the biggest overachiever of this new millenium

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by boss-man-boss, Nov 7, 2009.

?

the biggest overachiever

  1. Gaston Gaudio

    43.8%
  2. Thomas Johansson

    29.2%
  3. Ivo Karlovic

    14.6%
  4. James Blake

    12.5%
  1. boss-man-boss

    boss-man-boss Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    Thomas johanson - Not much game and managed to win a slam.......There are better players than him who haven't won a slam so yeah, why not.......also made the semi's at wimbledon

    Gaston Gaudio - Overachieved big time when he won the french. His grandslam doesn't really makes sense as all of his other results were pretty poor. Sort of like muster without the master series...

    Ivo Karlovic - Enough said.

    James Blake - got to #4 in the world with 3 slam quater finals with an inconsistent BH, bad decision making, no net game, no serve, and mentally goes walkabout........good career IMO

    so out of these 4 players - who overachieved the most out of what they had.....
     
  2. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    Johansson had alot more game than some people realize. He had a very big serve, an excellent backhand, a very good return of serve, a pretty good forehand, and he was very quick around the court. Yeah it was a surprise he won a slam. I always find it funny though when some people argue say Kafelnikov wasnt a weak 2 slam winner. Yet Johansson atleast has a Masters title and has been to the semis of Wimbledon, unlike Kafelnikov. Johansson also completely owns Kafelnikov head to head. If Johansson is one of the worst 1 slam winners, that only shows Kafelnikov is really one of the worst 2 slam winners ever. Anyway here is my list:

    Capriati- 3 slam titles, how the heck did she manage that. Just amazing she has more slams than Clijsters (soon to change likely), Mauresmo, and Pierce, and the same # as Davenport. Hard to believe. Only 14 career titles, and only 2 years ended ranked in the top 5.

    Kafelnikov- I already mentioned him. How on earth did this guy who couldnt even win a Masters title and couldnt beat any top player on a good surface for them in a slam (other than a crippled Agassi at the French once) ever win 2 slams.

    Shriver- really not much talent. Ground game awful, no athletic ability at all. Amazing she was top 4 or 5 in the World so long.

    Safina and Jankovic- some harp on them not winning a slam. Really it is amazing they did as well as they have done with their limited talents and abilities, and not even having a great mental game to go with that.

    Date- in her prime she was a top 10 player several years in a row. Fun to watch but way undersized and the most bizarre technique. Really made the most out of what she had, with her diminiutive stature and homemade looking strokes.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2009
  3. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    Out of the four, I'd go with Gaston Gaudio.

    I disagree about Thomas Johansson. He had game. He was sidelined by injury too often (not to mention the freaky hit-in-the-eye incident) to really be a consistent threat.

    Karlovic has worked on the rest of his game and has been a good late-bloomer.

    Blake's achieved to his potential, IMO.
     
  4. DownTheLine

    DownTheLine Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,406
    Blake has a decent serve.
     
  5. boss-man-boss

    boss-man-boss Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    yeah, and Karlovic has a great return.............sigh!
     
  6. sh@de

    sh@de Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,979
    I say Gaudio.
     
  7. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,540
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    Sigh back at you. Blake has a good serve. It's no Ljubicic, but it's a good, efficient serve.
     
  8. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    Roger Federer.
     
  9. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    I agree. Someone with the ability of a 6-8 slam winner somehow getting to 15 with likely more to come and being crowned by the GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions, vagarities of time, place, and chance, and to Roger's credit his ability to display an overachieving performance, all combined to make it happen.
     
  10. JeMar

    JeMar Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,698
    lol, too funny.

    That bolded part alone is priceless. I guess Pete's and Roger's greatness comes from their ability to overachieve day in and day out for years on end, rofl.

    [​IMG]

    Oh, and the word you're looking for is "vagaries." Don't try to use words above your paygrade. Are vagarities, like, unpredictable vulgarities?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2009
  11. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece

    For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game. It’s always good to see him play and win and we are going to see so much more of Federer in the future, he is going to win more grand slam tournaments.
    Bjorn Borg, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final[6]



    hhmmmmmmmmmm...who to believe??? grafselesfan or bjorn borg?
    that's a tough one...
     
  12. Bjorkman & Johnny Mac

    Bjorkman & Johnny Mac Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    127


    Roger is an exquisite talent for sure. The big quesgtion is just how easily and quickly he achieved so. Homogenized conditions, less big time threats to take him out and the will to want to take him out and make a name for themselves instead of rolling over frightened at the sight of him outside Nadal seems to be a big reason. His main rival, not his true contemporariy but a teenage Nadal five years younger still molding as player and still becoming a welll rounded player was Roger's only achilees. While what should be Roger's true contemporaries and rivals Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Blake, Safin etc were nothing but fodder in hingsight.


    And the scary thing out of all this is, Fed would have a calendar slam a few times over and around 20 slams right now if not for Nadal due to everyone else's inability. The game of tennis would be the laughing stock of the entire world for years if not for Nadal. Much like how golf has become a bit. No players around even remotely seemingly threats or competition
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2009
  13. Bjorkman & Johnny Mac

    Bjorkman & Johnny Mac Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    127
    Anyone who watched Kafelnikov, would know why he achieved 2 slams. He was a complete headcase and very streaky, but when he wanted to he could turn it on and play lights out tennis. He was very good. A very good clay court player.

    I dont think Yevgeny overachieved when you have seens guys like Gaudio, Johannson win slams too. They arent as good as Yevgeny
     
  14. cuddles26

    cuddles26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    Kafelnikov by far. Of the ones on the list Gaudio though.
     
  15. Serena ??? ?????
     
  16. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Why are you imitating Fedace? :lol:
     
  17. Bjorkman & Johnny Mac

    Bjorkman & Johnny Mac Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    127


    Even objective plain flat out stats and numbers are not 100 percent truly objective. Certain eras, depth of competition, competition in the top 10-20 rankings, homgenization or polarization of surfaces are not taken into account by the numbers either. One cannot objectively put one great over another IMO because quite frankly we wouldnt know how Roger would do in Laver, Borg, Sampras' Pancho's shoes and vice versa. You can objectively point out the best of an era sure, but trying to differentiate between greats from one era to another is much more difficult in proving the hands down GOAT. IMO. Whos to say Roger would have achieved more in an era with top heavy threats than early-late 00's. Federer defenders say you can prove Roger had any top heavy competition compared to a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras etc. I will ask.. Is Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Nalbandian, Safin better than an Edberg, Becker, Courier, Rosewall, Lendl Wilander etc? Anyone with any knowledge of the game would say thats a BIG NO!!! Other areas have produced more quality competition on certain surfaces it can be argued. More competition and better talented players on clay in the 80s and early 90s opposed today. More top heavy competition on faster grass surfaces in the 90s

    So whether people want to argue it or not.. There have been stronger and weaker eras in the game of tennis. There may be more depth today down to the botto 100-150 in the world.. Thats plausible. Has the era of the 00's generated the type of top heavy competition as the 60's-early 90s? Thats very debatable and we could debate until the end of the time especially considering how the game has changed so much. Conditions have been homogenized to the utmost degree whether it be from the style of play or to the surfaces. I would argue its easy for a player today to dominate the entire course of the season due to this as opposed to before when you had your surface specialists and there was quite an opposite distinction on the surfaces before as opposed today. You had indoor carpeting, rebound ace, slow clay, and lightning fast grass and hardcourt. Now you have maybe a faster clay, way slower high bouncing sodded wimbledon, not the same style of rebound ace at the AO, and an indoor carpet thats obsolete, and now differentiated style of play.

    THis makes declaring the Greatest to ever lace up the shoes even tougher to distinguish IMO. I think a player distinguish himself in the realm of his his/her own repsective era. But when you start comparing him to other greats and you take every considerable aspect into account as I have listed than thats entirely different story
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2009
  18. Michael Bluth

    Michael Bluth Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    Gaudio is my pick, though I loved his backhand. Honorable mention goes to Ferrer.

    I would say Kafelnikov, but he had most of his best results in the 90s.
     
  19. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Yeah you're right...the fact that players couldnt beat him had nothing to do with Roger.
    I have seen players employ all kinds of tactics but its NOT easy to beat Roger regardless of which effing era he's playing in.
    Its easy to be an armchair critic.
    I believe Roger was asked this once when he first started dominating and he said something like "I would advise them to pick up a racquet and play themselves."
    Its funny how you former-player lovers dimiss everyone by talking about their so called 'inability'.You should stick to former pro-player section.
     
  20. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Federer obviosly,he has the talent and mental tougness of a one slam wonder(if we're being generous)but has the luck of a GOAT(hence 15 slams and a career slam).
     
  21. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    OMG Zagor trolling. Impossible.
     
  22. vanity

    vanity Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    280
    Something you never do...:roll:
     
  23. Bjorkman & Johnny Mac

    Bjorkman & Johnny Mac Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    127
    Im not saying Roger doesnt deserve his accolades. Im just bringing up the fact that one player answered the challenge and the call. Fed is an all time great nonetheless and most likely would be in any era. Though id have to say how he would handle the wooden rackets dealing with ROsewall, Pancho or Laver
     
  24. Turning Pro

    Turning Pro Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,430
    If there were more Nadal's playing or even in his own peak era then Fed would be lucky to even have 5-8 slams. That just proves how great Nadal is to beat Federer on 3 different surfaces in 3 consecutive GS finals.
     
  25. srinrajesh

    srinrajesh Guest

    Gaudio among the ones mentioned in the list..
    Outside it is federer for sure.. probably should have ended up with 8-10 slams in his career that would still rank him very high among the greatest players ever
     
  26. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,409
    Andy Murray
     
  27. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Sure.Only the reality is Federer matches better against most other players except Nadal.
     
  28. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    It's a great feeling,I have to try it more often.
     
  29. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,689
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Federer has no place in this conversation or in this thread. It's laughable how much of a troll some are to even bring him up in this discussion.

    Cesc, we already know about you...:roll:

    GrafSelesTroll, I don't EVER want to hear you go on another one of your rants claiming I have no tennis knowledge. Anyone foolish enough to say Federer is an overachiever truly has zero tennis knowledge whatsoever. Or is just a rotten old troll. Or both.
     
  30. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,164
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Please make an option for Federer; I feel my opinion is being discriminated against.
     
  31. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,610
    the more i read your posts, the more you remind me of GameSampras :). I already noted it in another thread...

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4064408&postcount=94

    And here:

     
  32. T1000

    T1000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,328
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Rafa Nadal. Someone with the ability of 1-2 future titles somehow end up with 6 grand slams, with likely no more to come and being crowned as Clay GOAT by some. Amazing really. Situations with the competition level, playing conditions. vagarities of time, place and chance and to Rafa's credit, his ability to display an overacheiving perfoemance, all combined to make it happen
     
  33. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,689
    Location:
    VA Beach
    According to GrafSelesTroll the only underachiever in the history of tennis is Pete Sampras, who would have won 20+ slams if not for injury, thalasemmia minor, his coach passing away, Andre's drug use, and the fact that the French Open is played on something called 'clay', instead of grass and fast hardcourts, the only surfaces that matter.
     
  34. Matt H.

    Matt H. Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,279
    I think the term "overachiever" is being misused with the choices given by the original poster.

    To call someone an overachiever, i think it has to be the relation of their talent/potential and the body of work they accomplished overall.

    In the cases of Johansson and Gaudio, they simply went on a 2 week hot streak and capitalized on the draw and opportunities they were given. On a 1 tournament basis, it can happen to any pro.

    Johansson is a quality player. His 1st serve gets into the low 130's, so he has power. He doesn't have any vast weaknesses.

    Ivo Karlovic. He's 6'10" with the biggest serve ever due to the angle it comes down on. Everything else is subpar, and it shows with the fact he's made 1 quarterfinal, on grass. That's about right for him.



    To me, it's Lleyton Hewitt. It's not just about his 2 slams, it's the fact he was the #1 player in the world for 2 straight years. In terms of physical ability and talent, he is very low on the list. Sure, heart and determination count for something, but there is a long list of better players from 2001-2004 who should have manhandled him but didn't, except for Fed in '04. On rebound ace and clay he had no power or ability to create his own winners. He was not the best grass court player, yet somehow made it through in '02 when all the usual suspects on grass that year bombed out. On a fast hard court it's tough to believe that he was tops in his time as well. Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Pete....lot of good hard courters from early this decade.
     
  35. Michael Bluth

    Michael Bluth Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    Ah, forgot about Hewitt. Good choice.
     
  36. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,868
    Hewitt isn't an overachiever. He had/has weapons and was/is a very good player.

    Gaudio probably, but it's a tough one to call.
     
  37. LiveForever

    LiveForever Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    LOL! How Federer managed to enter this discussion is beyond me. One can argue that if Federer had managed to get his emotional instability taken care of earlier in his career, he would have started winning slams earlier.
     
  38. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,868
    Nope. Nalbandian/Henman and Hewitt all had Fed's number.
     
  39. LiveForever

    LiveForever Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    Yeah because Federer was prone to mental breakdown in matches. We all know what Federer did to Henman, Nalbandian, and Hewitt when he began to hit his prime. They all got blown of the court one by one.
     
  40. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    I agree. It's a wonder how he even gets the ball across the net when he serves. I blame the obviously weak era of tennis balls.
     
  41. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
  42. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    I'll say Gaudio. Very limited game outside of clay.

    Serve - below 50% of tour

    Forehand - Ranks around 60% o

    Backhand - Ranks about 90%

    Speed - Ranks around 85%

    Mental - Ranks below 60% of tour.
     
  43. volleynets

    volleynets Professional

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,226
    Location:
    CA
    He could have even more slams then he does. You do not know anything about tennis if you think he has the ability of 6-8 slams.

    Tell me, have you ever played tennis? Your perspective would change if you actually hit the ball and realized how Federer hits the ball when watching him live.

    There were a few points in the USO final that would have given him the match and in the AO final of 2009 when he was up 40-0 and 40-15 on Nadal's serve back to back that would have most likely given him a four set win.

    That said, he is one of the hardest players to beat on tour as he rarely loses to anyone not named Nadal and Murray.
     
  44. galain

    galain Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,004
    Johannson gets such little love on these boards and it always surprises me. I've watched him from a few meters away, and his was one of the most impressive players I've seen up close. I was always puzzled about the raptures Agassi drew until I saw him up close too, so perhaps it's a similar quality, but of the big names I've watched from courtside, Johansson comes very very close to the top of my list.

    He doesn't really fit into this millenium though. Neither does my first pick for overachiver - Conchita Martinez. That she managed to beat any top player, let alone Navratilova in a Wimby final, is a real testament to her.
     
  45. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    If he doesn't win 20+ slams, he would've underachieved.
     
  46. LiveForever

    LiveForever Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    6-8 slams? :shock:
     
  47. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    Andy Roddick is a bigger over achiever. Only one weapon and a sub top 100 ground game and he manages to win a slam.
     
  48. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    The usta gave roddick his only gs title. Its a bigger joke than gaudio's french or johansson's aussy.
     
  49. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,610
    lol :). he's been lurking around for sometime, maintaining a low profile. but old habits die hard, do they ?
     
  50. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,086
    Location:
    Toronto
    :neutral:I would pick gaston gaudio. Since he won it accidently>
     

Share This Page