Most overrated player in the Open Era

Most overrated player in the Open Era

  • Nadal

    Votes: 19 15.4%

  • Safin

    Votes: 19 15.4%

  • Nalbandian

    Votes: 22 17.9%

  • Sabatini

    Votes: 4 3.3%

  • Kuznetsova

    Votes: 6 4.9%

  • Seles

    Votes: 8 6.5%

  • Agassi

    Votes: 7 5.7%

  • Zverev

    Votes: 22 17.9%

  • Capriati

    Votes: 3 2.4%

  • Sharapova

    Votes: 13 10.6%
  • Total voters
    123
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Who do you believe is the most overrated player in the Open Era. I have picked 5 womens and 5 men who seem like obvious candidates.

Women:

Sabatini
Sharapova
Seles
Capriati
Jaeger

Men:

Nadal- a controversial pick maybe, but people forget how ridiculously clay heavy his record is when evaluating his greatness
Safin
Agassi- not really now, but the hype machine during many stages of his career being so out of control
Nalbandian
Zverev

My vote went to Nadal. It is crazy some have him 2nd best of the Open Era when Borg, Sampras, Djokovic are better than him on every single surface except for clay.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
frodobaggins said:
Who do you believe is the most overrated player in the Open Era. I have picked 5 womens and 5 men who seem like obvious candidates.

Women:

Sabatini
Sharapova
Seles
Capriati
Jaeger

Men:

Nadal- a controversial pick maybe, but people forget how ridiculously clay heavy his record is when evaluating his greatness
Safin
Agassi- not really now, but the hype machine during many stages of his career being so out of control
Nalbandian
Zverev

My vote went to Nadal. It is crazy some have him 2nd best of the Open Era when Borg, Sampras, Djokovic are better than him on every single surface except for clay.
Click to expand...
This better on X out of y surfaces is not really a good argument because it completely ignores that Nadal has dominated one surface more than anybody else in history and implies that this counts for nothing. According to this logic, a guy with 1-0-1-1 would be better than a guy with 0-11-0-0. Thing is Nadal is way more dominant on clay than Novak and Roger on hard and grass and while they could never really conquer him there he beat them in their favourite surfaces. In the end Rating him as No.2 is not completely wrong (I don’t though as slam count cannot apply to previous eras), as he is No 2 in the statistic which unfortunately is the be all end all for most GOAT debates today.
 
T

thrust

Legend
frodobaggins said:
Who do you believe is the most overrated player in the Open Era. I have picked 5 womens and 5 men who seem like obvious candidates.

Women:

Sabatini
Sharapova
Seles
Capriati
Jaeger

Men:

Nadal- a controversial pick maybe, but people forget how ridiculously clay heavy his record is when evaluating his greatness
Safin
Agassi- not really now, but the hype machine during many stages of his career being so out of control
Nalbandian
Zverev

My vote went to Nadal. It is crazy some have him 2nd best of the Open Era when Borg, Sampras, Djokovic are better than him on every single surface except for clay.
Click to expand...
Nalbandian, yes.
Seles? No way, she won nine slams, beat Graf in 3 of 4 slam finals before the stabbing.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
Nadal really isn't all that overrated. Even excluding clay he has 6 slams (4 of which he beat one of Fedovic to win) and 8 additional finals (7 of which he lost to one of Fedovic). He's clearly above Borg on hard courts. He has longevity that's better than anyone except Federer, winning a slam title every year for 10 years straight and winning his first and most recent slam 13 years apart. He trails in the number 1 department, but so does Borg (albeit that's skewed by the rankings problems of the 70s) and he still has 4 YE#1 so he's no slouch in that department.

On clay, he's significantly more dominant than anyone else on any other surface. You can't just discount clay, given that it makes up nearly a third of the whole tour.

He is overrated by some for sure, but he deserves to be considered at least top 5 open era and probably second by my reckoning
 
Last edited:
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
BorgTheGOAT said:
This better on X out of y surfaces is not really a good argument because it completely ignores that Nadal has dominated one surface more than anybody else in history and implies that this counts for nothing. According to this logic, a guy with 1-0-1-1 would be better than a guy with 0-11-0-0. Thing is Nadal is way more dominant on clay than Novak and Roger on hard and grass and while they could never really conquer him there he beat them in their favourite surfaces. In the end Rating him as No.2 is not completely wrong (I don’t though as slam count cannot apply to previous eras), as he is No 2 in the statistic which unfortunately is the be all end all for most GOAT debates today.
Click to expand...

