PDA

View Full Version : Biggest overachiever in history?


aphex
03-26-2010, 06:18 AM
I'm going with nadal.

aldeayeah
03-26-2010, 06:23 AM
Nadal is too much of a "natural" to call him an overachiever IMO.

Although in my opinion, what one achieves is what one earns.

CMM
03-26-2010, 06:24 AM
I'm going with nadal.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2eevrk1.jpg

kaleidoskope
03-26-2010, 06:35 AM
I'd say my man Ivan Lendl, no doubt.

I remember reading somewhere that most of his tennis teachers told him to pick another sport as he had no natural tennis skills whatsoever... He worked his *** to get where he got. That's overachievement in my book :)

dropshot winner
03-26-2010, 06:45 AM
I'd say my man Ivan Lendl, no doubt.

I remember reading somewhere that most of his tennis teachers told him to pick another sport as he had no natural tennis skills whatsoever... He worked his *** to get where he got. That's overachievement in my book :)

The guy lost 11 slam finals, hardly an overachiever!

aphex
03-26-2010, 06:49 AM
I'd say my man Ivan Lendl, no doubt.

I remember reading somewhere that most of his tennis teachers told him to pick another sport as he had no natural tennis skills whatsoever... He worked his *** to get where he got. That's overachievement in my book :)

lolwut?

from wikipedia:

Lendl first came to the tennis world's attention as an outstanding junior player. In 1978, he won the boy's singles titles at both the French Open and Wimbledon and was ranked the World No. 1 junior player.

Berlioz
03-26-2010, 06:54 AM
Hewitt, Wilander.

GoDawgs2011
03-26-2010, 07:17 AM
Fabrice Santoro

World Beater
03-26-2010, 07:19 AM
nadal is extremely talented.

overachiever...probably sampras.

he won a lot of tough matches against mediocre opponents in his GS wins. It wasn't as if he was blowing guys away in his slam victories.

Kostas
03-26-2010, 07:37 AM
Fabrice Santoro


This was my first thought when I read the thread title.

I agree.

AndyArodRoddick
03-26-2010, 07:50 AM
Fabrice Santoro

Yeap, no talent in strokes or serve or power, but wonderful mind and thinking.

PimpMyGame
03-26-2010, 08:01 AM
What's an over-achiever? Someone who performs better than is expected of them, on the basis of age or talent?

I like over-achievers, they rock! I'd rather be one than someone who has beautiful strokes but flatters to deceive, such as Gasquet. The biggest over-achiever IMO is Federer. I don't see how anyone could expect the number of slams from the guy, no matter how good he is.

tuk
03-26-2010, 08:10 AM
Although in my opinion, what one achieves is what one earns.

Exactelly....there is no such thing as overachievers in my book....

PimpMyGame
03-26-2010, 08:18 AM
Exactelly....there is no such thing as overachievers in my book....

Kind of what I was getting at, maybe a little too subtle though...

mp2002
03-26-2010, 08:21 AM
Jim Courier.

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-26-2010, 08:33 AM
http://www.playtennis.be/images/LleytonHewitt.jpg

dh003i
03-26-2010, 08:35 AM
What's an over-achiever? Someone who performs better than is expected of them, on the basis of age or talent?

I like over-achievers, they rock! I'd rather be one than someone who has beautiful strokes but flatters to deceive, such as Gasquet. The biggest over-achiever IMO is Federer. I don't see how anyone could expect the number of slams from the guy, no matter how good he is.

You might say he over-achieved, because he easily could have had a career more like McEnroe's (I think McEnroe was certainly an underachiever). However, he lost in several slam events where he really could or even should have won (AO 05, Wimbledon 08, AO 09, USO 09). Also Rome '06. And he could have done better against Nadal in some of those FO finals. So I'd say that Federer is neither the biggest over- or under-achiever; I would, however, say he's on the over-achieving side, just because of all those difficult losses he kept coming back from that could have broken other players.

Nadal, I don't think you can say is an over-achiever, especially given his injury problems. It was a major achievement for him to win Wimby and the AO, but he is a very talented and gifted player. He's like a modern-day Borg.

I think that Hewitt was one of the biggest over-achievers. I mean, he had a heck of a lot of weeks at #1.

dmt
03-26-2010, 08:39 AM
I think that Hewitt was one of the biggest over-achievers. I mean, he had a heck of a lot of weeks at #1.because the era was fairly week. Ageing Sampras, terribly inconsistent Safin, and a resurgent but still ageing Agassi. Also Hewitt was a very good player, but had he been born four years later, its doubtful he would have been world no 1 for 10 weeks.

dh003i
03-26-2010, 08:44 AM
http://www.playtennis.be/images/LleytonHewitt.jpg

I emphatically agree. Sampras has said that Hewitt is greatly under-rated, in fact. I mean, he did beat Sampras at the USO. He has a great lob.

