2008, 01:29 PM
I would say Nalbandian and Davydenko.

Davydenko is an overachiever imo. He grinds from the baseline, has at best an okay serve, and plays a gazillion tournaments a year. He doesn't have a deadly weapon per se and because he's not a big guy, he gets overwhelmed by big hitters Federer/Roddick/Blake.

Nalbandian is more a worthy candidate for underachiever. He doesn't work out in the off season, never puts together a consistent year, loaded with the best 2HBH and a top 10 forehand on the tour, and he gives top players like Federer headaches. He's not a tall guy, so he needs to stay in top shape. Unfortunately, he's suspect in that category.

fastdunn
04-16-2008, 02:36 PM
I would add Malisse, in addition to all the names mentioned so far.

He is now 27, right? 6 years ago, he reached 4th round at French Open and semi-final at Wimbledon (beating Rudseski and krajicek and stretching Nalbandian to a 5 setter). Then he developed some kind of health problem(heart condition I heard) and then fallen out of radar.

stormholloway
04-16-2008, 02:46 PM
Rios, Mecir, and Martin.

Alexio92
04-16-2008, 02:55 PM
Henman, Mallise, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Rios

Batoussai
04-16-2008, 02:56 PM
I would add Malisse, in addition to all the names mentioned so far.

He is now 27, right? 6 years ago, he reached 4th round at French Open and semi-final at Wimbledon (beating Rudseski and krajicek and stretching Nalbandian to a 5 setter). Then he developed some kind of health problem(heart condition I heard) and then fallen out of radar.

I agree with fastdunn.

Malisse is the GREATEST UNDERACHIEVER in the history of tennis. He has massive talent and except for some titles and a semi-final in a grandslam he has nothing. He could have been a steady top10 player.

Kobble
04-16-2008, 03:05 PM
Rios
The Scud
Malisse

ndtennis
04-16-2008, 05:55 PM
nalbandian would be #1, but as everybody already mentioned henman and phillipousos (however you spell it) and coria (so close but so far away)

cujays
04-16-2008, 06:23 PM
coria
he should have one
i think he fell off the atp... doesnt he play challengers?

babolatking
04-16-2008, 06:29 PM
I think it might be Marcelo Rios. He is one player who reached a #1 ranking without winning a single slam. Not a complete waste of talent though.

i second that, Marcelo did get to #1, but you have to win a slam man

Alejandro D
04-16-2008, 06:40 PM
coria
he should have one
i think he fell off the atp... doesnt he play challengers?

I agree. He should have won RG. He's playing challengers but he's not doing well. Loosing 1st rounds at almost all of them.

!Tym
04-16-2008, 07:58 PM
I agree with fastdunn.

Malisse is the GREATEST UNDERACHIEVER in the history of tennis. He has massive talent and except for some titles and a semi-final in a grandslam he has nothing. He could have been a steady top10 player.

Don't really agree with this. Malisse to me is a very smooth and fluid player, but I think what he lacks is one big weapon. He's just very good and smooth all the way around, but he's not really what I'd consider great in anything. To me, he is the poor man's Marcelo Rios. I think if he had tremendous dedication, he would have been a top 10 player, but truly elite? I don't think many considered him to have quite that potential, as I said he's just not outstanding enough in anyone area to really distinguish himself. He's a guy who is OVERALL talented, and while that's great, guys like Roddick and Berasategui and Edberg and Chang prove why it's usually better to be SUPER talented in one area (say serving or forehand or volleys or speed, etc.) than merely very good in all.

!Tym
04-16-2008, 08:00 PM
For me, it's Pioline, Forget, Leconte, Medvedev, Philipoussis, and Rios in no particular order. Korda came ooooh so close to falling into that category too, but all of the guys mentioned above had talent right up there with the best of them, they just didn't bring it consistently and/or had poor health and/or commitment to the game and/or were chokers.

anointedone
04-16-2008, 08:06 PM
He's a guy who is OVERALL talented, and while that's great, guys like Roddick and Berasategui and Edberg and Chang prove why it's usually better to be SUPER talented in one area (say serving or forehand or volleys or speed, etc.) than merely very good in all.