I get your logic but I guess I just value versatility and ability to play great across different surfaces highly. It is one reason Laver, Serena, Graf, and Federer are widely seen as the GOATs. Atleast Nadal isn't completely pathetic on a surface like Sampras on clay or Seles on grass (for greats standards) which is something else that is a big negative for me.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
thrust said:
Nalbandian, yes.
Seles? No way, she won nine slams, beat Graf in 3 of 4 slam finals before the stabbing.
Click to expand...

The stabbing has made Seles overrated. If I hear one more person crow how she was destined to be the sure GOAT if she weren't stabbed I will literally punch them. Had she not been stabbed she probably wouldn't be overrated, regardless how her career panned out.

Beating Graf 3 times in slams is good but an old Navratilova beat Graf more times than that (5) in slams, and even Sanchez did more often (4). Just remembered Seles has a 4th win over Graf in slams at the 99 Australian Open, but still there are 2 women with as many or more, 1 a non major great (Sanchez) and the other an old lady (Martina N). It is not some godly achievement. Particularly when 90-92 Graf was pretty crap for her standards anyway, isn't that the period Sabatini won most of her matches vs Graf, LOL! Was never a big fan of either Graf or Seles so I could be misremembering but that is what I seem to recall.
 
Last edited:
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Towny said:
Nadal really isn't all that overrated. Even excluding clay he has 6 slams (4 of which he beat one of Fedovic to win) and 8 additional finals (7 of which he lost to one of Fedovic). He's clearly above Borg on hard courts. He has longevity that's better than anyone except Federer, winning a slam title every year for 10 years straight and winning his first and most recent slam 10 years apart. He trails in the number 1 department, but so does Borg (albeit that's skewed by the rankings problems of the 70s) and he still has 4 YE#1 so he's no slouch in that department.

On clay, he's significantly more dominant than anyone else on any other surface. You can't just discount clay, given that it makes up nearly a third of the whole tour.

He is overrated by some for sure, but he deserves to be considered at least top 5 open era and probably second by my reckoning
Click to expand...

He is above Borg on hard courts in achievements, but actual ability? Not so sure. Nadal playing his best lost to a subpar Djokovic in the 2012 Australian Open final on his better hard court. Nadal's U.S Open draws to titles were all a joke. He never won Miami. Borg only got to play 4 hard court slams.

Yeah Nadal is a great player even outside of clay but having 2/3rds of your slams on one surface (except the days 3 of 4 majors were on grass which is a different thing) is pretty much unheard of. It isn't versatile enough compared to the other greats.
 
lud

lud

Hall of Fame
Safin,Rios,Nalbandian,Kyrgios

I still don't understand why are they considered more talented than many other ATG??

Just because they have elegant style of play,that don't make him more talented they are.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
frodobaggins said:
He is above Borg on hard courts in achievements, but actual ability? Not so sure. Nadal playing his best lost to a subpar Djokovic in the 2012 Australian Open final on his better hard court. Nadal's U.S Open draws to titles were all a joke. He never won Miami. Borg only got to play 4 hard court slams.

Yeah Nadal is a great player even outside of clay but having 2/3rds of your slams on one surface (except the days 3 of 4 majors were on grass which is a different thing) is pretty much unheard of. It isn't versatile enough compared to the other greats.
Click to expand...
It is not so clear to place Nadal over Borg on HC, for me they are actually pretty even. Playing two different HC slam tournaments over his career vs only playing four HC slams at all, makes it practically impossible for Borg to be equally achieved than Nadal. On the fast HC of the 78-81 US Open I really doubt Nadal would have beaten Connors or Mac even less so back to back. On the other hand I can perfectly imagine Borg beating 2010 or 2013 Djokovic in baseline battles on the slower HC.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
lud said:
Safin,Rios,Nalbandian,Kyrgios

I still don't understand why are they considered more talented than many other ATG??

