View Full Version : Poll- Most OverRated/OverHyped on these boards...

02-26-2004, 01:14 PM
Who is the most over-rated or over-hyped person on these boards?

Frodo Baggins
02-26-2004, 02:01 PM
I Didn't know Pro Tennis Players were on these board's :shock: Wow would like to know who??? an where??? :shock: As for us posters I think it's too early too tell who's overhyped here??But give it time we'll see who's overhyped here maybe in the next few months. But Pro players here Now thats somthing :shock: :lol:

02-26-2004, 04:16 PM
I know there haven't been lots of responses, but I have to :lol: about Roddick being the most overhyped or overrated on this Board. (I did understand the question posted, BTW.) He may be overrated or overhyped in some places, but not here, IMO. :lol: Just the opposite, I think. Still, he did finish the year at No. 1, which is something that not many players can say. So he has some claim to fame, however undeserved. :lol:

02-26-2004, 07:22 PM
Marcelo Rios.

If you're looking for an answer that's more relevant to today's game, it's probably Roddick, but I'm not sure that's fair. Roddick's had lots of success to back up the hype.

02-26-2004, 07:41 PM
Roddick is wrong on 2 counts, #1 He is definitely not overhyped on here, no one likes him except Matt Nowicki(sp?) and Susan! He deserves more respect than he gets on here, and I am not a Roddick fan by any means #2 He has actually won a slam and made the semis of many others, not to mention his Master Series Wins. I answered Tommy Haas, he's the opposite of Roddick since he has a pretty game, especially backhand, but he's never materialized any of the hype that he's got. People on here talk about him all the time, but he really hasn't shown many impressive results. Yes, I know he played alot of his career in the Sampras Era, but so did Agassi. Haas is overhyped and overrated on these boards.

02-26-2004, 09:54 PM
How did Tommy get so many votes? Not many people give him credit for having reached #2 in the world. He is rarely talked about on the boards so I don't understand how he can be the most overhyped player on here. I love to watch him play; I think that he has the second best all-around game to Federer. He has a above average serve, one, if not the, best backhand in tennis (him and Federer are the only two non-serve-and-volley players who utilize the slice), he can volley, has a huge forhand... you'll see when he gets going again.

02-27-2004, 05:07 AM
I think that Federer and Haas are overhyped. Don't get me wrong, Federer has a spectacular game and has won two slams. He is very talented and smart on the court. He has all the shots. But everyone on the board makes him out to be the greatest player ever. Personally, he has to beat Sampras GS record to be best ever. In my opinion Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, Connors, or any of the great 80's-early 90's players would have beaten him at their best. Haas is WAY overrated here, his backhand is not nearly as good as everyone thinks it is. He hasn't won hardly anything. He is like Scud to me, a waste of my time to watch.

02-27-2004, 06:45 AM
In line with some other comments, I question whether everyone has truly answered the question. Roddick gets close to zero respect on these boards, to the extent that it makes me support him more. It's the same reaction that others have when they slam Roddick to counter the PMac love-fest. So I find it difficult to believe that he is "over-hyped".

Conversely, Federer gets nothing short of hyperbole - remember the string of "Federer cures cancer" posts?

So even though I prefer to watch Federer's game, I've voted for him being the most over-hyped on these boards.

02-27-2004, 07:02 AM
I disagree that Fed has to beat Samps record of slams to be considered the best ever. Those were all hardcourt & grass slams, no clay, and clay is what 70% of the world plays on. Kind of an important surface.

If Fed can win 2-3 slams on each surface, that would be unbelievable and I would probably start thinking of him as "best ever (overall player)". I still consider Samps the best "fast court" player of all time, encompassing grass, hardcourt and indoor carpet (although I think Becker may have had a better indoor record than him).

02-27-2004, 07:11 AM
I agree, it's more impressive if a player can compete at the highest level on ALL surfaces, than to dominate one surface and succumb to mediocrity on another. I haven't seen any of Federer's clay court matches, but hopefully he won't have the mental impotence on clay that Petey had.

02-27-2004, 07:15 AM

If Fed can win slams on each surface, then yes I would say he is probably the greatest player but I think he is overhyped, overrated because he has yet to accomplish nearly as much as Gonzalez, Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl to name a few. I agree that if he can win on all three surfaces at least twice or thrice, Australian 2, French has to win at least 2, Wimbledon 2 and us open 2 then he is greatest player. Nobody has yet to accomplish such feats. Agassi has won all four slams and should therefore be considered the greatest if that is all it takes.

As for another question for you Shaolin, what is your real name, you said you were in Joplin for the Challenger, I was there also. I played the qualies but did not go so well. Are you from the area, and if so would you be interested in hitting or playing sometime.

02-27-2004, 07:34 AM
My real name is Yen Hsun, I won the singles and doubles there.