I would add Federer to that. An amazing forehand and not much else.

akv89
04-16-2008, 08:06 PM
The biggest waste of talent probably never picked up a tennis racquet in the first place.

Mike Bulgakov
04-16-2008, 09:17 PM
For me, it's Pioline, Forget, Leconte, Medvedev, Philipoussis, and Rios in no particular order. Korda came ooooh so close to falling into that category too, but all of the guys mentioned above had talent right up there with the best of them, they just didn't bring it consistently and/or had poor health and/or commitment to the game and/or were chokers.
This is close to the list I was going to post. The only time I saw Leconte play live was at his last Wimbledon, but his timing, spin, and fluid power were still amazing. When he misfired the ball could go anywhere. His lack of focus and conditioning really held his game back.

Pioline also had all the shots, but seemed to wither in the big moments. Rios was a nut who seemed to resent being on the court, but had the most amazing timing.

I will also mention Safin (though he has won Slams), as he strikes me as a more talented Philipoussis. He has had an excellent career, but movement has mitigated his talent lately. As was the case with Mark, too many late nights at clubs with models didn't help his training for matches. Conditioning, injuries, and loss of speed led to inconsistency and the need for shorter points for both.

Medvedev is a mystery to me. He had huge talent, but his career never really took off. He liked low balls and didn't play with much spin off the ground. The game evolved to more topspin and higher bouncing courts during his playing days, which hurt his career.

Djokovicfan4life
04-16-2008, 09:22 PM
She may seem like a hard worker, but from what she said is she didn't like practicing so she played a lot of matches. But if she can beef up her serve, curtail her schedule, she should be able to capture a grand slam title. Plus she just started working with Harold Solomon, so things might be looking up for her.

Her serve is horrible, I know, it hurts to watch it. Being "on serve" is pretty much non-existent in her matches, more like "on break of serve"!

!Tym
04-16-2008, 09:55 PM
Medvedev is a mystery to me. He had huge talent, but his career never really took off. He liked low balls and didn't play with much spin off the ground. The game evolved to more topspin and higher bouncing courts during his playing days, which hurt his career.

Hmm, actually, I think Medvedev declining had more to do with the quite notable pot belly he put on seemingly overnight. It along with Mary Pierce and Monica Seles' becoming waddling penguins late career are the most dramatic changes for the WORSE in body shape I can recall at this level. It's almost like you can't even recognize who the person once was they put on so much poundage.

Also, the reason Medvedev declined didn't really have to do with the move to topsin in my opinion. It had to do with him, getting a bit of money and running with it by partying and driving fast cars and enjoying the good life too much and no longer wanting to put the hard, *disciplined* work in anymore. It's like with Rios, they achieve outstanding results with coaches who push them to bleed out on the practice court, then once they achieve all the success they just for no reason dump the guys who got them there.

As Medevedev said near before he retired, he knows he has the talent and there's not one person out there that he can't beat IF he wants to put in the work in. BUT, he also said, that he's not like the other players. He said the other players plan their life around tennis, but he plans tennis around his life. He said that he's not the kind of person you can MAKE work or try or care if he doesn't want to. He said he's never been that way, he only works if and when HE *feels* like it, and right now, he doesn't really feel like it and doesn't really know if he'll feel like training seriously again.

Medevedev's best results were actually on clay, so he really didn't have that much problem with topspin, similar to Kafelnikov. Both were tall, stout guys with very simple strokes so I think quite adept at handling topspin.

Medevedev's out of nowhere run to the French finals during which he beat the defending champ Gustavo Kuerten in his prime in straight sets I think is evidence that he could always handle top just fine.

The thing that I think should stand out about his surprise run to the French finals when everyone thought he was washed up, has to do with how he reacted immediately afterward. He was shocked to be in the finals, and when faced with the opportunity of a lifetime, he obviously tried his little heart out in the final. Did he looked spiritually CRUSHED to lose that final? You bet, you could even make the case that he choked being that he coulda, shoulda won it in straights. In general, a choking player is indicative of a caring player right? See, Jana Novotna, and yet what did Novotna do after that crushing coulda/woulda/shoulda defeat to Graf on grass? She CAME BACK and eventually WON the thing.