AndyArodRoddick
03-26-2010, 09:30 AM
I emphatically agree. Sampras has said that Hewitt is greatly under-rated, in fact. I mean, he did beat Sampras at the USO. He has a great lob.

Great lob, some speed, fighting spirit - that's all. Oh yeah, very good volleys, but he's so dumb, that he doesn't know he's strenghts and doesnt come to net that much.

No serve, no groundies - but yet 2 GS.

The-Champ
03-26-2010, 09:37 AM
I'm going with nadal.

I'm going with Federer.

dmt
03-26-2010, 09:42 AM
Great lob, some speed, fighting spirit - that's all. Oh yeah, very good volleys, but he's so dumb, that he doesn't know he's strenghts and doesnt come to net that much.

No serve, no groundies - but yet 2 GS.I think you forgot to mention that the guy is a very good service returner.

Mustard
03-26-2010, 10:36 AM
How the heck is Hewitt an overachiever? He'd probably have 7 slams by now if it wasn't for Federer.

Big Dave
03-26-2010, 10:43 AM
brad gilbert..... fabrice santoro

AndyArodRoddick
03-26-2010, 10:55 AM
How the heck is Hewitt an overachiever? He'd probably have 7 slams by now if it wasn't for Federer.

Cause there are a lot more talented guys than him. Lets be honest, he's not as near as talented as Blake, Haas, Berdych and so on...

boredone3456
03-26-2010, 10:57 AM
Kafelnikov and Capriati

Winners or Errors
03-26-2010, 11:30 AM
Another vote for Lendl. Hardest working tennis player ever. Maybe Muster behind him.... There's a guy with a non-descript game who managed to win, albeit mostly on clay where his fitness played a key role.

soyizgood
03-26-2010, 11:33 AM
Michael Chang. Short, no real weapon, overshadowed by Agassi/Sampras/Courier and had to rely on his toughness, speed, and endurance to winning the FO, 7 MS titles, and 34 titles overall.

Mustard
03-26-2010, 11:39 AM
Cause there are a lot more talented guys than him. Lets be honest, he's not as near as talented as Blake, Haas, Berdych and so on...

The above quote has got to be sarcasm.

Maybe Muster behind him.... There's a guy with a non-descript game who managed to win, albeit mostly on clay where his fitness played a key role.

Muster played and won mostly on clay because of his knee. He underachieved at the French Open throughout his career for various reasons. Muster could play well on hardcourts at times. You don't win Miami, be a 2-time semi finalist at the Australian Open and 3-time quarter finalist at the US Open unless you can play on hardcourts.

aldeayeah
03-26-2010, 12:06 PM
Sergi Bruguera. Same story as Muster, but one Slam more. The prototypical Spanish grinder.

Also Arantxa Sanchez Vicario. The prototypical Spanish grinder again, but so consistent and mentally strong!

Both primarily claycourters, although with decent results all around (specially Arantxa, who made the final of every slam at least twice).

samprasvsfederer123
03-26-2010, 12:11 PM
maybe santoro, but hewitt did get those grand slams easily, well kinda, sampras played the worst match of his life, and nalbandian did as well in wimby 2002

Serve_Ace
03-26-2010, 12:11 PM
Cause there are a lot more talented guys than him. Lets be honest, he's not as near as talented as Blake, Haas, Berdych and so on...

I think just as talented if not more. Hewitt has two slams compared to those you listed who have none.

OnceWas
03-26-2010, 12:26 PM
Biggest overachievers in recent tennis history :
Multiple GS championships, Ivan Lendl.
Single GS championship , Micheal Chang.
No GS championship , Brad Gilbert.
I'm probably forgetting someone...

Ripster
03-26-2010, 12:44 PM
Lleyton Hewitt. For a guy of his abilities to win 2 Masters shields, 2 Year End Championships and 2 Grand Slams is pretty remarkable.

pc1
03-26-2010, 12:45 PM
I'm going with nadal.

aphex,

Are you writing about overachieving compared to talent and skills or to expectations?

Perhaps Chris Evert but I think she's more talented than a lot give her credit for. But she achieved so much that a number of people have called her the GOAT. Physically she wasn't fast or very strong but she was a powerful hitter, great touch, accuracy and above all, super consistency.

Brad Gilbert-Little talent. Top ten player and very smart.

Harold Solomon-Small, weak serve but won a lot of tournaments plus he reached the French Open final in 1976. People hated playing him.

Stan Smith-Not a great athlete but won Wimbledon, the US Open, the Masters, WCT Championship. Didn't have great groundies.