Just because they have elegant style of play,that don't make him more talented they are.
Click to expand...
Very good choice. Out of those I would place Rios first. Safin at least won two slams and Nalbandian and Kyrgios at least have some wins against ATGs/GOAT candidates. Rios has literally nothing unless you count Agassi in 98 as a big scalp. Another fellow who gets constantly overrated here is Muster. Who ever came up with the idea to call him Nadal if the 90s must be completely deluded.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
frodobaggins said:
He is above Borg on hard courts in achievements, but actual ability? Not so sure. Nadal playing his best lost to a subpar Djokovic in the 2012 Australian Open final on his better hard court. Nadal's U.S Open draws to titles were all a joke. He never won Miami. Borg only got to play 4 hard court slams.
Click to expand...
I don't see any evidence of Borg being above Nadal. Nadal beat prime Fed to win his AO open as well as beating Djokovic twice at the US open. Sure neither were at their peak but it's still impressive. Borg couldn't get the job done against Connors and McEnroe. At the end of the day; Nadal has 4 hard court slams to Borg's 0. There's no reason to have Borg above him on hard court. Borg is, however, clearly better on grass.

frodobaggins said:
Yeah Nadal is a great player even outside of clay but having 2/3rds of your slams on one surface (except the days 3 of 4 majors were on grass which is a different thing) is pretty much unheard of. It isn't versatile enough compared to the other greats.
Click to expand...
The problem with this metric is that it penalises Nadal for doing well on clay. Had Nadal got 6 clay slams, his career would look more balanced, but would evidently be worse. He has 6 slams outside his best surface as well as a bunch of finals losses to the grass and hard court GOATs. Sampras has 7 slams outside his best surface, Borg and Djokovic both have 5. So it's not like those guys have done significantly better outside their best surface than Nadal. It's more that Nadal is just better at his best surface relatively speaking.
 
Last edited:
K

KG1965

Legend
I would like to point out that the alien would be clearly GOAT without injury, in front of everyone including Federer.

Rafa won 17 slam (17 !!! :eek::eek::eek:of which 3 USO, 2 Wimbly, 1 AO), 3 IW, 4 Canada, 1 Cincy and 1 Queen's.
I'm not suitable for defending the spanish because I'm not a fan of her, but I've never seen a player like that.
 
Last edited:
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Towny said:
I don't see any evidence got Borg being above Nadal. Nadal beat prime Fed to win his AO open as well as being Djokovic twice at the US open. Sure neither were at their peak but it's still impressive. Borg couldn't get the job done against Connors and McEnroe. At the end of the day; Nadal has 4 hard court slams to Borg's 0. There's no reason to have Borg above him on hard court. Borg is, however, clearly better on grass.
Click to expand...
As me and others have said Borg only played four HC slams in his entire career, so comparing achievements is rather pointless. Sure nadals wins against Federer and Djokovic are impressive but Borg straight setted Connors and fought Mac to a tough five setter. Peak Mac with home court advantage - which included death threats in Borgs direction - is an animal I would put on par with Federer at the Aussie and definitely over Djokovic at the US Open in 2010 and 2013.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
BorgTheGOAT said:
Peak Mac with home court advantage - which included death threats in Borgs direction - is an animal I would put on par with Federer at the Aussie and definitely over Djokovic at the US Open in 2010 and 2013.
Click to expand...
He is, but crucially Borg lost that tournament whereas Nadal successfully beat Federer. The sample size is very small for Borg but I see no reason to extrapolate that he's better than somebody who won as many US opens as Lendl, because he pushed Mac to 5 sets once.

He got straight setted in 78 (albeit affected by his blister), lost in the QF to Tanner in 79 and got beaten in 4 by McEnroe in 81, admittedly after straight setting Connors. So that leaves 1980, where he came through a couple of 5 setters to even make the final. He took Mac to 5 which is very impressive, but I don't think it beats actually beating Federer at the AO open as Nadal did.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
In answer to the OP, I would say that Nalbandian is pretty overrated. A fantastic talent with a high peak level but he doesn't live up to some the hype he receives. He made 1 slam final where he was beaten pretty easily by Hewitt. It's not as if he was blocked repeatedly by Federer either. Federer only beat him at 3 slams during his prime, one of which was RG.

