Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Why do people think Mauresmo is an underachiever (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=447578)

NadalAgassi 12-07-2012 02:14 PM

Why do people think Mauresmo is an underachiever
 
Honestly I dont know why people think Mauresmo is an underachiever. For me 27 titles, the WTA Championships, and 2 slams are more than enough for her abilities. I wouldnt say she was an overachiever but not an underachiever either, she did about right. She was never going to be a dominant player in an era with the Williams, Clijsters, Henin, Davenport, and many others who were just better than her. Look at her records vs many of the top players, 2-11 vs Serena and her only time beating Serena in a slam was the 06 U.S Open when Serena was basically retired, in pathetic shape, and ranked in the 100s, and she still dished Mauresmo a bagel in her career year. She lost to Davenport something like 11 times in a row over a 6 year span. Her only good records are vs Henin where she barely trails, and Capriati.


The 2002 season where she played some of her best tennis is a true sign of the limitations of her abilities. At Wimbledon she played some of her best ever tennis, crushed Capriati, yet still got only 3 games off Serena in the semis. Then she played Venus on a day Venus was playing so badly Carillo claimed "it will be a somber and depressing win for Venus even if she wins" and Mauresmo was playing her best, and Mauresmo still lost, granted she was majorly screwed on some calls in the 3rd set and might have won otherwise, but that was still the final result. 2004 is another year that shows the limitations of her abilities. This was her best chance ever for a dominant year, even more than 2006. She had great chances to 2 or 3 slams, great chances at the French, Wimbledon, and U.S Open titles all. Yet she lost to freaking Dementieva at 2 of those of those slams which she might have otherwise won. She also allowed herself to lose the 04 Wimbledon final when she had Serena beat but played a loose game and wasnt mentally tough enough to come back from, and probably would have beaten Sharapova in the final.

Analzying her game? Her serve was a weapon but not up with Venus, Serena, Davenport, or pre shoulder Sharapova. Her forehand was weak for top player standards. Her return of serve wasnt great either. Her movement was very good but a level below Henin, Clijsters, Venus, Serena, and Dementieva. She was one of the best volleyers of a baseline oriented era with few quality net players left, Tracy Austin claimed a 50 year old Navratilova was still the best volleyer in womens tennis. Her backhand was great and beatiful to watch but had limitations as well. That isnt the game of a world beater who will win alot of slams.

The only thing is she probably should have more slams than Capriati who has 1 more and Kuznetsova who has the same number, but that doesnt mean she underachiever, just that those other two overachieved.

Phoenix1983 12-07-2012 02:17 PM

^ I agree Mauresmo did about right with her 2 slams, I was glad to see her win at the major events after years of being labelled the best not to win one.

She shouldn't have more slams than Capriati though - but having read a number of your posts I know you don't rate Capriati so I won't bother arguing this point...

Razoredge 12-07-2012 02:18 PM

Because she was a choker?

NadalAgassi 12-07-2012 02:18 PM

Mauresmo owned Capriati in head to head, was good enough to beat prime Henin in 2 slam finals which Capriati never would have been able to do, and won about twice the # of tournaments than Capriati. She was a better player than Capriati.

Phoenix1983 12-07-2012 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7051890)
Mauresmo owned Capriati in head to head, was good enough to beat prime Henin in 2 slam finals which Capriati never would have been able to do, and won about twice the # of tournaments than Capriati. She was a better player than Capriati.

Dude I told you I've read enough of your posts to know you give no credit to Capriati ever, so not going to bother to argue this point. But she is one of my favourite female players and I think thoroughly deserving of her 3 slams.

NadalAgassi 12-07-2012 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983 (Post 7051907)
Dude I told you I've read enough of your posts to know you give no credit to Capriati ever, so not going to bother to argue this point. But she is one of my favourite female players and I think thoroughly deserving of her 3 slams.

I am not discrediting her. She is a great player. Just not as good of one as Mauresmo for the reasons I stated.

Gizo 12-07-2012 04:41 PM

In women's tennis out of all the elite multi-slam champions from the 00s, Mauresmo was by far my favourite player. I think that she had the most variety in her game and was the most fun to watch.

However I agree that she was not on the same level as Serena, Henin, Venus or even Clijsters or Davenport. The 2-3 grand slam title bracket was about right for her.

The one area where I definitely think she did underachieve though was her RG record. It was ridiculous how she let the pressure of playing in front of her home crowd affect her so much. She failed to reach the semi-finals there in 16 attempts, despite winning 2 Berlin titles, 2 Rome titles, a Warsaw title and an Amelia Island title on clay. In 2001 and 2004 especially there was a lot of pressure on her to win the RG title, following her stellar results in the lead-up tournaments, but she lost to Jana Kandarr in the 1st round in 2001 and in the quarters to Dementieva in 2004.

Players like Federer, Henin and Kuerten probably had the best deal with the RG crowd. They are/were hugely popular there and almost had the same level of support as the home French players did, without the burden of the national pressure/expectation or fear of letting the demanding home fans down.

NadalAgassi 12-07-2012 10:02 PM

Gizo, do you agree though 2004 was her best chance for a career year. I think she had a good shot at 2 or 3 majors that year and blew it. Apart from 2004 and 2006 where she did actually win 2 majors, I cant think of any other year she had a real shot at winning any majors though. Then again 2004 was one of the most wide open years in womens tennis history, there are about 9 players who had a great shot at winning atleast 2 of the years 6 majors events, not even including Clijsters (missed almost all the year) or Venus (not a real contender outside of maybe RG ironically that year). I wouldnt say weak like today since atleast it was alot of either legendary, great, semi great, or very good players playing well at once, just nobody seperating themselves.

Gizo 12-08-2012 01:34 AM

I agree that 2004 was a very frustrating year for Amelie, and a massively wasted opportunity.

At the Australian Open she had to withdraw from the tournament due to a back injury, ahead of QF against Fabiola Zuluaga. She was projected to meet Henin in the semis. Henin would have been the favourite to beat her, and it's very unlikely that she could have overcome both Henin and Clijsters to win that title at that stage in her career. Still it would have been an interesting match to watch.

Ahead of RG she had beaten Henin at Amelia Island, and then won the Berlin-Rome double (I think the only two other players to achieve that were Graf in 1987 and Seles in 1990). With Henin's viral infection, that was a great opportunity for her to win her home major. However she was killed in the quarters by Dementieva who was not exactly an amazing clay court player. Dementieva-Suarez-Myskina was as straight forward a route to a RG title that a player could have hoped for at that time (clay was actually Myskina's worst surface as well), but Amelie blew it big time.

In her Wimbledon semi she had a subpar Serena on the ropes but couldn't finish her off, and at the Olympics in Athens she faced an incredibly tired Henin for the gold medal, but was completely destroyed in the final.

Then in the US Open quarters, I think that Dementieva was struggling with a thigh injury, but Amelie was pathetic in their final set tiebreak. She took the world no. 1 ranking for the first time in her career after that tournament as well, but it felt so anti-climatic.

She had a strong indoor season with 2 titles, another final and victories over Venus and Sharapova, and came into the YEC in very good form. She won all 3 of her matches in her RR group, but then frustratingly narrowly lost to Serena in a high quality semi-final (a much better match than their Wimbledon semi earlier that year).

So disappointment all around for Amelie at the 6 big events that year. RG and the US Open in particular were big opportunities for grand slam titles that she couldn't capitalise on.

Sabratha 12-08-2012 04:12 PM

I think she's an underachiever for sure.

fluffyyelloballz 12-16-2012 01:59 AM

Did she change her game in the early 00s from a power hitting back court player,the one that took her to the 99 Melbourne final, to one with more variety?
If so, would she have achieved more with her original game?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse