Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by @wright, Mar 5, 2004.
Still, 6-5 H2H vs Nadal.
Hands of stone and so lucky you just can't teach size.
I have give it to David Ferrer! This guy is only 5' 8-9" and been top 10 for 5 or more years straight!
Another is Dudi Sela!
Former Grand Slam Champion Justine Henin was only 5' 4-5" and she took on Venus and Serena back to back matches and won! This was when Venus was at her prime and number 2-3 in the world! Tough as they come, Justine!
5-4 H2H with Novak though.
Also beat him on Plexi when he was the defending champ.
Look, obviously Davydenko was phenomenal. What do you want to do, somehow find a pro tennis player who had success while somehow possessing no skills??? My point is that for a guy who was short, skinny, and not particularly graceful, Nikolai carved out an amazing career.
Federer is the biggest underachiever in tennis history. He should have won 22 slams by now.
Topic title says CURRENT biggest overachiever. Names like Henman and Roddick and Hewitt should no longer be mentioned.
Ferrer - No serve, No overly dominant FH or BH, No trademark shot, Decent returner and very quick = Dominated everyone outside of Big 4 for years
Isner - Made top 10 with his serve alone. Take that away and he wouldnt have 10 titles or be anywhere near the top 10.
Oh come on Fed wouldn't have won more GS titles than Becker and Edberg in a strong era.
I don't believe in overachievers or underachievers. You achieve results by doing things well, or at least better than your opponents. You don't achieve results when you're not doing things well or better than your opponents. Unless you always lose set- and matchpoints through lucky netcords, apparently you were not mentally strong enough to close it out. Likewise, if you win while your opponent is playing better overall, it means you were better at winning the big points, which is was matters, not how many points you lose on your serve compared to your opponent. You could argue that potential plays a role, but then again, what does it matter how much talent people claim you have if you don't have the goods or work ethic to make it count? Or if people say you don't have a lot of talent, but apparently do have the talent to work hard and achieve everything you possibly could with what you have? Like Ferrer, for example.
So no, there is no current biggest overachiever, or underachiever for that matter. Not in my view.
Cilic , Raonic
I think it's hilarious to see Hewitt and overachiever in the same sentence. The guy had the game to win 3-4 slams. Was also a better player than Chang.
His return, backhand, lobs and court coverage can all be considered weapons.
Chang was actually a lot smaller than Hewitt (5'7" or so) but I still don't feel he was an overachiever. The guy should have won 2-3 slams IMO.
I think someone like Ferrer should get a mention. Guy leaves his guts out on the court and never gives up. At one point he felt he was the least talented player in the top 100, yet he's won a Masters, made a slam final + achieved No. 3 in the world at one point.
Jesus christ, people are arguing against the notion that Roddick is an overachiever.. by saying that he's won too many titles to be an overachiever. How do these people even function in society if that's the way their brains work
Oh come on, Davydenko had unbelievably sound groundstrokes. You almost never see players hit as cleanly as him. I'm surprised he never made a GS final.
Usually when people say someone is an overachiever, they refer to guys with less (perceived) talent who rely on hard work to compensate. 'Talent' and 'stature' are not really the same thing, (otherwise I could argue that Karlovic is one of the most talented players of all time). With that in mind, why do you keep bringing short players up? Do you think that because a player is short, they are automatically less talented than other players - thus making them overachievers when they actually win?
No such thing like overachiever, the hard work and the current form is important.
Even one slam wonder don't belong to this category as they were good enough to win that one slam for 14 days.
I agree for the biggest part. I think that the term underachiever is mostly used for very talented but lazy players, who don't fulfill their potential. But honestly, barely anyone fits this category since they all work very hard on tour. Overachiever is an even worse term. You're basically saying that someone achieved great results through hard work and determination.. but somehow wasn't "supposed" to have that succes. Very vague and arbitrary.
Lleyton Hewitt has not retired yet he is still in the doubles draw, so my pick has to be him.
Once Hewitt retires, then probably David Ferrer is the right answer.
Hewitt is an underachiever.
Ferrer would be your answer right now anyway.
No I get you, I just disagree. Davydenko, with serves taken out of the equation, was every bit as good as Murray if not better (and Murrays serve isn't even that good). For somebody so good he was unlucky to not reach a slam final.
While Davy was a fine player I wouldn't say it is that simple. Murray has far more variety, much better volleys, along with a much bigger first serve. Davydenko in just basic groundstroking is just as good, and returns nearly as well.
Yeps , still can understand about underachiever term, like Safin might have won 1or 2 slams if he was fully committed, but how come anybody be a overachiever, it's not like a child was born to millionaire so he got it easy in life.
In tennis you always start from zero and a little blip , you may end up loosing the match. Best example will be Fed , in 2006 he was in tremendous form but still nearly loss the match to 1000 rank player in Japan .
Hewitt dominated the tennis in 2001 and 2002, so he can't be an overachiever, since he was the best of his era for almost 2 years.
To be an overachiever, you have to achieve more than you can, but not being the best.
You can say Ferrer, or any big server that are overachievers, because if you take the main weapon out of their game, they would be out of top 100 ATP.
Hewitt had the best return game when he was at the peak of his game, (Agassi one of the best returner of all time) was still playing at high level).
He simply destroyed Sampras in the 2001 US Open final with his return and passing shots.
An all around player can never be an over achiever once he dominated tennis for at least one year.
You can say that he achieved more than Ferrero for example, who also was dominant in 2002-2003, but only on clay excepting that run in US Open 2003.
If Roddick would have played against Hewitt or Federer in that final, he would be left without any grand slam trophy.
Another overachiever would be Thomas Johansson, that had at Aussie Open 2001 one chance - one win, over the bigest underachiever of all time, Marat Safin, one of my favourite player of all time.
Gaudio beats anyone hands down, no one comes close to his lack of tennis passion and yet win Roland Garros vs a pathetically choking Coria
Indeed...Wawrinka and Gaudio are good examples.
I remember in 2004 seeing Wawrinka in Davis Cup being destroyed by Hanescu, that was also weak.
The transformation he had under Magnus Norman is amazing, yet he is still inconsistent.
Actually any player that won one grand slam tournament, without reaching at least another final, would be overachieving.
It depends. If the guy had injury problems which prevented him from reaching a final, yes.
If the guy was perfectly healthy, it is called overachieving.
My bad...I meant over, not under
An overachiever is someone who does not possess the skills/tools/mentality but managed to have some success due to weak era/scheduling/luck.
None of the people mentioned - Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrer, Davy, Stan - are remotely close to fitting this definition. In fact rather the opposite. Put any of these in a slightly different period/opponents and they have vastly different results.
Djokovic winning 3 Wimbledons & Nadal winning 2 of them...
Would never have happend in 90s
You talking about that retirement win ?
Djokovic would probably win even more back in the 90s. With No Nadal around he would have won 5 or 6 French Opens.
Noone is an overachiever. Simple.
Ferrer and Davydenko wouldn't do better in any other era. Ferrer is a poor mans Chang and Davydenko a poor mans Kafelnikov.
Stan is inconsistent, so it is unlikely he would have more than 2 majors in any era. Hewitt had a relatively short prime. Roddick's return of serve would kill him in faster era conditions, so he wouldn't do better than 1 or 2 majors in any era most likely.
I agree most of those aren't overachievers either. The only one who really is would be Ferrer.
Good call on Roddick. Return to us please.
Why is Davydenko a poor man's Kafelnikov? He had a clearly better forehand and moved about 5 times better, and their backhands were both world class. Kafelnikov had a better serve, but Davydenko's return was incredible. Kafelnikov did win 2 slams, but in terms of actual playing level Davydenko was at the same level IMO.
You think Davydenko is better than Kafelnikov? I would have to strongly disagree but to each their own. Who do you think would lead a head to head between the two in their primes?
Davydenko had enough game to win Masters, but just not enough game to win a slam which Kafelnikov as inconsistent as he was did.
I think they were around the same level, it would be hard to say who would have the edge. I just think Kafelnikov's forehand (based on the matches I've seen of him) was a flawed shot, which would be tough against a guy as solid, aggressive, and speedy as Davydenko. Both are great players though for sure. Davydenko made 6 slam semifinals, losing to peak Federer in 4 of them, a doper in one, and Nadal in the other (on clay). I really don't see Kafelnikov winning any of those slams.