You see, players like Rios and Medvedev? You dangle the candy right in front of their noses, and yeah you'll get a sniff out of them, they might well look like they care, BUT then...once the MOMENT fades...their REAL nature can't be hidden. Their real nature is that of guys who were just naturally born talented at tennis, but don't truly LOVE tennis in their every fiber and soul the way guys like Connors, Chang, Navratalova, Sampras, Hewitt, etc. do/did.

What did Rios do after reaching #1? He pretty much just goes out and immediately fires the guy responsible for PUSHING him to get there in Larry Stefanki. What did Medvedev do after EXPLODING onto the scene under the old school Lepeshin? He pretty much just goes out and immediately fires the guy repsonsible for PUSHING him to EXPLODE onto the scene in the first place. Why? Because as Lepeshkin said, he didn't want to be pushed anymore, didn't want to be told what to do.

Agassi may have looked like a flake to early on, and yet deep down we know he did LOVE tennis after all. Why? Because when faced with emotionally damaging lows, what did he do? Just pack it in, and enjoy the good life with all his money? NO. He instead used the devastation to make him want it EVEN MORE. Same goes for Goran and his many choke jobs at Wimbledon.

Medevedev meanwhile following the devastating defeat at the French, says oh, I'm sooo devastated that I can't play anymore. I need to take time off and mentally recuperate and allow myself to undo the mental devastation, etc. ...and so he takes a looong vacation. He comes back at the US Open with basically zero match practice, and loses right away easily to Kafelnikov early. He says that during his vacation, he basically didn't touch a racket the whole time, that he needed to recover mentally and think, etc.

Um, OK...see the problem here? Instead of being driven to not ever let the devastation happen to him again, his actual actions indicate otherwise 110%. A person who TRULY loves tennis, fights devasation with 110% effort, hard work, perserverance, and *perspiration*. Don't believe in this philosophy? then I'll show you a born loser would say Thomas Muster.

Medevedev's failure to live up to his early promise rests squarely on his own shoulders. Quite simply, he was neither motivated nor driven to succeed as an Agassi, and no motivation or drive to succeed = no "destiny." Agassi's storied and fabled destiny had to do with talent yes, but it had = if not MORE to do with something deep down within him telling him you can't, you won't, ever be happy unless you achieve all the glory that was promised you by your father since you were a wee baby.

!Tym
04-16-2008, 09:58 PM
I would add Federer to that. An amazing forehand and not much else.

Hmm, I actually wouldn't agree with that. Federer has an amazing forehand? Yes, definitely. But his anticipation skills and movement are unbelievably cat-like out there. To me, his way of covering a court reminds me of a stealthy black panther. It's always quite amazing to me the shear amount of perfection it takes from his opponents to get the ball by him when he's really dialed in. When Federer's really dialed in, it just seems like he can hang in points forever, until suddenly he strikes with scorcery and turns the tables on you to win the point.

galain
04-16-2008, 10:13 PM
Count me in as another who thinks Pioline had it in him to win more than one slam. I was always sad he didn't go further than he did.

And pure talent - well, as everyone is saying, Rios is the yardstick for what could have been. Leconte and Arazi are two guys who should have been multiple slam winners if we're talking strokes and not mental stability.

Mike Bulgakov
04-16-2008, 10:22 PM
Medevedev's best results were actually on clay, so he really didn't have that much problem with topspin, similar to Kafelnikov. Both were tall, stout guys with very simple strokes so I think quite adept at handling topspin.

Medevedev's out of nowhere run to the French finals during which he beat the defending champ Gustavo Kuerten in his prime in straight sets I think is evidence that he could always handle top just fine.
You make many good points regarding Medvedev. It should be noted that his favourite clay court event was Hamburg, where the ball tends to stay low. Against Agassi in his Roland Garros final, Agassi's big concern going into the match was that the rainy conditions and lower bounce would favour Medvedev. When the rain stopped and the courts dried after the break, Agassi took control. There were, of course, many other reasons for Agassi taking control of the match.

