PDA

View Full Version : the biggest overachiever of this new millenium


boss-man-boss
11-07-2009, 06:16 AM
Thomas johanson - Not much game and managed to win a slam.......There are better players than him who haven't won a slam so yeah, why not.......also made the semi's at wimbledon

Gaston Gaudio - Overachieved big time when he won the french. His grandslam doesn't really makes sense as all of his other results were pretty poor. Sort of like muster without the master series...

Ivo Karlovic - Enough said.

James Blake - got to #4 in the world with 3 slam quater finals with an inconsistent BH, bad decision making, no net game, no serve, and mentally goes walkabout........good career IMO

so out of these 4 players - who overachieved the most out of what they had.....

lambielspins
11-07-2009, 06:19 AM
Johansson had alot more game than some people realize. He had a very big serve, an excellent backhand, a very good return of serve, a pretty good forehand, and he was very quick around the court. Yeah it was a surprise he won a slam. I always find it funny though when some people argue say Kafelnikov wasnt a weak 2 slam winner. Yet Johansson atleast has a Masters title and has been to the semis of Wimbledon, unlike Kafelnikov. Johansson also completely owns Kafelnikov head to head. If Johansson is one of the worst 1 slam winners, that only shows Kafelnikov is really one of the worst 2 slam winners ever. Anyway here is my list:

Capriati- 3 slam titles, how the heck did she manage that. Just amazing she has more slams than Clijsters (soon to change likely), Mauresmo, and Pierce, and the same # as Davenport. Hard to believe. Only 14 career titles, and only 2 years ended ranked in the top 5.

Kafelnikov- I already mentioned him. How on earth did this guy who couldnt even win a Masters title and couldnt beat any top player on a good surface for them in a slam (other than a crippled Agassi at the French once) ever win 2 slams.

Shriver- really not much talent. Ground game awful, no athletic ability at all. Amazing she was top 4 or 5 in the World so long.

Safina and Jankovic- some harp on them not winning a slam. Really it is amazing they did as well as they have done with their limited talents and abilities, and not even having a great mental game to go with that.

Date- in her prime she was a top 10 player several years in a row. Fun to watch but way undersized and the most bizarre technique. Really made the most out of what she had, with her diminiutive stature and homemade looking strokes.

VGP
11-07-2009, 06:22 AM
Out of the four, I'd go with Gaston Gaudio.

I disagree about Thomas Johansson. He had game. He was sidelined by injury too often (not to mention the freaky hit-in-the-eye incident) to really be a consistent threat.

Karlovic has worked on the rest of his game and has been a good late-bloomer.

Blake's achieved to his potential, IMO.

DownTheLine
11-07-2009, 06:24 AM
Blake has a decent serve.

boss-man-boss
11-07-2009, 06:25 AM
Blake has a decent serve.

yeah, and Karlovic has a great return.............sigh!

sh@de
11-07-2009, 06:58 AM
I say Gaudio.

Andres
11-07-2009, 07:00 AM
yeah, and Karlovic has a great return.............sigh!
Sigh back at you. Blake has a good serve. It's no Ljubicic, but it's a good, efficient serve.

Cesc Fabregas
11-07-2009, 07:05 AM
Roger Federer.

grafselesfan
11-07-2009, 07:07 AM
Roger Federer.

I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.

JeMar
11-07-2009, 07:09 AM
Roger Federer.

I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.

lol, too funny.

That bolded part alone is priceless. I guess Pete's and Roger's greatness comes from their ability to overachieve day in and day out for years on end, rofl.

http://www.mycrunkspace.com/content/graphics/7149f524e9b6388c21ba2854b99036a2.jpg

Oh, and the word you're looking for is "vagaries." Don't try to use words above your paygrade. Are vagarities, like, unpredictable vulgarities?

aphex
11-07-2009, 07:29 AM
I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.


For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game. Itís always good to see him play and win and we are going to see so much more of Federer in the future, he is going to win more grand slam tournaments.
Bjorn Borg, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final[6]



hhmmmmmmmmmm...who to believe??? grafselesfan or bjorn borg?
that's a tough one...

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-07-2009, 07:34 AM
I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.



Roger is an exquisite talent for sure. The big quesgtion is just how easily and quickly he achieved so. Homogenized conditions, less big time threats to take him out and the will to want to take him out and make a name for themselves instead of rolling over frightened at the sight of him outside Nadal seems to be a big reason. His main rival, not his true contemporariy but a teenage Nadal five years younger still molding as player and still becoming a welll rounded player was Roger's only achilees. While what should be Roger's true contemporaries and rivals Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Blake, Safin etc were nothing but fodder in hingsight.


