Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray: no GSs at all.
Djokovic the biggest underachiever in the game today?
- Thread starter davey25
- Start date
Djokovic is an overachiever to me. He played some fantastic tennis late 07/early08 and i think that could be the best he will play. the flexibility, the athleticism, isn't quite at that level any more. that doesn't mean that his "true" level was the best tennis he's played though, so i don't think he's an underachiever at all. his game hasn't moved on, and he doesn't have the same athleticism and intensity as old. it's a fractional drop-off, perhaps a stagnation, which in tennis means you're going backwards because others are always looking to improve.
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
lol at Federer being in his "prime" in wimbledon 03 but not in 08. Hillarious.
And davey is right here, if you are winning multiple slams and are ranked #1 then you are surely in your prime. Federer has won 3 out of the past 4 majors and has reached 8 consecutive gs finals. Yeah he isnt in his "prime" but he is magically dominating. The rest of the field must be really crap to allow a "past his prime" man to dominate.
And davey is right here, if you are winning multiple slams and are ranked #1 then you are surely in your prime. Federer has won 3 out of the past 4 majors and has reached 8 consecutive gs finals. Yeah he isnt in his "prime" but he is magically dominating. The rest of the field must be really crap to allow a "past his prime" man to dominate.
davey25
Banned
I have seen Federer fans twist when his prime is as well. When his records vs Kuerten and Henman are brought up his prime didnt start until 2005, 2004 wasnt even his prime, and his prime stretched alot longer as you cant give the so called GOAT a 2 year or less prime. However when his problems with Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal off of clay come up his prime ended in 2006, and he was past his prime starting in 2007, but of course his prime now started in 2003 or earlier.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I am sure *******s would like to comfort themselves that Federer has a losing head to head with a still slamless Murray due to "not really caring". Whatever helps you sleep easier at night.
umm, no, that an example to point out that fed was nowhere close to his best - and no, I am not the one to say federer really not caring .. YOU are the nutcase who keeps on insisting he tanks matches . Want me to pull up posts ? LOL !! Thanks for the laughs !
anyways who cares , both the slam matches they met, fed ripped apart murray in straights
And I'm still LOLing at "still slamless murray" ! Why is he still slamless ??????? whom did he get to meet in his 2 slam finals ? LOL ! ha ha ha !!!!
oh really ? you mean that murray who took nadal down impressively at the USO and again at the AO ? that djoker who took down nadal , giving him only about what 5-6 games and got killed by federer in the cincy final !!
All I am saying is federer is a LOT more inconsistent at the smaller events these days, than from 2004-2007, equating winning against him in the smaller events in this phase with that of between 2004-2007 is just plain stupidity ....
Yeah and people havent heard the mono excuse enough times already for a whole 18 months or so.
LOL - yep, he just skipped doha and kooyong and came into the Aussie Open that year without any practice just for the heck of it - not because he was sick :roll:
LMAO !! You REALLY need to go and WATCH those matches WITH YOUR EYES OPEN. The courier match was a high quality one WITH sampras playing darn well ... While he didn't play as well in the final, it was by no means a bad perfomance - perhaps you've just been watching highlights where he hit every running forehand, makes second serve aces on every break point , where he slams return winners to get breaks , LOL !
Still that doesn't any of your statements regarding sampras staying with agassi on the baseline in the 95 AO final or that 2000 AO SF was an all-out baseline war any less stupid ....
he's better, but not by much
LOL !! what gibberish !
age has no direct relation with talent. chang won his 1st FO at what ? 17 years and he's nowhere as talented as many of the other one-slammers
Funny how you don't even CONSIDER the parameters like use of angles, anticipation ... and how a player plays as a whole using those, instead just split up stroke by stroke
what excuses ? I stated the facts and circumstances at those stages - so me saying djoker was in pretty good form at queens is me being dismissive of him ? me saying montreal 2007 was perhaps his best masters ever is being dismissive of him ? jeez !
Last edited:
yep, Nadal purposely skipped queens and wimbledon because he lost to soderling, not because he had knee problems :roll: Do you see your logic there?
zagor
Bionic Poster
I'd still say that Fed's highest level in 2003 was better than Fed's highest level in 2008 but overall yes Fed was much more inconsistant in 2003 than in 2008 if we look at slam results.