I noticed some mentioned Chang and Hewitt as overachievers. I'm not sure about that. They both were super fast, which in itself is a great talent with superb hand/eye coordination. Chang and Hewitt, while not known as super hard hitters, had greater power than many give them credit for. Both were superb service returners which requires often great quickness and reflexes. I think both were better overall athletes than Andre Agassi for example.

Kick Serve 14
03-26-2010, 12:49 PM
I would say it's a toss up between a couple of guys. Courier, intense work ethic, great forehand and serve, but let down somewhat by his backhand imo. Lendl, worked harder than anyone else that I can think of.Santoro, no real weapons, just jack rabbit speed, and Michael Chang, whos biggest weapon was his defense, and who was completely overshadowed by Courier, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, Rafter and so on...

AndyArodRoddick
03-26-2010, 12:52 PM
I think just as talented if not more. Hewitt has two slams compared to those you listed who have none.

How is Hewitt more talented than these guys ??? Mentally for sure but thats it.

All-rounder
03-26-2010, 12:59 PM
Thomas Johansson

The Edberg
03-26-2010, 02:19 PM
Hewitt overachieved IMO. He was a pretty talented guy Was a great counterpuncher but never had any real weapons to speak of. The fact he grabbed 2 slams and was number 1 in the world for quite a while was pretty dang good considering he didnt have alot of weapons to fall back on

biaggi35
03-26-2010, 02:24 PM
I don't think Hewitt's an overachiever... He defeated Sampras at the USO and Henman at Wimbledon (without dropping a set in both matches) when he won the titles. If it wasn't for Federer, he would have won about 5 or 6 Majors maybe. His movement, returns, passing shots, lobs, volleys - they are just incredible... Yes, his groundstrokes are not so powerful but he is a great counter puncher - he uses very well the power of his opponent's shots (that is one of the reasons for his incredible record on grass btw).

Biggest overachiever... I would say Michael Chang who won a Roland Garros title and 7 Masters! :O

The Edberg
03-26-2010, 02:30 PM
I don't think Hewitt's an overachiever... He defeated Sampras at the USO and Henman at Wimbledon (without dropping a set in both matches) when he won the titles. If it wasn't for Federer, he would have won about 5 or 6 Majors maybe. His movement, returns, passing shots, lobs, volleys - they are just incredible... Yes, his groundstrokes are not so powerful but he is a great counter puncher - he uses very well the power of his opponent's shots (that is one of the reasons for his incredible record on grass btw).

Biggest overachiever... I would say Michael Chang who won a Roland Garros title and 7 Masters! :O



Well... Hewitt beat a gassed Sampras in the final who went through a wicked draw at the USO facing Agassi, Rafter, and Safin all in a row. Who knows what would have happened if Sampras didnt have the draw he did that year. Some people tend to forget what Sampras at 30 years of age went through just to make the final there. He is a great counterpuncher no doubt.. But was his game really as good to think he could accomplish what he did? Agassi at 32 years of age took him in 2002 as the defending champ the following year. Hewitt was good.. But I dont think with his game he should have accomplished what he did. But at the time he was pretty dominant.. It was between the eras of Sampras and Agassi and Federer. A transitional time for the game with no dominant great in his prime. A time when even Roddick got to #1 and won a slam or guys like Gaudio and others were winning slams. The early 00s wasnt an era in which there were any great dominant players around yet. Agassi and Pete were on their way out and Federer and Nadal had yet to take over

biaggi35
03-26-2010, 02:44 PM
Hewitt defeated Roddick, Haas and Kafelnikov so his draw also wasn't easy at all. Sampras faced some very tough opponents, but he didn't play any really long matches except the Agassi one... And yes, Agassi defeated Hewitt in the semi in 2002, but let's not forget that Agassi also had some very, very close matches against FEDERER at the USO when he was even older and Federer was close to his best... The transitional period for the game was in 2002 maybe. That was the time when players like Sampras and Rafter retired and Federer, Roddick, Ferrero and Nalbandian were still too young. But still, I think there were some very good players and the fact is that Hewitt continued to be a top 3 player until 2005 and most of the times only Roger defeated him at the Slams. :)

The Edberg
03-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Hewitt defeated Roddick, Haas and Kafelnikov so his draw also wasn't easy at all. Sampras faced some very tough opponents, but he didn't play any really long matches except the Agassi one... And yes, Agassi defeated Hewitt in the semi in 2002, but let's not forget that Agassi also had some very, very close matches against FEDERER at the USO when he was even older and Federer was close to his best... The transitional period for the game was in 2002 maybe. That was the time when players like Sampras and Rafter retired and Federer, Roddick, Ferrero and Nalbandian were still too young. But still, I think there were some very good players and the fact is that Hewitt continued to be a top 3 player until 2005 and most of the times only Roger defeated him at the Slams. :)