Joking, sorry, its Michael Moses. Actually I didnt play Joplin, I took some of my students to check it out (I have some guys trying to reach a 5.0 level so I thought it would be good for them to see some guys with weapons). I did get to hit with Bruno Soares for a little while, who won the dubs with Lu, but we didnt play a match. He is good friends with a guy I used to hit with from Brazil.

Ive played futures but no challengers. Thats good if youre getting into quallies of challengers. However I would like to hit, I live in Lawrence. Maybe we could hit in KC. Did you come here to play last year? The name sounds familiar.

About Fed, yeah he has a lot to accomplish still, but the cool thing is that he can actually do those things. I remember Fed destroying Safin on clay at TMS Hamburg final (really slow clay), which makes me think he can compete for the French, and everything else I think hes the favorite to win as well.

Anyway just email me to hit: michaelmoses15@hotmail.com

02-27-2004, 08:06 AM

02-27-2004, 08:35 AM
Come on now, why wasn't RIOS on the poll??? Guy didn't win a slam, was ranked #1 for a miniscule amount of time, and was a complete flake, yet people on these boards speak of him as if he's a tennis god. I have seen him play, and I'd rather watch schalken than that jerk.(yes, watching schalken is like watching paint dry, see the connection???

02-27-2004, 08:39 AM
At least Rios made it to a GS final and won some Masters Series tournaments. He also made it to number one and I think won 8 or 9 tournaments in '98-not too shabby. Has Haas done any of this? Haas is spoken of as much as Rios on these boards without having done any of this stuff, and I like watching Haas.

02-27-2004, 09:41 AM
To quote the great Louie...
"If you have to ask, you wouldnt understand."

02-27-2004, 09:44 AM

Rios was a phenom. His attitude sucked but when the guy played and played his best he was almost unbeatable. He did underachieve when it came to winning slams. The guy was extremely talented and could play any style and on any surface. He was #1 in the world and won alot of tournaments. Too bad none were Grand Slams. A person just does not get to be #1 without having game. You want to talk about overhyped, Tommy Haas and a few others named are that. Maybe you just need to watch more tennis or learn more about tennis before you make any more ignorant posts.

Kevin Patrick
02-27-2004, 10:02 AM
Some of these posts are really funny. I know it's human nature to be part of the 'what have you done for me lately' mentality but the dissing Pete, praising Fed mantra is getting old.

1) Calling Pete "the greatest fastcourt player," as many tend to do is absurd. Nobody ever makes that distinction about McEnroe, Connors,Becker, or Edberg, they're just called great players. The speed of the US & Aussie Open varies year to year & Pete won a combined 7 of them. The US Open deliberately put more sand in the court in the earlier to mid nineties to prevent the "big servers" from taking over. Check out the results from '93 to '96, claycourt & baseline players did pretty well & 'big servers' suffered many upsets. But guess who won 3 of those 4 titles? this link has many player interviews from that tournment that confirm the slowing of the court: asapsports.com

2)Even if "70%" of the world plays on clay only one slam is played on it, and slams are ultimately how a player's greatness is judged,
& 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

3)I'm not so sure it is a foregone conclusion that Fed will have a good French Open career. He has won exactly 0 sets in his last two apperances at the French, when many were calling him one of the favorites to win it. In fact, at this point of his career, at age 22 Pete was as good if not better on clay than Fed is right now. Look it up. In '94 Pete was going for a non-calendar slam(4 in a row) at the French. Coming off an Italian Open win(the most prestigious claycourt event after the French), he seemed a good bet. But it didn't happen.

4)G14, where are you? You always have good stats on Pete.

02-28-2004, 08:38 AM
Am I confused, or didn't Fed-Ex have some very good results on clay in Davis Cup? Russia maybe, maybe elsewhere?

Also, since the court surfaces (and now balls) have changed so much over the years (even in small variables such as type, speed, etc.) it makes it hard to COUNT OR DISCOUNT a player's greatness based in majority on this one factor.

Also if we don't count slams, just tournaments, there seems to be just as many clay court tournaments for pro's worldwide as hard court. Is this true? Seems that way at least.

02-28-2004, 04:43 PM
I forgot where I read this but, I remember the stats for percentage of surface types being done.