And the scary thing out of all this is, Fed would have a calendar slam a few times over and around 20 slams right now if not for Nadal due to everyone else's inability. The game of tennis would be the laughing stock of the entire world for years if not for Nadal. Much like how golf has become a bit. No players around even remotely seemingly threats or competition

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-07-2009, 07:36 AM
Anyone who watched Kafelnikov, would know why he achieved 2 slams. He was a complete headcase and very streaky, but when he wanted to he could turn it on and play lights out tennis. He was very good. A very good clay court player.

I dont think Yevgeny overachieved when you have seens guys like Gaudio, Johannson win slams too. They arent as good as Yevgeny

cuddles26
11-07-2009, 07:37 AM
Kafelnikov by far. Of the ones on the list Gaudio though.

Serendipitous
11-07-2009, 07:40 AM
Serena ??? ?????

mandy01
11-07-2009, 08:26 AM
Serena ??? ?????Why are you imitating Fedace? :lol:

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-07-2009, 08:31 AM
For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game. It’s always good to see him play and win and we are going to see so much more of Federer in the future, he is going to win more grand slam tournaments.
Bjorn Borg, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final[6]



hhmmmmmmmmmm...who to believe??? grafselesfan or bjorn borg?
that's a tough one...



Even objective plain flat out stats and numbers are not 100 percent truly objective. Certain eras, depth of competition, competition in the top 10-20 rankings, homgenization or polarization of surfaces are not taken into account by the numbers either. One cannot objectively put one great over another IMO because quite frankly we wouldnt know how Roger would do in Laver, Borg, Sampras' Pancho's shoes and vice versa. You can objectively point out the best of an era sure, but trying to differentiate between greats from one era to another is much more difficult in proving the hands down GOAT. IMO. Whos to say Roger would have achieved more in an era with top heavy threats than early-late 00's. Federer defenders say you can prove Roger had any top heavy competition compared to a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras etc. I will ask.. Is Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Nalbandian, Safin better than an Edberg, Becker, Courier, Rosewall, Lendl Wilander etc? Anyone with any knowledge of the game would say thats a BIG NO!!! Other areas have produced more quality competition on certain surfaces it can be argued. More competition and better talented players on clay in the 80s and early 90s opposed today. More top heavy competition on faster grass surfaces in the 90s

So whether people want to argue it or not.. There have been stronger and weaker eras in the game of tennis. There may be more depth today down to the botto 100-150 in the world.. Thats plausible. Has the era of the 00's generated the type of top heavy competition as the 60's-early 90s? Thats very debatable and we could debate until the end of the time especially considering how the game has changed so much. Conditions have been homogenized to the utmost degree whether it be from the style of play or to the surfaces. I would argue its easy for a player today to dominate the entire course of the season due to this as opposed to before when you had your surface specialists and there was quite an opposite distinction on the surfaces before as opposed today. You had indoor carpeting, rebound ace, slow clay, and lightning fast grass and hardcourt. Now you have maybe a faster clay, way slower high bouncing sodded wimbledon, not the same style of rebound ace at the AO, and an indoor carpet thats obsolete, and now differentiated style of play.

THis makes declaring the Greatest to ever lace up the shoes even tougher to distinguish IMO. I think a player distinguish himself in the realm of his his/her own repsective era. But when you start comparing him to other greats and you take every considerable aspect into account as I have listed than thats entirely different story

Michael Bluth
11-07-2009, 08:38 AM
Gaudio is my pick, though I loved his backhand. Honorable mention goes to Ferrer.

I would say Kafelnikov, but he had most of his best results in the 90s.

mandy01
11-07-2009, 08:40 AM
Roger is an exquisite talent for sure. The big quesgtion is just how easily and quickly he achieved so. Homogenized conditions, less big time threats to take him out and the will to want to take him out and make a name for themselves instead of rolling over frightened at the sight of him outside Nadal seems to be a big reason. His main rival, not his true contemporariy but a teenage Nadal five years younger still molding as player and still becoming a welll rounded player was Roger's only achilees. While what should be Roger's true contemporaries and rivals Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Blake, Safin etc were nothing but fodder in hingsight.


And the scary thing out of all this is, Fed would have a calendar slam a few times over and around 20 slams right now if not for Nadal due to everyone else's inability. The game of tennis would be the laughing stock of the entire world for years if not for Nadal. Much like how golf has become a bit. No players around even remotely seemingly threats or competition Yeah you're right...the fact that players couldnt beat him had nothing to do with Roger.
I have seen players employ all kinds of tactics but its NOT easy to beat Roger regardless of which effing era he's playing in.
Its easy to be an armchair critic.
I believe Roger was asked this once when he first started dominating and he said something like "I would advise them to pick up a racquet and play themselves."
Its funny how you former-player lovers dimiss everyone by talking about their so called 'inability'.You should stick to former pro-player section.

zagor
11-07-2009, 08:40 AM
Federer obviosly,he has the talent and mental tougness of a one slam wonder(if we're being generous)but has the luck of a GOAT(hence 15 slams and a career slam).

