Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by aphex, Mar 26, 2010.
I'm going with nadal.
Nadal is too much of a "natural" to call him an overachiever IMO.
Although in my opinion, what one achieves is what one earns.
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 ass to get where he got. That's overachievement in my book
The guy lost 11 slam finals, hardly an overachiever!
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.
nadal is extremely talented.
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.
This was my first thought when I read the thread title.
Yeap, no talent in strokes or serve or power, but wonderful mind and thinking.
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.
Exactelly....there is no such thing as overachievers in my book....
Kind of what I was getting at, maybe a little too subtle though...
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.
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.
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.
I'm going with Federer.
I think you forgot to mention that the guy is a very good service returner.
How the heck is Hewitt an overachiever? He'd probably have 7 slams by now if it wasn't for Federer.
brad gilbert..... fabrice santoro
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...
Kafelnikov and Capriati
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.
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.
The above quote has got to be sarcasm.
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.
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).
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
I think just as talented if not more. Hewitt has two slams compared to those you listed who have none.
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...
Lleyton Hewitt. For a guy of his abilities to win 2 Masters shields, 2 Year End Championships and 2 Grand Slams is pretty remarkable.
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.
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...
How is Hewitt more talented than these guys ??? Mentally for sure but thats it.
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
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
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
Here are my choices:
Aranxta Sanchez Vicario
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.
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.
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.
Monica Seles overachieved?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.