Also,there's a difference between peak and prime,I'd say Fed's peak was in 2004,2005 and 2006 but his prime is still lasting ever since 2004.
I also think Nadal's peak was in 2008-early 2009 but his prime started already in 2005 when he won a slam and 4 masters.
abmk
Bionic Poster
And do YOU see the flaw in your argument ? federer skipped 2 warmup tourneys BEFORE the grand slam , AO. Unless you want to say he had a premonition that he was going to lose to djoker at the Aussie in straights and had the excuse prepared well in advance, I don't see how that equates to nadal skipping queens and wimbledon AFTER soderling took him apart at roland garros.
Notice the difference in before and after .....
Curiously enough, why don't we see any article citing nadal's knee problems before the match vs soderling and only after that ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
The argument is not really about the usage of the terms - its about the difficulty of beating federer at the non-slam events in 2004-2007 and after that. Surely there is quite a difference, correct ? How can you equate the two ?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Actually in 2007 he was already vulnerable outside slams,back-to-back losses to Canas,losing to Volandri in Rome etc.
But yeah overall I agree,Fed was tougher to beat outside of slams during that period no doubt.
zagor
Bionic Poster
As for the comparison between Novak and Nalbandian.
I'd say they're both very talented with Novak having more firepower off ground,better serve and movement and Nalbandian having more court sense,touch,angles etc. Basically Nalbandian is much more of a finesse player who can't really overpower players while Novak is basically a baseline blaster but a very talented one who can be very tough off both sides and at his best excells in both offense and defense.
When all is said and done Novak will overally have a much better career than Nalbandian but I'd still say he's a big underachiever as well,my biggest problem with him is that he actually regressed as a player since 2007-2008 instead of improving his game.His FH and serve are a pale shadow of 2008 IMO.
I'd say they're both very talented with Novak having more firepower off ground,better serve and movement and Nalbandian having more court sense,touch,angles etc. Basically Nalbandian is much more of a finesse player who can't really overpower players while Novak is basically a baseline blaster but a very talented one who can be very tough off both sides and at his best excells in both offense and defense.
When all is said and done Novak will overally have a much better career than Nalbandian but I'd still say he's a big underachiever as well,my biggest problem with him is that he actually regressed as a player since 2007-2008 instead of improving his game.His FH and serve are a pale shadow of 2008 IMO.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yep, true, those losses to canas were the beginning. Fed did get his revenge at madrid later that year though.
What'd you say about the thread topic though ?
I'd have said djoker IF he had not won the AO, but seeing as he's won that, its clearly nalby for me ...
But appearently davey and many of his avatars are in love with djoker now.. so they still want to say djoker's the bigger underachiever inspite of him winning the AO
( funny because I remember mocking djoker before for his TMC run in 2008, him scrapping out many matches -- he was so lucky , blah, blah ..... )
zagor
Bionic Poster
I posted above but yes I'd agree with Nalbandian being the bigger underachiever.However Novak in my mind hasn't played the tennis I think he's capable of since 2008 basically.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, I agree ... he's certainly capable of playing better.
He seemed to be getting back into some good form at the end of the last year, but has faltered since then
Spin-A-Lot
Rookie
Novak is indeed without a shadow of a doubt, the biggest underachiever in the game...All that talent amount to squat diddly without the mental toughness great players possess...everybody chokes in tennis, it's how you deal with it is what separates the good from the best...'Breathing problem' during the AO? what a Djoke!!! He choked, pure and simple...how many excuses must we have to go through when we watch him play?
davey25
Banned
I am only going to reply a selective version of your garbage since you are pretty much a waste of time, and my final post was the nail in the coffin for all your pathetic arguments given your blabbering last post.
Federer does tank the best of 3 events left and right these days. I am pretty much being proven right again on that by how he won Australia, lost to a series of obscure opponents in every event since. Then in Madrid when he needs the points and French Open which is a slam he suddenly starts playing like Federer again. Hmmm now why is that, just a strange coincidence right. :lol:
The one exception is when he plays Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, possibly Roddick, or someone he considers a true elite. He will never tank matches vs these players even in a best of 3, as he hates losing to these guys.