NamRanger
11-07-2009, 08:43 AM
Federer obviosly,he has the talent and mental tougness of a one slam wonder(if we're being generous)but has the luck of a GOAT(hence 15 slams and a career slam).



OMG Zagor trolling. Impossible.

vanity
11-07-2009, 08:44 AM
OMG Zagor trolling. Impossible.

Something you never do...:roll:

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-07-2009, 08:44 AM
Yeah you're right...the fact that players couldnt beat him had nothing to do with Roger.
I have seen players employ all kinds of tactics but its NOT easy to beat Roger regardless of which effing era he's playing in.
Its easy to be an armchair critic.
I believe Roger was asked this once when he first started dominating and he said something like "I would advise them to pick up a racquet and play themselves."
Its funny how you former-player lovers dimiss everyone by talking about their so called 'inability'.You should stick to former pro-player section.

Im not saying Roger doesnt deserve his accolades. Im just bringing up the fact that one player answered the challenge and the call. Fed is an all time great nonetheless and most likely would be in any era. Though id have to say how he would handle the wooden rackets dealing with ROsewall, Pancho or Laver

Turning Pro
11-07-2009, 08:51 AM
If there were more Nadal's playing or even in his own peak era then Fed would be lucky to even have 5-8 slams. That just proves how great Nadal is to beat Federer on 3 different surfaces in 3 consecutive GS finals.

srinrajesh
11-07-2009, 08:54 AM
Gaudio among the ones mentioned in the list..
Outside it is federer for sure.. probably should have ended up with 8-10 slams in his career that would still rank him very high among the greatest players ever

tudwell
11-07-2009, 08:57 AM
Andy Murray

mandy01
11-07-2009, 09:00 AM
If there were more Nadal's playing or even in his own peak era then Fed would be lucky to even have 5-8 slams. That just proves how great Nadal is to beat Federer on 3 different surfaces in 3 consecutive GS finals. Sure.Only the reality is Federer matches better against most other players except Nadal.

zagor
11-07-2009, 09:05 AM
OMG Zagor trolling. Impossible.

It's a great feeling,I have to try it more often.

jamesblakefan#1
11-07-2009, 09:15 AM
Federer has no place in this conversation or in this thread. It's laughable how much of a troll some are to even bring him up in this discussion.

Cesc, we already know about you...:roll:

GrafSelesTroll, I don't EVER want to hear you go on another one of your rants claiming I have no tennis knowledge. Anyone foolish enough to say Federer is an overachiever truly has zero tennis knowledge whatsoever. Or is just a rotten old troll. Or both.

Carsomyr
11-07-2009, 09:19 AM
Please make an option for Federer; I feel my opinion is being discriminated against.

fed_rulz
11-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Im not saying Roger doesnt deserve his accolades. Im just bringing up the fact that one player answered the challenge and the call. Fed is an all time great nonetheless and most likely would be in any era. Though id have to say how he would handle the wooden rackets dealing with ROsewall, Pancho or Laver

the more i read your posts, the more you remind me of GameSampras :). I already noted it in another thread...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4064408&postcount=94

And here:


....
Matchup shmatchups.. The key to be a GOAT candidate and or a legend in general is taking big matches away from your rival.. And when you got Fed sitting there for a year destroying everyone on tour except his rival then people begin to wonder. Only one player answered the challenge or the level placed by rival and wouldnt u know it.. It was his rival of all people.



The fact of the matter is.. 1 OTHER PLAYER in the whole era of the 00s has stepped up, rised to the challenge, and has defeated Roger, relentlessly at the slams and overrall. That is Nadal..
....
Outside of Nadal.. It gets very thin.. very very thin. No one has stepped up, (despite everyone trying to suggest otherwise), no one has proven to be a legitimate champion and proven they even have what it takes to be champions.

T1000
11-07-2009, 09:25 AM
I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.

Rafa Nadal. Someone with the ability of 1-2 future titles somehow end up with 6 grand slams, with likely no more to come and being crowned as Clay GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions. vagarities of time, place and chance and to Rafa's credit, his ability to display an overacheiving perfoemance, all combined to make it happen

jamesblakefan#1
11-07-2009, 09:26 AM
According to GrafSelesTroll the only underachiever in the history of tennis is Pete Sampras, who would have won 20+ slams if not for injury, thalasemmia minor, his coach passing away, Andre's drug use, and the fact that the French Open is played on something called 'clay', instead of grass and fast hardcourts, the only surfaces that matter.

Matt H.
11-07-2009, 09:33 AM
I think the term "overachiever" is being misused with the choices given by the original poster.

To call someone an overachiever, i think it has to be the relation of their talent/potential and the body of work they accomplished overall.