Hewitt may have taken Pete regardless in the final very possibly. But it was pretty evident that the draw Sampras went through was no doubt a deadly one. 3 former USO champs all in a row. I dont think there is any player that could go through that wicked draw with Andre, Rafter and Safin, and not be somewhat drained from it. These guys were all very good players and all could play on hardcourts and all former winners. Not to mention being 30 years old while doing it. No one would want to see that kind of draw at any time much less 30 years of age. Just dealing with Agassi at the time considering the way he was playing. Im sure even Federer wouldnt want to go through that draw much less at 30 years old. Not to excuse Pete. Hewitt played magnificiently, but Sampras only had a set of tennis left in his tank by the final. Just to put things into perspective... Hewitt won but no one ever seems to mention Pete's age or the draw he had. I think Nadal would be drained if he had to play Agassi, safin, and rafter all in a row hardcourts and then Hewitt in the finals . Federer would be losing some sleep if he drew that. That would be a nightmare for really anyone. There was no break in the draw. For 4 rounds youre stuck with 4 high quality players all in a row to deal with

It was a big win for Hewitt but there were circumstances surrounding it

thalivest
03-26-2010, 03:28 PM
Here are my choices:

Men:

Mats Wilander
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Jim Courier
Brad Gilbert


Women:

Aranxta Sanchez Vicario
Monica Seles
Dinara Safina
Pam Shriver
Kimiko Date

thalivest
03-26-2010, 03:30 PM
I don't think Hewitt's an overachiever... He defeated Sampras at the USO and Henman at Wimbledon (without dropping a set in both matches) when he won the titles. If it wasn't for Federer, he would have won about 5 or 6 Majors maybe. His movement, returns, passing shots, lobs, volleys - they are just incredible... Yes, his groundstrokes are not so powerful but he is a great counter puncher - he uses very well the power of his opponent's shots (that is one of the reasons for his incredible record on grass btw).

Biggest overachiever... I would say Michael Chang who won a Roland Garros title and 7 Masters! :O

Hewitt might have won only 1 more major event without Federer. Lets look at the slams he lost to Federer:

2004 Australian Open- he had a chance but so did Nalbandian, Safin, Agassi, Roddick, maybe Ferrero. Take Federer out and this thing is wide open.

2004 Wimbledon- Roddick takes him.

2004 U.S open- Agassi takes him

2005 Wimbledon- ok he wins this probably.

2005 U.S Open- Agassi takes him

2009 Wimbledon/2009 U.S Open/2010 Australian Open- not a contender.

biaggi35
03-26-2010, 03:58 PM
Hewitt dominated Roddick until 2005 so I'm not so sure he would have lost to him if they played at Wimbledon in 2004. And I don't think Agassi would have beaten him two times in a row in US Open finals. AO '04 - he would have had a very good chance, especially with that tired Safin in the final. And let's not forget something else - although he is very strong mentally, I'm sure that all these losses and 6-0 sets against Fed had affected his confidence and his game respectively. Maybe he would have played even better in 2005, why not beating Safin in Australia, if he hadn't lost 6-0 7-6 6-0 a GS final three months before that.

Mustard
03-26-2010, 04:03 PM
Sorry, but all you guys saying Hewitt overachieved must have very short memories. This is the same guy who I thought would win 10 slams back in the day, and he was mentally ready for the tennis elite far earlier than the other players of his generation, like Federer for instance.

If only this board had existed in 2000 and 2001.




Women:


Monica Seles

Monica Seles overachieved? :confused:

Ridiculous beyond words. I know I've criticised those saying Hewitt overachieved, but putting that label to Seles takes the ridiculousness to a whole new level.

lawrence
03-26-2010, 04:05 PM
Cause there are a lot more talented guys than him. Lets be honest, he's not as near as talented as Blake, Haas, Berdych and so on...

Not sure if serious.

Does anyone here really understand how good Hewitt's footwork is? I'm not just talking about OH HE RUNS FAST, but his footwork is actually very overlooked here.

davey25
03-26-2010, 04:26 PM
Sorry, but all you guys saying Hewitt overachieved must have very short memories. This is the same guy who I thought would win 10 slams back in the day, and he was mentally ready for the tennis elite far earlier than the other players of his generation, like Federer for instance.

If only this board had existed in 2000 and 2001.

You may have believed that at the time but dont be sure others did. I for one never imagined he would win 10 slams, no way. I always believed he was a place sitter in an incredibly weak field, and his limited weaponary wouldnt be enough once some big hitters with more weapons began to emerge or get themselves together. Yeah I am surprised he won only 2 slams but I figured about 4. To me I always believed I was looking at a bigtime overachiever even while he was #1.

thalivest
03-26-2010, 04:28 PM
Monica Seles overachieved? :confused:

Ridiculous beyond words. I know I've criticised those saying Hewitt overachieved, but putting that label to Seles takes the ridiculousness to a whole new level.

Seles could be considered an overachiever due to her obviously limited athletic abilities. She was a great ball striker, but so is Davenport and she won only 3 slams. Nick Bolletieri who is Seles's former coach gushed over many of her abilities, yet also one time stated she was the single most unathletic human being he had ever worked with as far as things like quickness, agility, raw speed, body strength, etc...

Her inability to handle any of the really big hitters that well could also suggest she did well to win 9 slams. She overall didnt fare that well vs any of Graf, Serena, Venus, Davenport, or Hingis (Hingis is not a big hitter I know).

I believe all the players of the Graf era were overachievers in a way including Graf herself. There wasnt much competition amongst each other. The 3rd best player of that generation was Sanchez Vicario who couldnt even hit a forehand properly and who had a playing style she was vurnerable to being overpowering by the World #50 if she were a big hitter having a hot day. Navratilova in her mid 30s was still the 3rd or 4th best player in the World and had winning records vs both Sabatini and Sanchez, two of the next best players of that era, exposing the weakness of that generation. Davenport huge as a dump truck back then and Hingis at only 15 had already overtaken many of the tier 2 top players of that era by 96 as well, further exposing the weakness of that group. Conchita Martinez was ranked #3 in the World about 4 years in a row, a lazy and out of shape underachiever who tanks her matches vs the top girls. Then you had Novotna, the biggest headcase in womens tennis history perhaps, and the rebelious Capriati and Pierce back in their days of youth. Rounding out this not so stellar elite group were people like Huber, Majoli, Date, injury prone Fernandez, the Maleeva siblings (pukes), Coetzer, Zvereva an even bigger lazy headcase, Tauziat, injury prone Rubin, nothing but a serve Schultz McCarthy, the Austrian bores Paulus and Weisner, a past her prime Garrison, and a past her prime Sukova. Feel free to point out anyone I am missing here.

Andy G
03-26-2010, 04:49 PM
Phillippoussis. The fact he was on the tour is proof enough.

samprasvsfederer123
03-26-2010, 04:59 PM
more like most overhyped player of all time is stupid pancho gonzalez

not a good sportsman, husband, horrible man, and way over hyped 2 grand slams, ya go to hell you cheating scum

matchmaker
03-26-2010, 05:16 PM
Honestly, I think Fed is an overachiever. He is probably the GOAT anyway, but winning so many slams in such a short span of time...

I don't want to open a can of worms, but the field might have something to do with it...

BTW, a lot is to be said about Graff being an overachiever too, with her main rival being stabbed at her height.

anointedone
03-26-2010, 05:36 PM
Graf is an underachiever. Her career and prime was cut short about 3-5 years by injuries, otherwise she would have broken all the records. She would have broken Martina's Wimbledon record for sure IMO (and just as for sure Seles is irrelevant when it comes to Graf and Wimbledon). She also would have broken Court's record, and I believe she would have done this staying healthy even without the Seles stabbing.

rossi46
03-27-2010, 03:41 AM
more like most overhyped player of all time is stupid pancho gonzalez

not a good sportsman, husband, horrible man, and way over hyped 2 grand slams, ya go to hell you cheating scum

So I take it you have no faults ???

In any case, what does a tennis player's personal life and personality have to do with their achievements on the court ??

Enigma_87
03-27-2010, 04:30 AM
Courier - used the void left from the 80's and before Sampras and Agassi ascended to the throne.

Kafelnikov - ridiculously has 2 GS to his name but no MS title.

Rios - #1 in the world with no GS won.

Gaudio - Coria bottled that one.

fed_rulz
03-27-2010, 06:07 AM
Honestly, I think Fed is an overachiever. He is probably the GOAT anyway, but winning so many slams in such a short span of time...

I don't want to open a can of worms, but the field might have something to do with it...

BTW, a lot is to be said about Graff being an overachiever too, with her main rival being stabbed at her height.

I guess you may be right.. if players like nadal (one of the all-time greats on clay) existed on grass & HC during Fed's reign, then he would not have won as many. The other eras were loaded with all-time greats on all surfaces simultaneously, just that this era magically is devoid of talent that enabled Fed to win it all... :confused:

Or may be, it's just that this one guy is so darn good?

On a related note, Sampras won 7/8 wimbys since 1993; do you think he "over-achieved" at wimby, and his field had something to do with it too? Or does the double-standard apply only to federer?