His other major claims to fame are his TMC win over Fed in 05 and his back to back masters wins in 07. While the TMC win was impressive, Federer was recovering from injury. Nothing to take away from those crazy Madrid and Paris victories but at the end of the day, it's just 2 masters 1000 wins.

Nalbandian was a great player and one of the best to never win a slam. But he belongs firmly below the likes of Hewitt and Roddick of his own era IMO
 
TennisLBC

TennisLBC

Professional
I think it's hard to overrate multi-Slam winners. That said:

  • Safin had the tools to do more.
  • Sharapova is not overrated. Overhyped, yes; but give the devil her due. She has 5 Slams titles including a career Slam.
  • Sabatini was and still is a Goddess, so back off.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
BorgTheGOAT said:
Very good choice. Out of those I would place Rios first. Safin at least won two slams and Nalbandian and Kyrgios at least have some wins against ATGs/GOAT candidates. Rios has literally nothing unless you count Agassi in 98 as a big scalp. Another fellow who gets constantly overrated here is Muster. Who ever came up with the idea to call him Nadal if the 90s must be completely deluded.
Click to expand...

@Mustard will be happy to lock horns with you over that one. :cool:
 
Tshooter

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
BorgTheGOAT said:
...Peak Mac with home court advantage - which included death threats in Borgs direction...
Click to expand...

Portions of this thread are devolving into another GOAT discussion instead of the topic at hand which is how Rios wasn’t a very good tennis player but a small subset of TT thinks he was.

Incidentally I know from reading an article many years later that supposedly some nut phoned in a threat to Borg but I don’t know anyone at the time that heard this nor do I think Borg did. As far as a “home court advantage” for JMac. Fughetaboutit. Unless you find the crowd intentionally trying to rile up a player to be an advantage.
 
Last edited:
S

Sosuke Aizen

Rookie
BorgTheGOAT said:
As me and others have said Borg only played four HC slams in his entire career, so comparing achievements is rather pointless. Sure nadals wins against Federer and Djokovic are impressive but Borg straight setted Connors and fought Mac to a tough five setter. Peak Mac with home court advantage - which included death threats in Borgs direction - is an animal I would put on par with Federer at the Aussie and definitely over Djokovic at the US Open in 2010 and 2013.
Click to expand...

I'm flabbergasted how someone who lost is being said to be on the same level as those who won.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
TennisLBC said:
I think it's hard to overrate multi-Slam winners. That said:

  • Safin had the tools to do more.
  • Sharapova is not overrated. Overhyped, yes; but give the devil her due. She has 5 Slams titles including a career Slam.
  • Sabatini was and still is a Goddess, so back off.
Click to expand...

I agree Sharapova is more overhyped than overrated, but overhyped is still a form of overrated. Yes she had a good career, but she gets way more hype and praise than people like Henin, Venus, Hingis who all had better careers than her (I guess Hingis is debateable), and her non rivalry with Serena was hyped up for many years after it stopped being competitive. By say 2014 not so much anymore, but it should have ended a lot sooner than that. Even today bookies have her even odds are favored over someone like Kerber before each of their matches, despite that their last few matches make it clear Kerber is 90% likely to win, even if both are arguably now past their primes (well Maria inarguably past hers). I even bet 2000 on Kerber to win last time they played, easy money, just as easy as Angeliques 6-1, 6-3 win over the washed up Sharapova.

Safin could have done more, he certainly had talent enough he should have done a lot more and been better off than similar careers to Hewitt and Roddick, and yet he didnt, which is exactly why he is overrated. Somehow it is considered more impressive to waste talent and underachieve than being a multi slam winning overachiever like some of those who get constantly criticized like Wilander or Sanchez Vicario. Especialy by people who talk about how he is more talented than Federer just because he beat him in 1 match (a great match, but even so).

As for Sabatini, LOL! 3-15 slam semi final record, nuff said. I am sure 200 years from now that will still be the worst one in history. How can you make 18 slam semis and get only 1 slam title out of that. I can see saying she should get credit for reaching 18 slam semis, which I agree on, but that is still unbelievably pathetic in another sense.
 
Last edited:
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Mainad said:
Nadal is the only active player to win multiple Slams on all 3 surfaces so it's unfair to try to penalise him just because he is so dominant on one of them!
Click to expand...