Andrei played with grips that preferred a lower bounce. He was strong and talented enough to use his height for higher bounces, but his strike zone was low. He was not a very fast man, but moved well on clay.

I agree that he enjoyed the good life too much during his career. The man had a lot of talent and could have done more.

Djokovicfan4life
04-17-2008, 03:54 AM
WTF! Federer only has a forehand?

I think you confused him with Fernando Gonzalez! :confused:

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-17-2008, 06:07 AM
How did Roger Federer get into this conversation? :confused:

I thought he won a few grand slams? :oops:

zagor
04-17-2008, 06:08 AM
I would add Federer to that. An amazing forehand and not much else.

Get a brain transplant.

zagor
04-17-2008, 06:13 AM
How did Roger Federer get into this conversation? :confused:

I thought he won a few grand slams? :oops:

He won them because he always gets easy draws(unlike Nadal who apparently never had an easy draw in his life according to his fanboys here),all the players he beat choked against him and because he is overall just lucky.He won his 12 slams by pure luck.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-17-2008, 06:19 AM
He won them because he always gets easy draws(unlike Nadal who apparently never had an easy draw in his life according to his fanboys here),all the players he beat choked against him and because he is overall just lucky.He won his 12 slams by pure luck.

I was being facetious about Federer, but I don't know why of all threads somebody has to bring him up in a thread where he clearly doesn't belong. :|

zagor
04-17-2008, 06:26 AM
I was being facetious about Federer, but I don't know why of all threads somebody has to bring him up in a thread where he clearly doesn't belong. :|

I know you're a Federer fan.I find it surprising as well that in every single thread some Fed hater pops up and bashes Federer even when the thread has nothing to do with Roger.As far I saw some of the so called Nadal fans here post more about Federer than Nadal even though Nadal is their favourite player,I frankly don't understand that because If a I dislike a certain player I will barely ever post about him or her.

gj011
04-17-2008, 06:31 AM
I was being facetious about Federer, but I don't know why of all threads somebody has to bring him up in a thread where he clearly doesn't belong. :|

I agree. This is getting old. Federer funboys have to bring Federer to every thread. Like this for example, or the thread about which players use eastern forehand grip, that turned to 100 comments long boring and pointless discusion if His Tennis Highness uses "extreme eastern" or "mild semi western" grip, or something in between.:shock:

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-17-2008, 06:37 AM
I agree. This is getting old. Federer funboys have to bring Federer to every thread. Like this for example, or the thread about which players use eastern forehand grip, that turned to 100 comments long boring and pointless discusion if His Tennis Highness uses "extreme eastern" or "mild semi western" grip, or something in between.:shock:

I don't think it was a Federer "fanboy" * that word makes me laugh" :lol: that brought him up in his thread, but somebody trolling for something that isnt there. I am not at my pc and can't go back to view the posts from here, but I will be able to later to understand where this all started.

zagor
04-17-2008, 06:39 AM
I don't think it was a Federer "fanboy" * that word makes me laugh" :lol: that brought him up in his thread, but somebody trolling for something that isnt there. I am not at my pc and can't go back to view the posts from here, but I will be able to later to understand where this all started.

Anointedone first mentioned Federer here by basically saying he is just a great forehand and nothing else,he is also the one who picked Roger to lose against Hanescu(of all people).

gj011
04-17-2008, 06:43 AM
Anointedone first mentioned Federer here by basically saying he is just a great forehand and nothing else,he is also the one who picked Roger to lose against Hanescu(of all people).

That explains it :)

Ok my bad, I was sick after that grip nonsense thread, but why continue and feed the troll?

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-17-2008, 06:45 AM
Anointedone first mentioned Federer here by basically saying he is just a great forehand and nothing else,he is also the one who picked Roger to lose against Hanescu(of all people).

Ohh,

Then he/she did their job. Don't feed into it. :neutral:

CyBorg
04-17-2008, 06:58 AM
I don't think it's possible to win a grand slam and be a waste of talent.