Mr_Shiver
03-27-2010, 09:26 AM
Men:
Andy Roddick
Brad Gilbert

Women:
Justine Henin
Jie Zheng

I believe the two men have already been deliberated upon by other posters.
As far as the women go, I think their hard work has helped them compete at a higher level than their natural physical skills and talent allows them to. This is especially true today with taller players who hit harder.

anointedone
03-27-2010, 08:38 PM
I actually agree Henin is in many ways an overachiever. People gush on her talent but the fact is she certainly doesnt make things like easy like Goolagong or Mandlikova who had a similar playing style. Her game looks strained and like it is hard work for her even at her best. It is also well known the incredibly rigorous fitness training she did to transform herself, before which she was a middling top 10 player. That suggest to me she had to work that much harder to be a great champion. She is very talented but her size is a huge hinderance in today game, so I would say yes she is an overachiever in many ways.


A big overachiever for me would be Kafelnikov. How the heck did such a pedestrian player ever win 2 slams.

Jennifer Capriati was both an underachiever and a huge overachiever. She never came close to fulfilling the potential of her youth, perhaps in large part to the people surrounding her. However even while admiring her impressive comeback from the depths she never became a player truly strong enough that should have won 3 slams in a 13 month span. That never should have happened based on the quality of player she actually was (not what she might have become many years earlier) so based on that she was a big overachiever as well and underachiever.

slicefox
03-27-2010, 09:11 PM
overachiever is someone who sucks but still wins/won a lot

davey25
03-27-2010, 09:36 PM
I guess you may be right.. if players like nadal (one of the all-time greats on clay) existed on grass & HC during Fed's reign, then he would not have won as many. The other eras were loaded with all-time greats on all surfaces simultaneously, just that this era magically is devoid of talent that enabled Fed to win it all... :confused:

Or may be, it's just that this one guy is so darn good?

On a related note, Sampras won 7/8 wimbys since 1993; do you think he "over-achieved" at wimby, and his field had something to do with it too? Or does the double-standard apply only to federer?

You seem to taking things out of context. Lets compare the competition of some of the eras:

Sampras era 93-99: Becker (until 96), Edberg, (until 94) Agassi, Courier (until 96), Ivanisevic, Chang, Kafelnikov

Federer era 04-2010: Roddick, Nadal (2005 onwards), Hewitt (until 2005), Safin (until 2005), Djokovic (07 onwards), Murray (08 onwards), Del Potro (09 onwards), aging Agassi (until 2005)

Laver era 64-71: Rosewall, aging Gonzales, Hoad, Gimeno, Emerson (68 onwards), Ashe (68 onwards), Newcombe (68 onwards)

Borg/McEnroe/Connors era 74-84- Borg until 1981, Connors, McEnroe from 78 onwards, Lendl from 1981 onwards, Wilander from 1982 onwards, Vilas. Newcombe, Nastase, Orantes, earlier on.

Lendl era 85-90- Becker, Edberg, Wilander (until 1988 ), young Agassi (1988 onwards), aging Connors, past his prime McEnroe.

It is easy to see who had less competition overall and that is definitely Federer. No fault of his own of course but that is reality.

gpt
03-27-2010, 10:53 PM
I'll go with Agassi.
A person who was supposedly forced into a sport he hates who also had to try and manage a drug habit along with having to try and hide his baldness for years.

All that and he still managed to achieve 7 majors, a career slam, enormous income and fame and I'm guessing 50-60 titles.

davey25
03-28-2010, 05:31 AM
overachiever is someone who sucks but still wins/won a lot

Jennifer Capriati and Yevgeny Kafelnikov come to mind then.

Gorecki
03-28-2010, 06:19 AM
I'll go with Agassi.
A person who was supposedly forced into a sport he hates who also had to try and manage a drug habit along with having to try and hide his baldness for years.

All that and he still managed to achieve 7 majors, a career slam, enormous income and fame and I'm guessing 50-60 titles.

here is an idea.... get your facts right before posting such crap... starting with the 8 (eight slams)...

gunnd5000
03-28-2010, 09:07 AM
Roddick mega over achiever solely due to his effort.
Nadal is the most over rated all he can do is play on clay. Aside from that he is the same as roddick hewwit safin and all of the other people who federer has destroyed over and over. I'm not saying he's rubbish or anything, i quite like him its just because he gets slams he's worshiped. If federer was stronger on clay and weaker on hard court roddick safin and hewwit wuld have more slams than nadal

cork_screw
03-28-2010, 09:39 AM
Jimmy Connors by far. He's won the most matches out of anyone and has done more in his 30's and 40's than anyone else in that age range. He's a marathon man.

His career record is 1241-277 (just singles alone), to put that in perspective federer only has about 700 something wins. Fed would need about 500 or so more wins to match and at the age of 29 that's a tall order.

Mustard
03-28-2010, 09:42 AM
Jimmy Connors by far. He's won the most matches out of anyone and has done more in his 30's and 40's than anyone else in that age range. He's a marathon man.