I think what I find most disturbing about his record is at what should be his 2nd best surface- slow high bouncing hard courts, he has managed only 1 slam at the Australian Open. And was even lucky to win that one. So that suggests to me he overachieved and probably had a fair bit of luck to win 2 Wmbledons and especialy 3 U.S Opens when at his true 2nd best surface he could only manage 1 title thus far.

That plus there is a surface he seems to be absolutely pitiful on- carpet. Seeing how much he struggles on fairly tame slow indoor hard, just imagine him on a true carpet. Fortunately for him that surface barely exists today, but he does have an extremely weak surface, just not one that shows up in slam play.
 
B

BTURNER

Legend
frodobaggins said:
I agree Sharapova is more overhyped than overrated, but overhyped is still a form of overrated. Yes she had a good career, but she gets way more hype and praise than people like Henin, Venus, Hingis who all had better careers than her (I guess Hingis is debateable), and her non rivalry with Serena was hyped up for many years after it stopped being competitive. By say 2014 not so much anymore, but it should have ended a lot sooner than that. Even today bookies have her even odds are favored over someone like Kerber before each of their matches, despite that their last few matches make it clear Kerber is 90% likely to win, even if both are arguably now past their primes (well Maria inarguably past hers). I even bet 2000 on Kerber to win last time they played, easy money, just as easy as Angeliques 6-1, 6-3 win over the washed up Sharapova.

Safin could have done more, he certainly had talent enough he should have done a lot more and been better off than similar careers to Hewitt and Roddick, and yet he didnt, which is exactly why he is overrated. Somehow it is considered more impressive to waste talent and underachieve than being a multi slam winning overachiever like some of those who get constantly criticized like Wilander or Sanchez Vicario. Especialy by people who talk about how he is more talented than Federer just because he beat him in 1 match (a great match, but even so).

As for Sabatini, LOL! 3-15 slam semi final record, nuff said. I am sure 200 years from now that will still be the worst one in history. How can you make 18 slam semis and get only 1 slam title out of that. I can see saying she should get credit for reaching 18 slam semis, which I agree on, but that is still unbelievably pathetic in another sense.
Click to expand...
Sabatini was definitely overhyped, and I was as guilty as anyone else. I loved watching her play. She had all the shots and a very credible net game, and so many great wins, but they were never in the majors. She was one of those players who tended to worse the closer she got to a slam title. She sure would have done better had she successfully developed an offensive serve. Nobody needed one more than Gabby. She lost a lot of matches because she had to win every point the hard way, but lacked the stamina to do in three setters.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
BTURNER said:
Sabatini was definitely overhyped, and I was as guilty as anyone else. I loved watching her play. She had all the shots and a very credible net game, and so many great wins, but they were never in the majors. She was one of those players who tended to worse the closer she got to a slam title. She sure would have done better had she successfully developed an offensive serve.
Click to expand...

In fairness I do think she tried to work on and correct her serve, but most of the attempted changes just made it worse. Maybe she just wasnt talented in that particular crucial stroke for all her talent in other areas, or maybe she just never found the right person to fix it.
 
B

BTURNER

Legend
frodobaggins said:
In fairness I do think she tried to work on and correct her serve, but most of the attempted changes just made it worse. Maybe she just wasnt talented in that particular crucial stroke for all her talent in other areas, or maybe she just never found the right person to fix it.
Click to expand...
The other problem is that you have to be able to depend on cranking that first serve in on the big points, and those were the times she was most prone to founder in slams.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Sosuke Aizen said:
I'm flabbergasted how someone who lost is being said to be on the same level as those who won.
Click to expand...
can happen to be like that when the Poe Opel you won/lost to are of different strength. Example: loosing to Fed in a tough five setter > winning against Köllerer in a tough five setter. By the way Borg did win, he straight setted Connors.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Tshooter said:
Portions of this thread are devolving into another GOAT discussion instead of the topic at hand which is how Rios wasn’t a very good tennis player but a small subset of TT thinks he was.

Incidentally I know from reading an article many years later that supposedly some nut phoned in a threat to Borg but I don’t know anyone at the time that heard this nor do I think Borg did. As far as a “home court advantage” for JMac. Fughetaboutit. Unless you find the crowd intentionally trying to rile up a player to be an advantage.
Click to expand...
It is not that this never happened. US players are riled up at the US Open which helps them unless you don’t believe in home court advavtages at all. Example given: Connors 91 and Agassi 2005. I think Borg also stated once that he did not like the noise the night sessions and the crowd at New York.
 