That's four majors in a row. That means Laver, Budge. Both seem pretty good to me.

Now, of course, I am not dense so I know that the poster is referring to those who won 'majors'. Get your terminology right.

fastdunn
04-17-2008, 08:23 AM
how did this thread turn to fed thread again? some of fed fans are too nervous and too insecure.

fastdunn
04-17-2008, 08:27 AM
Anointedone first mentioned Federer here by basically saying he is just a great forehand and nothing else,he is also the one who picked Roger to lose against Hanescu(of all people).

i think you took his comment out of context a little bit. as i recall, anointedone is one of the huge federer fans. i thought his comments was for giving federer as an example of all around talented player (kinda cynically) replying on itym's comments.... anyway i wouldn't take it literally...

i took his thread on fed vs hanescu as (sorta cynical expression of) his concern and dissappointment on federer's recent form. :)

Moose Malloy
04-17-2008, 09:22 AM
Medvedev is a mystery to me. He had huge talent, but his career never really took off. He liked low balls and didn't play with much spin off the ground. The game evolved to more topspin and higher bouncing courts during his playing days, which hurt his career

Really? I recall many saying he had one of the 'heaviest' balls on tour, doesn't that equate to a lot of spin? He sure didn't look like a flat ball hitter to me.

Lee James
04-17-2008, 10:03 AM
Rios would get my vote.

akv89
04-17-2008, 12:35 PM
I would add Federer to that. An amazing forehand and not much else.

"Roger Federer's game is based around his big forehand, which is one of the best shots in tennis. His game's pretty one-dimensional, really. Without the forehand, he'd be nothing. You could just hit to his right hand side and you'd win every point. I'd like to see him hit a backhand winner from there. So a forehandless Federer would be useless. Except for the serve, of course, that's really accurate and reliable. Without the forehand and the serve, what would you really have? A backhand and some volleys, that's what. His volleys are vastly overrated. They're not the best in the world. They're merely in the top ten, which makes them sort of okay.

So there you go. If Federer couldn't hit his forehand, his serve or any volleys, he'd be in a lot of trouble. As we all know, he has a decent backhand, but if you can somehow manage to consistently hit the ball deep and make it bounce up high to shoulder height, then he might not hit a winner every time. Then you've got him right where you want him. "

Borrowed from http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

Q&M son
04-17-2008, 04:50 PM
Mecir, Rios and Pioline. Nalbandian have a chance.

Mike Bulgakov
04-18-2008, 01:11 AM
Really? I recall many saying he had one of the 'heaviest' balls on tour, doesn't that equate to a lot of spin? He sure didn't look like a flat ball hitter to me.
Medvedev liked to take the ball early and hit it on a relatively flat trajectory, especially on the backhand. I agree that he drove through the ball with enough topspin to make for a very heavy ball. He also had a large amount of kick on his second serve.

ExPro
04-18-2008, 01:35 AM
The biggest waste of talent? Yannick Noah. yes he won the french in 83 but if you fellows knew how he lived his life off court you'd agree with out a doubt that he wasted his ability or to put it another way didnt make the most of it. He simply enjoyed the rewards too much.

Mike Bulgakov
04-18-2008, 02:34 AM
The biggest waste of talent? Yannick Noah. yes he won the french in 83 but if you fellows knew how he lived his life off court you'd agree with out a doubt that he wasted his ability or to put it another way didnt make the most of it. He simply enjoyed the rewards too much.
I have heard that Noah enjoyed the good life, even right before matches. My knowledge of his game is based on watching a tape of his Roland Garros win over Wilander. He had a great serve and volley, but his groundstrokes didn't look very good. Noah utilized his game effectively during that match, using unconventional tactics like short approach shots up the middle.

DrumWizOHBD
04-27-2008, 09:54 AM
Any one remember Andrei Medvedev? He had the game. Wayne Ferreira, also had a huge open stance forehand that was awesome from any part of the court!!! ANd of course Kournikova--she was actually quite a plyaer, hoewever not at all mentally tough.

Nadal_Freak
04-27-2008, 09:55 AM
Nalbandian for sure.