Chris Guccione from Australia. Hyped as being a potential Wimbledon winner on the back of his massive serves,good volleys and overhead.
Trouble was his groundies were like amateur division 4-5 level.
Don't you have to achieve something in order to be considered an overachiever?
He leads Nadal by +1 in h2h. That puts his skills on par with Davydenko and Djokovic!
Chris achieved fame from all the hype.
I watched him once in a 1st round Wimbledon singles match and literally he missed every makeable ground stroke.
I think you are wrong about Safin. He did not underachieve. He won 2 slams in completely different era's, had a career threatening injury in 2003 and got injured after AO 05 and his career was cut short. By that time he lost the mental and physical battle with tennis. He's beaten three generations of the great champions in the slams - Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Djokovic. The only playe he never got to play in the slams was Nadal - who's rise coincided with Safin's decline (2005).
If Safin was fully fit from 00-09 and only won 2 slams, then it would have been a disappointment. But 2 slams, 5 MS titles, 2 DC's and some incredible victories against the best on the biggest stages in tennis is nothing to sniff at.
Roddick was not an "overachiever". He lost 4 grand slam finals to the GOAT. If not for that, he'd have won 5 majors to go along with 7 masters titles, and a much longer stint at the number one ranking. Despite his nemesis, he was a mainstay in the top ten for a decade. That type of longevity near the top is hardly the hallmark of an overachiever.
Lleyton Hewitt was an overachiever. He was number one in the world for 80 weeks, despite only having won 2 majors. But he didn't stay in the top echelon of the rankings for nearly as long, though he had a longer career than Roddick. Due to his stature, he had a limited serve, limited weapons, limited power, and a very basic ground game based solely on endurance and consistency. Once the more powerful, athletic, or talented players started coming back into the game, he never really had an opportunity to win a major again.
I would say that both Roddick and Hewitt were able to maximize their potential. Roddick achieved what he was capable of, while Hewitt benefitted from coming up at the right time. Marat Safin was probably the biggest underachiever given his level of talent. His career should have eclipsed both Roddick and Hewitt, but it didn't because he was a head case. Both Roddick and Hewitt were superior fighters and superior competitors overall compared to Safin, despite Safin being arguably more talented.
Sampras had more than just serve and FH.. He was one of the great volleyers ever, one of the fastest players ever, one of the best athletes ever, one of the quickest players ever
Roddick was a slow sluggish club footed penguin
No, Hewitt was an underachiever. He was No. 1 for 2 years and he only won 2 majors in that time period but he was also only a 20-21 year old kid at the time. He should have won more but injuries/surgeries prevented him from doing so.
His 'stature' is close to Fernando Gonzalez (height wise). His first serve actually had quite a bit of power behind it despite being inconsistent. His backhand, lobs, court coverage and overall variety are considered weapons. He was a better player than you're painting him out to be. He also didn't rely 'soley' on endurance and consistency he wanted to play that way, AKA it was his bread and butter. Don't pretend he wasn't capable of smacking balls down the line or taking it to opponents power wise. If you say this it will become obvious you've never watched prime Hewitt.
And no. Once Hewitt had 2 surgeries during 2005, he was done at the top. That had nothing to do with Nadal/Stretch rising to the top. In fact, he nearly beat both after his own prime (Nadal on CLAY for Christ sake) and Stretch on grass.
Hewitt was more than a cut above Roddick peak for peak too, given he lead him 6-2 in the H2H (only relinquishing the lead due to injuries). If Hewitt was an overachiever, Roddick was an even bigger one.
Roddick benefited from coming up at the right time, actually. Hewitt was battling prime Sampras/Agassi/Kuerten/Safin meanwhile Roddick was battling it out with Nalbandian and Juan Carlos Ferrero. And don't come back and say 'but Fed'. Hewitt was taken to the woodshed about as much if not MORE than Roddick. Even 90's Clay has admitted Hewitt was probably capable of 4-5 slams. Can't say the same about Roddick.
These guys saying Sampras was an overachiever don't know what they are talking about. He could have achieved even more but he was slow to get his act together after the 1990 USO. He also choked against Edberg, which was an extra potential slam.
He also tanked RG after 96. Then again even had he made a full effort he probably never quite wins it, and he might win less Wimbledons now, so maybe that isn't a good example.
Separate names with a comma.