In the cases of Johansson and Gaudio, they simply went on a 2 week hot streak and capitalized on the draw and opportunities they were given. On a 1 tournament basis, it can happen to any pro.

Johansson is a quality player. His 1st serve gets into the low 130's, so he has power. He doesn't have any vast weaknesses.

Ivo Karlovic. He's 6'10" with the biggest serve ever due to the angle it comes down on. Everything else is subpar, and it shows with the fact he's made 1 quarterfinal, on grass. That's about right for him.



To me, it's Lleyton Hewitt. It's not just about his 2 slams, it's the fact he was the #1 player in the world for 2 straight years. In terms of physical ability and talent, he is very low on the list. Sure, heart and determination count for something, but there is a long list of better players from 2001-2004 who should have manhandled him but didn't, except for Fed in '04. On rebound ace and clay he had no power or ability to create his own winners. He was not the best grass court player, yet somehow made it through in '02 when all the usual suspects on grass that year bombed out. On a fast hard court it's tough to believe that he was tops in his time as well. Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Pete....lot of good hard courters from early this decade.

Michael Bluth
11-07-2009, 10:07 AM
Ah, forgot about Hewitt. Good choice.

Anaconda
11-07-2009, 10:13 AM
Hewitt isn't an overachiever. He had/has weapons and was/is a very good player.

Gaudio probably, but it's a tough one to call.

LiveForever
11-07-2009, 10:18 AM
LOL! How Federer managed to enter this discussion is beyond me. One can argue that if Federer had managed to get his emotional instability taken care of earlier in his career, he would have started winning slams earlier.

Anaconda
11-07-2009, 10:22 AM
LOL! How Federer managed to enter this discussion is beyond me. One can argue that if Federer had managed to get his emotional instability taken care of earlier in his career, he would have started winning slams earlier.

Nope. Nalbandian/Henman and Hewitt all had Fed's number.

LiveForever
11-07-2009, 10:32 AM
Nope. Nalbandian/Henman and Hewitt all had Fed's number.
Yeah because Federer was prone to mental breakdown in matches. We all know what Federer did to Henman, Nalbandian, and Hewitt when he began to hit his prime. They all got blown of the court one by one.

akv89
11-07-2009, 11:40 AM
Federer obviosly,he has the talent and mental tougness of a one slam wonder(if we're being generous)but has the luck of a GOAT(hence 15 slams and a career slam).

I agree. It's a wonder how he even gets the ball across the net when he serves. I blame the obviously weak era of tennis balls.

aphex
11-07-2009, 11:46 AM
the more i read your posts, the more you remind me of GameSampras :). I already noted it in another thread...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4064408&postcount=94

And here:

good catch...troll alert!!

Bjorkman&Johnny Mac=GameSampras

Kobble
11-07-2009, 11:56 AM
I'll say Gaudio. Very limited game outside of clay.

Serve - below 50% of tour

Forehand - Ranks around 60% o

Backhand - Ranks about 90%

Speed - Ranks around 85%

Mental - Ranks below 60% of tour.

volleynets
11-07-2009, 12:05 PM
I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.
He could have even more slams then he does. You do not know anything about tennis if you think he has the ability of 6-8 slams.

Tell me, have you ever played tennis? Your perspective would change if you actually hit the ball and realized how Federer hits the ball when watching him live.

There were a few points in the USO final that would have given him the match and in the AO final of 2009 when he was up 40-0 and 40-15 on Nadal's serve back to back that would have most likely given him a four set win.

That said, he is one of the hardest players to beat on tour as he rarely loses to anyone not named Nadal and Murray.

galain
11-07-2009, 12:05 PM
Johannson gets such little love on these boards and it always surprises me. I've watched him from a few meters away, and his was one of the most impressive players I've seen up close. I was always puzzled about the raptures Agassi drew until I saw him up close too, so perhaps it's a similar quality, but of the big names I've watched from courtside, Johansson comes very very close to the top of my list.

He doesn't really fit into this millenium though. Neither does my first pick for overachiver - Conchita Martinez. That she managed to beat any top player, let alone Navratilova in a Wimby final, is a real testament to her.

Agassifan
11-07-2009, 12:10 PM
Roger Federer.

If he doesn't win 20+ slams, he would've underachieved.

LiveForever
11-07-2009, 12:41 PM
I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.
6-8 slams? :shock:

NamRanger
11-07-2009, 12:44 PM
Federer obviosly,he has the talent and mental tougness of a one slam wonder(if we're being generous)but has the luck of a GOAT(hence 15 slams and a career slam).



Andy Roddick is a bigger over achiever. Only one weapon and a sub top 100 ground game and he manages to win a slam.

Chadwixx
11-07-2009, 12:48 PM
Andy Roddick is a bigger over achiever. Only one weapon and a sub top 100 ground game and he manages to win a slam.

