Safin, THE MOST overrated player EVER!

[Achilles82]

Originally Posted by Breaker

and hasn't even come close to being competitive in a slam final

Yet....

Originally Posted by Breaker

Third, the time period between 2000-2005 was absolutely full of talent. Sampras was at about the period in his career where Federer has been for the last year (you yourself said he's still a 'number 1 calibre player'), Agassi was playing at a consistently high level, Hewitt was a clear number 1, and clay had a lot more specialists than just Nadal.

Sampras was at his late 20s, and early 30s in that time. It's was unmotivated worn out Sampras.

Agassi was good, but not "destroyable" like Roger, Nadal, Novak or Sampras at middle of 90s

Hewitt? Don't get me start on Hewitt... I can't believe he was No1 for 2 freakin' years. Do you realise Roger Federer right now as No3, has more points then Hewitt as No1 at end of 2002? Because of Hewitt I believe Murray would be No1.

On clay I agree...

[RedWeb]

The primary reason Safin is considered so wonderful on this forum is because he shagged so many foxes in his day. Since 1/2 of the posters on this board are lucky to get a date on Saturday night they are fanboys. Women love him because of his charm and good looks. Tennis talent and results wise he had a good career but nothing that even begins putting him in the upper strata of tennis history.

[benmarks1984]

Originally Posted by Achilles82

Yet....



Hewitt? Don't get me start on Hewitt... I can't believe he was No1 for 2 freakin' years. Do you realise Roger Federer right now as No3, has more points then Hewitt as No1 at end of 2002?

What carnt you believe about Hewitt being number 1 for 2 years?? In 2001 and 2002 Lleyton was by far the best and most consistent player. Agassi, Sampras, Safin, Federer, Nalbandian, Roddick, Kuerten, Ferrero, - all these guys were around in 2001 and 2002 but Hewitt won a slam in each year and the end of year masters and was the most consistent player throughout both years.

Your judging him on the way he plays today, but since 2006 he hasnt been able to go more than a few months without picking up an injury.

[adidasman]

Originally Posted by Achilles82

Ok, enough is enough. I see all the time on this forum people talking about how talented, and how great player Safin is. "Is Safin more talented then Federer, Is Safin better then Djokovic, Safin is this, Safin is that" ENOUGH ALLREADY!

Fist of all, I LIKE Safin. He was a good player, I respect him. But don't talk about him as like he was one of the greatest EVER. Safin is not in top 15 of all time.


Safin won 2 grand slams, 5 masters titles, and on most of masters didn't even reach QF. On 41 grand slams he played, only 9 times he passed 4th round!
Yes, he beat RF in AO 2005, BIG WHOOP, so on that 1 great win, you consider him as one of the greatest of all time? And he was No1 for only a couple of weeks. Since 2006 he couldn't stay in top 20! I mean he was 26, that's supposed to be best age for a tennis player. And he couldn't be even in top freakin' 20! Are you kidding me?


Stop comparing him with Roger, Novak, Nadal, even Murray. They are all at least 5 times better players then Safin. If Murray played between 2000 and 2005, he would've won like at least 5 grand slams, and be No1 for long period of time.


Players greater then Safin in tennis history (in no particular order):

1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Djokovic
4.Murray
6.Sampras
7.Agassi
8.Lendl
9.Bjorn
10.McEnroe
11.Wilander
12.Courier
13.Edberg
14.Connors
15.Roddick
16.Becker
17.Vilas
18.Nastase
19.Ashe
...

Wilander, Nastase, Courier, Ashe - ASHE! - Vilas, Edberg, Murray - MURRAY!!! - Roddick - RODDICK??!!?? - and no Laver, no Rosewall, no Newcombe? Your list is a joke.

[Achilles82]

Originally Posted by benmarks1984

What carnt you believe about Hewitt being number 1 for 2 years?? In 2001 and 2002 Lleyton was by far the best and most consistent player. Agassi, Sampras, Safin, Federer, Nalbandian, Roddick, Kuerten, Ferrero,

Agassi - Good player, but he was in his 30s, he wasn't "best Agassi", he was just "average very good Agassi".

Safin - Like I said, the most overrated player ever

Federer - Are you serious? In that time, Roger won like 2 ATP titles. Roger Federer we know today was about to come 2 years after that.

Roddick - He has top 5 talent, generaly is top 10 player, but not in Roger, Nadal, Djokovic class. Not even close.

Kuerten - He was good, but he was clay court specialist. For rest of the surfice, he was just "good".

Ferrero - Same as Guga, only not as good.


Just have 1 thing in mind. I always repeat this. Hewitt had less points as No1, then Roger Federer as No3 right now, or Novak as No3 for last couple of years.

Nadal right now holds 2 grand slams, 1 grand slam final, 1 masters title, 2 500 series titles, 4 masters finals, and he is still not No1. With Hewitt results today, he'd be No4

Originally Posted by benmarks1984

Your judging him on the way he plays today, but since 2006 he hasn't been able to go more than a few months without picking up an injury.

About his injuries, I'll give him some slack, but listen, del potro took 1 year completley off, and he came back in top 20, it's just a matter of time when he's going to be top 10 again.

[Achilles82]

Originally Posted by adidasman

Wilander, Nastase, Courier, Ashe - ASHE! -

Absolutley, won more slams, more titles in general.

Originally Posted by adidasman

Vilas, Edberg, Murray - MURRAY!!!

I'll just copy my post about Andy, cuz I don't wanna repeat myself.

"Remember I've said in grand slams Safin passed 4th round only 9 times from 41 played tournaments? Well, Andy dd that from 23 appearances. He didn't win grand slam YET, but he is only 24, and will win I guarantee it.

Safin played 87 times masters tournaments, and reached QF or above 16 times. Which is really not that impressive. He won 5 masters tournaments, which is good, but...

Andy played 49 masters so far, and passed QF 21 times. He won 6 masters, and I repeat, he is ONLY 24. Has at least 3 more years to play at TOP level.

Andys only problem is he is playing in time where you have 3 No1 players. If Andy played 10 years ago, he would be No1 easily."

Ok maybe not easily, but would be No1.

Originally Posted by adidasman

- Roddick - RODDICK??!!??

That's right. Was more consistent then Safin. Safin passed 4th round in slams only 9 times dude! That's almost embarrassing for former No1 player! Roddick did that 18 times, and has also won a slam.

Roddick is more consistent player, and to me that's what makes an excellent player.

Originally Posted by adidasman

- and no Laver, no Rosewall, no Newcombe? Your list is a joke.

I've put 3 dots at the end, meaning there is more players, I just didn't wanna count them anymore.

[gunnd5000]

Originally Posted by Achilles82

Absolutley, won more slams, more titles in general.



I'll just copy my post about Andy, cuz I don't wanna repeat myself.

"Remember I've said in grand slams Safin passed 4th round only 9 times from 41 played tournaments? Well, Andy dd that from 23 appearances. He didn't win grand slam YET, but he is only 24, and will win I guarantee it.

Safin played 87 times masters tournaments, and reached QF or above 16 times. Which is really not that impressive. He won 5 masters tournaments, which is good, but...

Andy played 49 masters so far, and passed QF 21 times. He won 6 masters, and I repeat, he is ONLY 24. Has at least 3 more years to play at TOP level.

Andys only problem is he is playing in time where you have 3 No1 players. If Andy played 10 years ago, he would be No1 easily."

Ok maybe not easily, but would be No1.



That's right. Was more consistent then Safin. Safin passed 4th round in slams only 9 times dude! That's almost embarrassing for former No1 player! Roddick did that 18 times, and has also won a slam.

Roddick is more consistent player, and to me that's what makes an excellent player.



I've put 3 dots at the end, meaning there is more players, I just didn't wanna count them anymore.

the thing about the era. I totally agree If he had been a late 90s early 00s player people would inclued him in GOAT debates tbh. Its all about when you play and playing just now is not a good time to be trying to forge a legacy

[2kJosh]

Safin was a lot like djokovic before only he never really grew up and took anything as serious as he should have.

[pound cat]

Originally Posted by 2kJosh

Safin was a lot like djokovic before only he never really grew up and took anything as serious as he should have.

And Safin didn't care...he won 2 slams and then retired. He has now taken up another sport...and a political career.

[fundrazer]

Originally Posted by Achilles82

Yet....




Sampras was at his late 20s, and early 30s in that time. It's was unmotivated worn out Sampras.

Agassi was good, but not "destroyable" like Roger, Nadal, Novak or Sampras at middle of 90s

Hewitt? Don't get me start on Hewitt... I can't believe he was No1 for 2 freakin' years. Do you realise Roger Federer right now as No3, has more points then Hewitt as No1 at end of 2002? Because of Hewitt I believe Murray would be No1.

On clay I agree...

Your comments regarding Hewitt aren't necessarily fair. When we're having 4 guys basically dominate the tour, of course they're going to accumulate the most points. It also doesn't help that the surfaces are now relatively the same. In the earlier 2000s we had a wider range of dangerous players for each surface. As such it would obviously be harder to accumulate as many points today, even for a dominate player. On clay we had players like Moya and JCF who both have won the french. We've got guys on grass like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Flipper, Rafter still.

Just my thoughts anyway.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

Having Murray in there ruins all credibility.

/thread

I do consider Murray a better player than Safin already, even if he hasn't won any slams. The old question: If I had to chooose one of the two to play for my life... I wouldn't think twice. I'd pick current Murray over ANY version of Safin, for the simple reason that he was completely unreliable.

[jaggy]

The biggest underachiever ever maybe, he was so not overrated.

[Mustard]

Even underachieving, Safin won a lot:

2 majors
5 masters series
2 Davis Cups with Russia
15 tournament titles in all
9 weeks as world number 1

[Magnetite]

Safin wasn't consistant, but his best tennis was amazing.

Players like Roddick and Murray would get destroyed even if they were playing at their highest possible level against Safin at his best.

He's an underachieving, amazing tennis player.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

Having Murray in there ruins all credibility.

/thread

Having Ashe and not Laver or Rosewall is worse!

[SStrikerR]

Safin barely gave a crap half the time. If he had, he would have been greater than he was. He had a TON of talent, if you can't see that by watching his matches, you don't even know what you're looking at. Results have nothing to do with it, since mentally he didn't care of just lost it.

[FedExpress 333]

Murray vs Safin:

2>1

Kapeesh?

[Cesare]

Originally Posted by adidasman

Wilander, Nastase, Courier, Ashe - ASHE! - Vilas, Edberg, Murray - MURRAY!!! - Roddick - RODDICK??!!?? - and no Laver, no Rosewall, no Newcombe? Your list is a joke.

Lew Hoad, too. probably the more talented Aussie player ever.

[Netspirit]

Safin = Kafelnikov. 2 grand slams both, fluke #1 ranking for the most part.

Some talent, but not historical figures by any stretch. Roddick, by the way, is in the same category - had he not been American, nobody would be talking about him much.

[Set Sampras]

I dunno.. He did beat arguably the two greatest players to ever live to get his 2 slams in Fed and Pete. The guy obviously could have been a dominant beast. If he just spent more time on the court then he did the bar that is.