S

Sosuke Aizen

Rookie
BorgTheGOAT said:
can happen to be like that when the Poe Opel you won/lost to are of different strength. Example: loosing to Fed in a tough five setter > winning against Köllerer in a tough five setter. By the way Borg did win, he straight setted Connors.
Click to expand...

Didnt win the tournament which is the main point. A great SF win followed by a loss doesnt hypothetically make someone better than a guy who won a whole damn tourney multiple times unless you just want to be biased for your faves.
 
T

thrust

Legend
BTURNER said:
Sabatini was definitely overhyped, and I was as guilty as anyone else. I loved watching her play. She had all the shots and a very credible net game, and so many great wins, but they were never in the majors. She was one of those players who tended to worse the closer she got to a slam title. She sure would have done better had she successfully developed an offensive serve. Nobody needed one more than Gabby. She lost a lot of matches because she had to win every point the hard way, but lacked the stamina to do in three setters.
Click to expand...
One of the saddest days of my tennis watching, was the Wimbledon final Gabriela lost to Graf. She had defeated Graf a few times that year, but choked that final, IMO.
 
T

thrust

Legend
BorgTheGOAT said:
It is not that this never happened. US players are riled up at the US Open which helps them unless you don’t believe in home court advavtages at all. Example given: Connors 91 and Agassi 2005. I think Borg also stated once that he did not like the noise the night sessions and the crowd at New York.
Click to expand...
Fact IS, Borg never won the USO, either on hard or clay courts in his prime years. NO excuses acceptable.
 
D

DMP

Professional
Actually the most overrated players are

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Williams

in fact every current player.

The most underrated are players from the past, from Sampras backwards.

There are a few reasons for that.
- every generation thinks that what it is watching is the best there has ever been
- tennis has become a niche sport and everyone associated with it has a vested interest in hyping what you see now as the best ever
- there is no-one writing in the general press who has a good historical perspective
- it was hard in the past to idolise players because there was none of the ubiquitous coverage we get nowadays. It is hard to idolise someone you see maybe once or twice a year.
- people who saw players in the past are obviously older and have the responsibilities that come with being older. They can't be bothered correcting every misconception about the past
- people rely on youtube video far,far, too much to judge players from the past
- understanding the history of tennis, especially the nuances of what was important, is hard work. Most people don't bother or can't be bothered. It is easier to say now is obviously better.

The players most underrated are those from the most distant past.

So there you have it - the most overrated players are Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
In the men's game, it would be Safin - considered an untouchable god by many.

Not sure who on the women's game, but why did you include Kuznetsova in the poll? She's severely underrated in fact.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Pheasant said:
Wait. Where's MuryGOAT? Now granted, he's universally accepted as the GOAT. But is it possible that he's also overrated, given the fact that everybody knows that he's the goat?
Click to expand...

Well, he is the GOAT, and everyone knows he is GOAT - so I'd say he's rated exactly as he should be.

:p
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Fact IS, Borg never won the USO, either on hard or clay courts in his prime years. NO excuses acceptable.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially excuses like "he didn't like the noise at the US Open". To Nadal's credit, he has managed to thrive in that atmosphere, whereas the supposed mental giant Borg crumbled just because a few Yanks cussed in his general direction.
 
R

ron schaap

Hall of Fame
frodobaggins said:
Who do you believe is the most overrated player in the Open Era. I have picked 5 womens and 5 men who seem like obvious candidates.

Women:

Sabatini
Sharapova
Seles
Capriati
Jaeger

Men:

Nadal- a controversial pick maybe, but people forget how ridiculously clay heavy his record is when evaluating his greatness
Safin
Agassi- not really now, but the hype machine during many stages of his career being so out of control
Nalbandian
Zverev

My vote went to Nadal. It is crazy some have him 2nd best of the Open Era when Borg, Sampras, Djokovic are better than him on every single surface except for clay.
Click to expand...
So how many times did Borg win the US open? lol And why did he end his career do ridiciously early?
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Phoenix1983 said:
In the men's game, it would be Safin - considered an untouchable god by many.

Not sure who on the women's game, but why did you include Kuznetsova in the poll? She's severely underrated in fact.
Click to expand...

I post on tennisforum and believe me there anyway Kuznetsova is insanely overrated.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Sosuke Aizen said:
Didnt win the tournament which is the main point. A great SF win followed by a loss doesnt hypothetically make someone better than a guy who won a whole damn tourney multiple times unless you just want to be biased for your faves.
Click to expand...
Well then we can stop arguing anything, just go to Wikipedia, look who won the tournament more often and end of discussion. In some cases it is worth taking the circumstances into context. Nadal is obviously more accomplished, but higher level in HC is the question here.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
DMP said:
Actually the most overrated players are

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Williams

in fact every current player.

The most underrated are players from the past, from Sampras backwards.

There are a few reasons for that.
- every generation thinks that what it is watching is the best there has ever been
- tennis has become a niche sport and everyone associated with it has a vested interest in hyping what you see now as the best ever
- there is no-one writing in the general press who has a good historical perspective
- it was hard in the past to idolise players because there was none of the ubiquitous coverage we get nowadays. It is hard to idolise someone you see maybe once or twice a year.
- people who saw players in the past are obviously older and have the responsibilities that come with being older. They can't be bothered correcting every misconception about the past
- people rely on youtube video far,far, too much to judge players from the past
- understanding the history of tennis, especially the nuances of what was important, is hard work. Most people don't bother or can't be bothered. It is easier to say now is obviously better.

The players most underrated are those from the most distant past.

So there you have it - the most overrated players are Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams.
Click to expand...
I agree with the content of your post and I agree on Serena.
Less on the Big 3 even if I understand that perhaps for a good part you're right.
 
T

thrust

Legend
DMP said:
Actually the most overrated players are

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Williams

in fact every current player.

The most underrated are players from the past, from Sampras backwards.

There are a few reasons for that.
- every generation thinks that what it is watching is the best there has ever been
- tennis has become a niche sport and everyone associated with it has a vested interest in hyping what you see now as the best ever
- there is no-one writing in the general press who has a good historical perspective
- it was hard in the past to idolise players because there was none of the ubiquitous coverage we get nowadays. It is hard to idolise someone you see maybe once or twice a year.
- people who saw players in the past are obviously older and have the responsibilities that come with being older. They can't be bothered correcting every misconception about the past
- people rely on youtube video far,far, too much to judge players from the past
- understanding the history of tennis, especially the nuances of what was important, is hard work. Most people don't bother or can't be bothered. It is easier to say now is obviously better.

The players most underrated are those from the most distant past.

So there you have it - the most overrated players are Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams.
Click to expand...
Either you are joking or extremely biased. No doubt the great players of the recent and distant past were probably as great as today's top three, but today's top 3 certainly are not overrated.
 
J

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Towny said:
He is, but crucially Borg lost that tournament whereas Nadal successfully beat Federer. The sample size is very small for Borg but I see no reason to extrapolate that he's better than somebody who won as many US opens as Lendl, because he pushed Mac to 5 sets once.

He got straight setted in 78 (albeit affected by his blister), lost in the QF to Tanner in 79 and got beaten in 4 by McEnroe in 81, admittedly after straight setting Connors. So that leaves 1980, where he came through a couple of 5 setters to even make the final. He took Mac to 5 which is very impressive, but I don't think it beats actually beating Federer at the AO open as Nadal did.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but one is hard pressed to paint Borg as over-rated. His best shot at the USO was during Connor's peak years when it was on clay... 75/76 and JC took him out both times. He was certainly unlucky. Much like Ivan Lendl at Wimbledon. But neither Borg or Lendl are over-rated...missing a GS trophy doesn't automatically earn that classification, IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kiki
top women´s in open era
Replies
15
Views
2K
halalula1234
halalula1234
B
Women: Open Era Career Win/ Loss Percentage
Replies
11
Views
2K
BTURNER
B
T
Top 10 forehands of Open Era
Replies
17
Views
2K
dannykl
D
T
  • Poll
Best female rebound ace player of Open Era
Replies
15
Views
2K
fedhingis515
fedhingis515
thalivest
Top 40 women players of the Open Era
Replies
30
Views
2K
thalivest
thalivest
Top