The usta gave roddick his only gs title. Its a bigger joke than gaudio's french or johansson's aussy.

fed_rulz
11-07-2009, 12:51 PM
good catch...troll alert!!

Bjorkman&Johnny Mac=GameSampras

lol :). he's been lurking around for sometime, maintaining a low profile. but old habits die hard, do they ?

kishnabe
11-07-2009, 01:31 PM
:neutral:I would pick gaston gaudio. Since he won it accidently>

kishnabe
11-07-2009, 01:34 PM
The usta gave roddick his only gs title. Its a bigger joke than gaudio's french or johansson's aussy.

Watch US open 2006, Wimbledon 2004,2005, 2009. No Offense, But Roddick had the game to win slams but not the mentality. He defiently worked his *** off this season. I just want to rub it into your face how ignorant are you yo judge someone victory. Sure gaston was lucky but roddick it was his ability. Sure the usa helped him, come on!!

Gorecki
11-07-2009, 03:25 PM
Something you never do...:roll:

how would you know that since you joined us in november 2009, i.e. max 8 days ago...

lawrence
11-07-2009, 04:32 PM
Fed-haters;

They come.
They get banned.
They return.

etc

nfor304
11-07-2009, 05:50 PM
i would say Lleyton Hewitt. He was year end number 1 for 2 years and won 2 slams despite an average serve only 1 really exceptional stroke.

Before his USopen win many people were questioning whether his game would translate to grand slam success and most were thinking his career would be like Michael Chang's

SourStraws
11-07-2009, 06:20 PM
Simon...

S.S.

Turning Pro
11-07-2009, 07:15 PM
i would say Lleyton Hewitt. He was year end number 1 for 2 years and won 2 slams despite an average serve only 1 really exceptional stroke.

Before his USopen win many people were questioning whether his game would translate to grand slam success and most were thinking his career would be like Michael Chang's

Er, Look how great HEwitt was between End of 03 (beating Fed from 2 sets and break down in davis cup) and end of 05. He was dominating EVERYONE except Federer, He should have 4-6 slams at least if it wasn't for federer because the only other person that was challenging consistently was Roddick and Hewitt had Roddick's number in both their primes (MC 04, AO 05 match and Indian Wells 05). Hewitt was a great counter puncher, one of the best. He's still in the Top 20 without doing much at all.

(Edit, you don't beat Sampras, Kafalnikof (sp?), Blake, Roddick etc all in the same slam and be overrated. He beat Guga on his fav surface in DC at his prime, became youngest ever World No.1, Won 2 year end MC in a row, 2 Masters Series and 2 of the most important slams amongst so many other achievements and become an overachiever. Dude had talent. He improved his strokes, serve and game after a dissapointing 03 and adapted and came back well.

dh003i
11-07-2009, 09:55 PM
The idea that Federer is an over-achiever -- i.e., that his results are better than his talent, skill, and athleticism merit -- is absurd. Maybe in his best year -- 2006 -- where he barely lost a tournament outside of the FO and a few clay-court events, he over-achieved a little bit (I mean, that was just an insane year; 2005 too, although not winning the AO makes it a par-year, imo). But he under-achieved in 2008. He arguably even under-achieved this year, having both the AO and USO on his racket for large portions of the match but not closing out. Although I'd say that he just about did average -- neither under- or over-achieving -- this year. Overall, I'd say Federer has neither under- nor over-achieved.

If he doesn't win another slam for the rest of his career, I'd say he underachieved. If he wins 2-4 more, that's about par (I still see him as the favorite in 3/4 GS next year). More than 4 slams from here on, and then I'd say he over-achieved.

Btw, I don't think "over-achieved" ought to be used as a derogatory term. It usually ought to be perceived as a compliment.

Anaconda
11-07-2009, 11:33 PM
Andy Roddick is a bigger over achiever. Only one weapon and a sub top 100 ground game and he manages to win a slam.

If you're being sarcastic, then you can own me.

I'm torn to whether the guy was an overachiever or an underachiever. A part of me say's that he has had a great career already and the other part say's that he can do better.

He had weapons outside his serve (big forehand, with a good BH now and can actually volley).

Players like gaudio just played a great tournament at the right time, but there is no getting away from the fact that coria choked and got lost on the big points.

Cody
11-07-2009, 11:39 PM
Fed-haters;

They come.
They get banned.
They return.

etc

The circle of life.

My pick as overachiver would have to be gaudio

jamesblakefan#1
11-07-2009, 11:46 PM
Andy Roddick is a bigger over achiever. Only one weapon and a sub top 100 ground game and he manages to win a slam.

You're definitely UNDERRATING Roddick. From the time he came onto the scene he had one of the top 20-top 10 FHs in the game...though he didn't always use it well...he's always had strength off the FH wing...it's not like he's Karlovic when it comes to the ground game.