Breakdown of surfaces:

Hardcourt - 50%
Claycourt- 33%
Rest - 17% (there was a further breakdown for this, but I don't remember)

02-28-2004, 09:00 PM
I voted Federer...It seems that he's over-talked about. You can't go through 2 (maybe 3) posts without reading some drool about him. Granted, he's an extremely talented player, but still...c'mon people, it's just a bit out of hand. Makes me happy to be "one of the only two who like Roddick", as @wright said <shrug>

02-28-2004, 09:14 PM
Hey...I like Roddick too. :)

02-28-2004, 09:15 PM
*realizes typo in poll*


02-28-2004, 09:57 PM
:lol: Not to nit-pick, but it's Tommy Haas, not Hass. :lol:

And I do appreciate that folks are differentiating between overhyping of a player elsewhere and overhyping here. Andy definitely is not overhyped here, given that Matt and I are the only ones who generally stick up for him, and we are in the vast minority. :lol:

If Rios had been in the poll, I would have voted for him. I think he is overhyped on this particular Board. He's not even mentioned on most of the other places I visit, at least not any more. :wink:

As for Roger, it's hard for me to say he's overhyped, because when he's playing his best, he's the best player out there on any surface, except perhaps clay. But he has good results there, too -- unlike Lleyton Hewitt. But I agree with Matt to the extent that I think he is over-revered, when his results don't even equal Hewitt's yet. After he gets past that, and then Courier's results, and Agassi's, we can start talking GOAT. :mrgreen:

He's likely to get past Hewitt, but all this GOAT talk does seem a bit premature at times. ;-) Henman beat him recently, and on today's Tour it's hard to stay at 100% throughout the year. Someone's going to get your "goat" so to speak along the way. Even Agassi said in his Inside Tennis interview that he didn't see another player winning a true Grand Slam. In fact, he said "I'd be shocked if that happened." I agree with him. :-)

But stranger things have happened. Let's see if Roger can do it this year.


02-28-2004, 10:59 PM
I agree Roger's results though good, is no way compare to Pete, or as susan said, even hewitt yet. But I guess people drool over him is because of those amazing tennis/performance he had showcased so far. It left deep impression and it's hard not to drool over tennis such as that. In that way, I don't think he is overhyped.

The way he crushed his terrible draw both in Houston master (look at his final vs Andre...) and AO is amazing. Not to mention Wimbledon 2003. I guess you just don't get to see performance like these all the time. Overhyped is something like Andy (not here of course) when he hasn't achieved anything (bf his fantastic hard court season last year), neither was there any outstanding tennis to talk about, and yet all we get is him being the next greatest tennis player, replacement of Pete and Andre etc etc etc...that is to me a very commercialised/typical overhyped.

02-28-2004, 11:41 PM
yee, I'm glad you agree that Andy hasn't been overhyped here, because he hasn't. And to the extent he's been overhyped elsewhere, which many of you think, he did finish 2003 as the year-end No. 1. I consider it hype fulfilled. Now, onward and upward. Everyone, including the American media, realizes that the future is not a one-horse race. Thank goodness. :D

02-29-2004, 12:50 AM
Ya, my overhyped opinion about Andy meant for before he became the no.1 and it was extremely frustrating to read/hear that for each tournament he entered into, especially coming from me who honestly has yet to find his tennis fascinating. Comparing that to the overhype here about Roger, I will say the situation here really is "minor"...I think Andy still does have quite a lot to prove to fullfill the hype that the media had pictured him as all these years though. Of course with all this "god given talent" praises showering on Roger, it will be the same for Roger

I'm glad finally the American media is realiaing that though, I think this is good thing not only just for the fans but also Andy himself.

03-03-2004, 11:53 AM
Moya is most overhyped on these boards thanks to the posts of PureCarolsOverdrive (or whatever his nickname is).

Matt H.
03-03-2004, 01:32 PM
well, Haas's record against all of the top guys isn't bad.

He's even with Federer (though his last match was right before shoulder injury) and Hewitt, and is 3-0 against Roddick.

as far as the question goes, Federer is the most talked about person on his board. It's like people are lined up around the block just to stroke this guys ****. :lol:

07-05-2009, 09:46 AM
well, Haas's record against all of the top guys isn't bad.

He's even with Federer (though his last match was right before shoulder injury) and Hewitt, and is 3-0 against Roddick.

as far as the question goes, Federer is the most talked about person on his board. It's like people are lined up around the block just to stroke this guys ****. :lol:

This is 2004 thread, people, did you see it??

07-17-2009, 11:31 AM
From that list Tommy haas. But don't blame him, he's had heaps of unfair injuries.

07-17-2009, 11:34 AM
What's up with digging up those old threads :neutral:

Commando Tennis Shorts
07-17-2009, 11:35 AM
I can't believe Nalbandian isn't on the list.

The most overrated players on the boards:

1) Nalbandian
2) Safin
3) Del Potro
4) Rios
5) Murray (not because he's not a great player, but because everyone thinks it's a foregone conclusion that he's going to win several Slams)

07-17-2009, 11:37 AM
Safin and Henin.

07-17-2009, 12:23 PM
Did you even see the thread date, you fools???

But incidentally, Roddick seems to be overrated right now, too.

Commando Tennis Shorts
07-17-2009, 12:31 PM
Did you even see the thread date, you fools???

But incidentally, Roddick seems to be overrated right now, too.

Not until now. I just assumed people weren't reviving 5 year old threads all over the place.

07-17-2009, 12:51 PM
To equinox: