View Single Post
Old 12-07-2012, 01:14 PM   #1
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  Reply With Quote