Also when he first broke through, he was smaller, and his movement wasn't as much of a liability as it tended to be at times from 2005-2008. Now that he's dropped some weight his movement's improved a bit, but still not at the level it was from 2002-2004.

Don't make it seem as though Roddick's some one trick pony. Some fan you are.

As far as Roddick vs Blake....Roddick's much more consistent off the ground than Blake...even though Blake's FH is more powerful, it doesn't really mean much if he can't hit it as consistently as Roddick does, which he can't. Roddick's the much more consistent player, and the talent gap isn't as wide as you make it seem...Roddick was a top ranked junior, meanwhile Blake was hardly noticed as a junior and came from college to the pros, a rarity these days. Blake may be the better athlete, but Roddick's the better tennis player due to the consistent game he possesses.

Athleticism and talent only get you so far in tennis, as Monfils, Gulbis, Gasquet are learning right now. Consistency is what it takes to be a top level player in tennis, and Roddick has a far more consistent style of play than Blake ever possessed. That is the reason for the discrepancy in their levels of success, along w/ the mental factors you mentioned. But saying Roddick doesn't possess a top 100 ground game is laughable.

nfor304
11-08-2009, 12:30 AM
Er, Look how great HEwitt was between End of 03 (beating Fed from 2 sets and break down in davis cup) and end of 05. He was dominating EVERYONE except Federer, He should have 4-6 slams at least if it wasn't for federer because the only other person that was challenging consistently was Roddick and Hewitt had Roddick's number in both their primes (MC 04, AO 05 match and Indian Wells 05). Hewitt was a great counter puncher, one of the best. He's still in the Top 20 without doing much at all.

(Edit, you don't beat Sampras, Kafalnikof (sp?), Blake, Roddick etc all in the same slam and be overrated. He beat Guga on his fav surface in DC at his prime, became youngest ever World No.1, Won 2 year end MC in a row, 2 Masters Series and 2 of the most important slams amongst so many other achievements and become an overachiever. Dude had talent. He improved his strokes, serve and game after a dissapointing 03 and adapted and came back well.

I never said he was over rated, I said he was an over achiever. Completely different things. I think he's a great player and i'm well aware of just how good he was between 2000 and mid 2005.

I said before his grand slam breakthrough many people, both in the media and players/former players, questioned whether his game would allow him to win a slam. Sampras said it after he beat Hewitt in the USopen in 2000, Newcombe said it, Agassi said, McEnroe said it. Up to his USopen win he played his best tennis at atp events and didn't live up to his potential in the slams and in the Masters events. Even when he did win his first slam it surprised everyone, Sampras went into that match a heavy favorite.

When he won the USopen things changed dramatically for him.

I know how well he did and I think he's a great player, easily the second best of his generation behind Federer.

He's and over achiever, definitely not over rated.

zagor
11-08-2009, 12:49 AM
Er, Look how great HEwitt was between End of 03 (beating Fed from 2 sets and break down in davis cup) and end of 05. He was dominating EVERYONE except Federer, He should have 4-6 slams at least if it wasn't for federer because the only other person that was challenging consistently was Roddick and Hewitt had Roddick's number in both their primes (MC 04, AO 05 match and Indian Wells 05). Hewitt was a great counter puncher, one of the best. He's still in the Top 20 without doing much at all.

(Edit, you don't beat Sampras, Kafalnikof (sp?), Blake, Roddick etc all in the same slam and be overrated. He beat Guga on his fav surface in DC at his prime, became youngest ever World No.1, Won 2 year end MC in a row, 2 Masters Series and 2 of the most important slams amongst so many other achievements and become an overachiever. Dude had talent. He improved his strokes, serve and game after a dissapointing 03 and adapted and came back well.

Hewitt lost 15 freakin times in a row to an actual 3-4(5 if lucky)slam winner so yes he's an overachiever(was lucky to win 2 slams)and also mentally weak for losing 15 times in a row to a mediocre great like Fed.

I mean how many times would he lose if he was competing with 6 slam winners like Edberg and Becker in their prime? 20 times? Let's not even mention players who won 10 or more,he would most likely 30 times in a row against them if he faced them in their primes.

lambielspins
11-08-2009, 12:55 AM
Hewitt lost 15 freakin times in a row to an actual 3-4(5 if lucky)slam winner so yes he's an overachiever(was lucky to win 2 slams)and also mentally weak for losing 15 times in a row to a mediocre great like Fed.

I mean how many times would he lose if he was competing with 6 slam winners like Edberg and Becker in their prime? 20 times? Let's not even mention players who won 10 or more,he would most likely 30 times in a row against them if he faced them in their primes.

LOL that is what I was thinking. If Turning Troll is going to rip on Federer and how lucky he is to have more than 4-6 slams because of no competition, excuses, excuses, blah blah then what would that say about his boy Hewitt who while still near his best lost 8 or 9 times in a row to Federer, was fed bagels in atleast half the matches, etc....By that logic Hewitt must be one of the luckiest and worst 2 slam winners ever, being that bullied and abused by a guy who is lucky to have more than 4-6 slams.

zagor
11-08-2009, 01:05 AM
LOL that is what I was thinking. If Turning Troll is going to rip on Federer and how lucky he is to have more than 4-6 slams because of no competition, excuses, excuses, blah blah then what would that say about his boy Hewitt who while still near his best lost 8 or 9 times in a row to Federer, was fed bagels in atleast half the matches, etc....By that logic Hewitt must be one of the luckiest and worst 2 slam winners ever, being that bullied and abused by a guy who is lucky to have more than 4-6 slams.

Exactly,Turning Pro constantly craps on the guy who double bageled Hewitt in USO final(which didn't happen in modern history)and has 15 wins in a row over Hewitt(which is simply ridiculous)yet then goes around how Hewitt isn't an overachiever or overrated,how he's so talented and the main excuse of why Hewitt didn't win more than 2 slams(why he didn't win 5-6 slams)is get this-Federer,the same lucky 5 slam winner LMAO.The guy is a walking parody.

Gorecki
11-08-2009, 03:17 AM
mediocre great

Zag... you ol'e geezzer... the notion is weird... :)

zagor
11-08-2009, 03:44 AM
Zag... you ol'e geezzer... the notion is weird... :)

Hehe,yeah it is now that I look at it,I should have phrased it differently.What I meant was a lower echelon of tennis greats like Courier or Guga(medium would be players with 6-8 slams and highest those with 10 or more,atleast the way I see it).

Anaconda
11-08-2009, 03:59 AM
Ivo Karlovic isn't an overachiever because he has the best serve the game has ever seen IMO. He did what he could but hasn't done anything special for the type of game he has.

James blake could have made a slam final at best. Maybe the US open 2006 when he had chances against Federer but even if he had won i couldn't see him winning the thing.

I would say Federer overachieved because he has 15 slams and no matter how talented you are - if you win 15 majors then there is no doubt that you have done better than you expected or your game suggests.

Nalbandian overachieved on grass. How he got to the wimbledon final i do not know but then froze.

Safin could be there too. Given the circumstances. Who else hated the sport and got injured every year and still ended up winning 2 slams beating the 2 best players ever?

Like i said, I'm torn with Roddick because his qualities do not justify the lone slam he has. Hewitt isn't an overachiever because he has weapons and has done well at other slams in other years and also at masters events.

Gorecki
11-08-2009, 04:07 AM
Hehe,yeah it is now that I look at it,I should have phrased it differently.What I meant was a lower echelon of tennis greats like Courier or Guga(medium would be players with 6-8 slams and highest those with 10 or more,atleast the way I see it).

hehehe... i understood what you meant. i just wanted to poke you...

the thing in TTW is that there are several posters who believe they can have "Sun in the corn field and rain the the lettuces"... (if you know what i mean):)

zagor
11-08-2009, 05:20 AM
hehehe... i understood what you meant. i just wanted to poke you...

the thing in TTW is that there are several posters who believe they can have "Sun in the corn field and rain the the lettuces"... (if you know what i mean):)

Yeah,I know the expression :).

Turning Pro
11-08-2009, 06:26 AM
Exactly,Turning Pro constantly craps on the guy who double bageled Hewitt in USO final(which didn't happen in modern history)and has 15 wins in a row over Hewitt(which is simply ridiculous)yet then goes around how Hewitt isn't an overachiever or overrated,how he's so talented and the main excuse of why Hewitt didn't win more than 2 slams(why he didn't win 5-6 slams)is get this-Federer,the same lucky 5 slam winner LMAO.The guy is a walking parody.

Nadal belittles federer in so many ways it's not even funny. More Nadal's on tour during Fed peak > Fed with MUCH less GS titles. Nadal was the only one fearless of Federer besides Safin when Safin actually wanted to give a dam n.

IvanAndreevich
11-08-2009, 06:38 AM
Nadal belittles federer in so many ways it's not even funny. More Nadal's on tour during Fed peak > Fed with MUCH less GS titles. Nadal was the only one fearless of Federer besides Safin when Safin actually wanted to give a dam n.

Blah blah bla. Federer is actually very unlucky to be in an era with an incredibly consistent rival who's been on the top (#2 and #1) for 4+ years. Who also happens to be a TERRIBLE match up for him.

IvanisevicServe
11-08-2009, 09:40 AM
Kafelnikov???

He was one of the biggest UNDERACHIEVERS of all-time. He had the game to win many more slams but he had a 2 slam head.

Federer definitely overachieved THIS year...although a lot of it was due to circumstance (Soderling doing the unthinkable at the French). In his prime (04-06), he did what you'd expect from someone with talent that phenomenal...and in fact, it was a bit of a surprise he didn't win at least one French Open title during that period..

TMF
11-08-2009, 09:48 AM
LOL that is what I was thinking. If Turning Troll is going to rip on Federer and how lucky he is to have more than 4-6 slams because of no competition, excuses, excuses, blah blah then what would that say about his boy Hewitt who while still near his best lost 8 or 9 times in a row to Federer, was fed bagels in atleast half the matches, etc....By that logic Hewitt must be one of the luckiest and worst 2 slam winners ever, being that bullied and abused by a guy who is lucky to have more than 4-6 slams.

you guys should take all of Turning Troll's posts with a grain of salt. This is coming from a guy who said roddick, gasquet, hewitt would of won MANY slams combined. However, they have won NONE since his prediction. LOL

CyBorg
11-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Gaston Gaudio - Overachieved big time when he won the french. His grandslam doesn't really makes sense as all of his other results were pretty poor. Sort of like muster without the master series...

Bizarre comparison. He's like Muster... how?

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Hewitt didnt have a whole lot of weapons but the weapons he did have (Defensive counterpunching) he did very well. Not many players can grab a whole lot of slams counterpunching. So maybe in a sense he overachieved.

Turning Pro
11-08-2009, 10:38 AM
you guys should take all of Turning Troll's posts with a grain of salt. This is coming from a guy who said roddick, gasquet, hewitt would of won MANY slams combined. However, they have won NONE since his prediction. LOL
predicions made
in 05 r etard lol.didn't they make multiple slam finals too, was right about nadal and fed though haha stalker frea k.

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 10:55 AM
Bizarre comparison. He's like Muster... how?



LOL I don't know how Gaudio even compares to Muster. Muster dominated the clay season from start to finish one year. Gaudio literally came out of the blue to win his French Open title with alot of choking on Coria's part.

Matt H.
11-08-2009, 11:13 AM
hewitt does not, and did not, have "weapons" in terms of strokes.

foot speed and counter punching is all he had.

2000-2004 was all about mega power. Power tennis was the strategy in play. To think he was the best player on the planet for 2 years in a row is puzzling.

Steffi-forever
11-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Thomas johanson - Not much game and managed to win a slam.......There are better players than him who haven't won a slam so yeah, why not.......also made the semi's at wimbledon

Gaston Gaudio - Overachieved big time when he won the french. His grandslam doesn't really makes sense as all of his other results were pretty poor. Sort of like muster without the master series...

Ivo Karlovic - Enough said.

James Blake - got to #4 in the world with 3 slam quater finals with an inconsistent BH, bad decision making, no net game, no serve, and mentally goes walkabout........good career IMO

so out of these 4 players - who overachieved the most out of what they had.....

Muster got to #1 and won 44 titles. Where is the comparison?

Steffi-forever
11-08-2009, 01:24 PM
I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.

The sad thing about Sampras, is that he won ''only'' 4 Grand Slam Titles from 97-99 against a very weak field. A player of his talent should have made at least 2 littles Slams in those 3 years.

cuddles26
11-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Kafelnikov???

He was one of the biggest UNDERACHIEVERS of all-time. He had the game to win many more slams but he had a 2 slam head.


ROTFL, what a joke. Kafelnikov wasnt even able to win a freaking Masters title. He couldnt beat Sampras and the other top hard courters on hard courts, and he couldnt beat any of the top clay courters on clay. It is a miracle he won 1 slam let alone 2 which is freaking unbelievable. Underachiever, AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 02:10 PM
ROTFL, what a joke. Kafelnikov wasnt even able to win a freaking Masters title. He couldnt beat Sampras and the other top hard courters on hard courts, and he couldnt beat any of the top clay courters on clay. It is a miracle he won 1 slam let alone 2 which is freaking unbelievable. Underachiever, AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!




Kafelnikov is better than given credit for on these forums; however he is an overachiever. However, give credit to where credit is due. Kafelnikov consistently went deep in slams nearly every year (almost making a QF every year).



Kafelnikov may have lucked out with the draw, but you have to be good enough to make use of it also. And Kafelnikov was just good enough to make use of two draws that opened up for him.

Cyan
11-08-2009, 03:35 PM
Gaston Gaudio.

Michael Bluth
11-08-2009, 03:44 PM
I think the main area in which Hewitt overacheived is weeks at no.1. With 80 weeks he has more than several players whose careers are far superior to his including Wilander, Edberg and Becker.

Cyan
11-08-2009, 03:57 PM
I think the main area in which Hewitt overacheived is weeks at no.1. With 80 weeks he has more than several players whose careers are far superior to his including Wilander, Edberg and Becker.

Wilander, Edberg and Becker all played in the toughest era ever. Shows how great Lendl was.....