What Connors always had was looking forward to the challenge of competing in every match he played. He loved that thrill of competing in a match, which meant a non-stop hunger for the game. That is why he lasted into his 40s while someone like McEnroe faded away.

cork_screw
03-28-2010, 09:45 AM
Nice response. "The fact that he was on tour is proof enough"

Donald young is on tour, Santoro was on tour. There are a bunch of guys who were on tour. You wanna maybe rephrase it so your statement holds water, because it means really nothing at this point.

Phillippoussis. The fact he was on the tour is proof enough.

omniexist
03-28-2010, 10:47 AM
Roddick mega over achiever solely due to his effort.
Nadal is the most over rated all he can do is play on clay. Aside from that he is the same as roddick hewwit safin and all of the other people who federer has destroyed over and over. I'm not saying he's rubbish or anything, i quite like him its just because he gets slams he's worshiped. If federer was stronger on clay and weaker on hard court roddick safin and hewwit wuld have more slams than nadal

Whoah, ur bias against Nadal is underwhelming...so I guess winning Wimbledon doesn't mean anything...destroyed by Fed over and over....hmmm...I want whatever u been taking lol

"because he gets slams he's worshiped" yeah what ****** criteria we go by in this forum eh?

and to round it out...the shoulda coulda woulda argument very sound indeed...

Now if you said Nada is overrated because he only does well on slower courts or relatively poorly on hard than you might have something there.

The Edberg
03-28-2010, 10:51 AM
Roddick is an overachiever. Does he have some talent?? Sure. He doesnt have the talent of the previous americans that came before him like Pete, Andre, Courier, Mac or Connors.. But to stay as consistent as he has been in the top, winning a slam, and getting his fair share of masters shields is not bad for him. Without Roger he probably would have managed another 2-3 slams anyways. So.. hes done well for himself considering his lack of all around talent opposed to some of his predecessors. Working hard does pay off even though you may have the god given talent of others

Commando Tennis Shorts
03-28-2010, 10:56 AM
I'll go with Agassi.
A person who was supposedly forced into a sport he hates who also had to try and manage a drug habit along with having to try and hide his baldness for years.

All that and he still managed to achieve 7 majors, a career slam, enormous income and fame and I'm guessing 50-60 titles.

Absolutely not.

If anything, Agassi was an underachiever. He really didn't take tennis seriously at all until the middle part of his career, because he knew he had the talent to be great and just wanted to screw around until the greatness made itself happen.

He routinely skipped big tournaments (including Grand Slams), and he was extremely undisciplined physically and mentally. Despite all this, he had the major talent to win a lot more than he did---hence, he was a huge underachiever. If he had taken tennis more seriously and had taken his health/fitness more seriously early on, he could easily have won 10+ Slams.

Anaconda
03-28-2010, 11:10 AM
Roddick is an overachiever. Does he have some talent?? Sure. He doesnt have the talent of the previous americans that came before him like Pete, Andre, Courier, Mac or Connors.. But to stay as consistent as he has been in the top, winning a slam, and getting his fair share of masters shields is not bad for him. Without Roger he probably would have managed another 2-3 slams anyways. So.. hes done well for himself considering his lack of all around talent opposed to some of his predecessors. Working hard does pay off even though you may have the god given talent of others

See this is where things get murky for me.

1) Roddick has technical flaws. Roddick's isn't gifted like most top 10 players.
2) However Roddick could have done better; he's had chances at Wimbledon and US open.

So it's a tough one for me. One half says he did amazingly well with what he had. But missed a few opportunities. Some say he overachieved to get those opportunities.

The Edberg
03-28-2010, 11:21 AM
See this is where things get murky for me.

1) Roddick has technical flaws. Roddick's isn't gifted like most top 10 players.
2) However Roddick could have done better; he's had chances at Wimbledon and US open.

So it's a tough one for me. One half says he did amazingly well with what he had. But missed a few opportunities. Some say he overachieved to get those opportunities.



Roddick definitely has his flaws as a player.. Personally, I never felt he never should have gotten ride of Gilbert where he was the most success under his tutelage. But... You have look at Roddick's overrall game.. He was above average in two aspects really.. Big serving and a big FH. Something not so big anymore.. His movement was always suspect, he never had alot of speed, his baseline game was average... His net game was pitiful. when he approached the net it was almost as if he had quicksand in his feet. Average returner and not a great return of serve And you see his american predecessors... They all have great dynamic games. They could all move, all had huge weapons.. Superior baseline games, better returners etc..

And youre right.. Roddick could have achieved more than he did for sure. But its still overachieving I feel what he has done because to be quite honest.. His overrall game is very much average compared to those who came before him.. Yet what he has accomplished, what he could have accomplished without roger, and his consistency, and hardwork is quite impressive for what he had at his disposal

Anaconda
03-28-2010, 11:30 AM
Roddick definitely has his flaws as a player.. Personally, I never felt he never should have gotten ride of Gilbert where he was the most success under his tutelage. But... You have look at Roddick's overrall game.. He was above average in two aspects really.. Big serving and a big FH. Something not so big anymore.. His movement was always suspect, he never had alot of speed, his baseline game was average... His net game was pitiful. when he approached the net it was almost as if he had quicksand in his feet. Average returner and not a great return of serve And you see his american predecessors... They all have great dynamic games. They could all move, all had huge weapons.. Superior baseline games, better returners etc..

And youre right.. Roddick could have achieved more than he did for sure. But its still overachieving I feel what he has done because to be quite honest.. His overrall game is very much average compared to those who came before him.. Yet what he has accomplished, what he could have accomplished without roger, and his consistency, and hardwork is quite impressive for what he had at his disposal

I completely agree. It seemed that Roddick missed many years and wasted some of his career by hiring different coaches; tweaking his game for the worse when he should have stuck to his guns 150mph serve + 100mph forehand. I don't think Roddick's BH or netplay, or even his footwork were bad in 03-05. He had power on that BH side and he was still light on his feet. Sometimes he would get excited and come in at the wrong times - Wimbledon 2005 final.

Lesser players (AKA Coria) would have gaven up after losing so many grand slams matches to one guy. Roddick has always picked himself up and got back in the race and props to him.

kishnabe
03-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Cedric Pioline...the fact that he got to 2 slam finals...is pure overachievment!

The Edberg
03-28-2010, 11:58 AM
Cedric Pioline...the fact that he got to 2 slam finals...is pure overachievment!

He had some help getting there. The late 90s really did stink:(

Fandango
03-28-2010, 12:08 PM
Olivier Rochus

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_429/12506022832DGsR5.jpg

gpt
03-28-2010, 02:11 PM
here is an idea.... get your facts right before posting such crap... starting with the 8 (eight slams)...

Mr/Mrs Gorecki thanks for the correction. So he over achieved even more than i thought.

Rhino
03-28-2010, 05:58 PM
Donald Young

Djokovicfan4life
03-28-2010, 06:02 PM
Without going to the trouble of defining what an "overachiever" is, and without being around long enough to see who the "GOAT" would be, I'm going to say that Davydenko is probably up there.

pjonesy
03-28-2010, 06:15 PM
What Connors always had was looking forward to the challenge of competing in every match he played. He loved that thrill of competing in a match, which meant a non-stop hunger for the game. That is why he lasted into his 40s while someone like McEnroe faded away.

I agree that Connor's greatest tennis gift was his competitiveness. By the early 90s he had lost a step or two and the wrist injury almost took him out for good. At that point he did not hit the ball with reckless abandon like he did in his youth. He had learned to shorten points by getting to the net and developed a craftier game to compensate for the loss of speed, stamina and strength. Connors always tried hard in big matches, that was true throughout his career. However, when he was young, he burst on the scene like a bomb! Connors was blowing the top players off the court in the early to mid 70s! He hit the ball earlier and harder than everyone else at the time. He may have been guilty of being an UNDERACHIEVER at some points during the 70s. He was expected to win everthing until Borg, Mcenroe and Lendl came along. I will say this, in the late 80s and early 90s he was ABSOLUTELY an overachiever. He was also an inspiration for quite a few players, club and pro alike.

pc1
03-28-2010, 06:23 PM
What Connors always had was looking forward to the challenge of competing in every match he played. He loved that thrill of competing in a match, which meant a non-stop hunger for the game. That is why he lasted into his 40s while someone like McEnroe faded away.
Jimmy Connors by far. He's won the most matches out of anyone and has done more in his 30's and 40's than anyone else in that age range. He's a marathon man.

His career record is 1241-277 (just singles alone), to put that in perspective federer only has about 700 something wins. Fed would need about 500 or so more wins to match and at the age of 29 that's a tall order.


Mustard I agree with you that Connors was a super competitor. However I think some people are underrating Jimmy Connors' great talent. First of all I think he is arguably the best pure hitter of the ball in tennis history. He hits it so solidly and almost never mishits the ball. Every stroke has perfect balance and he has great hand/eye coordination. Connors had incredible power off the ground and his reaction time on the service return is almost superhuman.

His footwork is magnificent and his speed was excellent. You combined that with his great will to win and you got one of the all time greats.

I'm not sure you can say Jimmy Connors overachieved because I do think he was a gifted player. If he did overachieve, I don't think it was by much.

MrFlip
03-28-2010, 06:24 PM
Djokovic.

Was lucky to win the Aus Open. Forward to 10' he's playing mediocre tennis for someone given so much attention. Hasnt beaten Federer in a slam since 08'. Failed to replicate slam wins. Maintains his ranking by the occasional win at a masters plus a little luck from his rivals succombing to injuries and bad form.