Murray has regularly underperformed in all his slam losses, not just those to Federer. Federer did play great in the U.S and Australian Open finals he beats Murray so might have won anyway. However only *******s seem to believe Murray was not playing subpar tennis in both. As he did in his losses to Cilic, Roddick, and Verdasco in slams last year, especialy the Cilic and Verdasco matches. Federer alone is not repsonsible for Murray's difficulty performing his best when it matters. That is Murray's own issue right now.
Djokovic played well in the Cincy final and the U.S Open semis but many of his losses to Federer he doesnt, atleast by ******* logic used in reverse. He was well off his game in the 2007 U.S Open final and still choked away winning the first 2 sets and being up 2 sets to 0. Federer's win over Djokovic in Monte Carlo in 2008 was when he retired with a chest ailment. Djokovic wasnt playing that well at the U.S Open in 2008 at all and still was at 1 set all and 5-5 in the 3rd set vs Federer.
Whatever I watched Sampras play at that event without the rose colored glasses you do. His match vs Courier was probably his best of that particular event, but he was in very subpar form the whole event and in the final as well. You are one of the only ones who seems blind to reality, like you usually are, but that is not my problem. Even during the Courier match Carillo and Stolle said in the booth early in the 3rd set "this is not the Sampras we are used to seeing". Then in the final those kind of thoughts were echoed in the booth even more frequently.
My main point is when Nalbandian reached his first slam final at 20 most observers considered a huge fluke and were comparing him to Chris Lewis. Nobody even imagined him possibly having the career he has gone on to have, let alone being this world beater and future #1. If he were this sensational talent then after reaching his first slam final at 20 there would be alot more praise of his abilities and potential than there was. Alot of the Nalbandian fanboys seem to forget this.
And those things with Nalbandian are overrated by his fanboys like you and others just like his actual strokes. He is good but he isnt a McEnroe, Mecir, LeConte, or Rios in those respects.
When someone kicks your butt by lopsided scores in 3 of your 4 matches and you come up with an excuse for each one sorry it is excuse making. Djokovic is just flat out the much better and the more talented player. Nuff said.
Federer does tank the best of 3 events left and right these days. I am pretty much being proven right again on that by how he won Australia, lost to a series of obscure opponents in every event since. Then in Madrid when he needs the points and French Open which is a slam he suddenly starts playing like Federer again. Hmmm now why is that, just a strange coincidence right. :lol:
The one exception is when he plays Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, possibly Roddick, or someone he considers a true elite. He will never tank matches vs these players even in a best of 3, as he hates losing to these guys.
Murray has regularly underperformed in all his slam losses, not just those to Federer. Federer did play great in the U.S and Australian Open finals he beats Murray so might have won anyway. However only *******s seem to believe Murray was not playing subpar tennis in both. As he did in his losses to Cilic, Roddick, and Verdasco in slams last year, especialy the Cilic and Verdasco matches. Federer alone is not repsonsible for Murray's difficulty performing his best when it matters. That is Murray's own issue right now.
Djokovic played well in the Cincy final and the U.S Open semis but many of his losses to Federer he doesnt, atleast by ******* logic used in reverse. He was well off his game in the 2007 U.S Open final and still choked away winning the first 2 sets and being up 2 sets to 0. Federer's win over Djokovic in Monte Carlo in 2008 was when he retired with a chest ailment. Djokovic wasnt playing that well at the U.S Open in 2008 at all and still was at 1 set all and 5-5 in the 3rd set vs Federer.
Whatever I watched Sampras play at that event without the rose colored glasses you do. His match vs Courier was probably his best of that particular event, but he was in very subpar form the whole event and in the final as well. You are one of the only ones who seems blind to reality, like you usually are, but that is not my problem. Even during the Courier match Carillo and Stolle said in the booth early in the 3rd set "this is not the Sampras we are used to seeing". Then in the final those kind of thoughts were echoed in the booth even more frequently.
My main point is when Nalbandian reached his first slam final at 20 most observers considered a huge fluke and were comparing him to Chris Lewis. Nobody even imagined him possibly having the career he has gone on to have, let alone being this world beater and future #1. If he were this sensational talent then after reaching his first slam final at 20 there would be alot more praise of his abilities and potential than there was. Alot of the Nalbandian fanboys seem to forget this.
And those things with Nalbandian are overrated by his fanboys like you and others just like his actual strokes. He is good but he isnt a McEnroe, Mecir, LeConte, or Rios in those respects.
When someone kicks your butt by lopsided scores in 3 of your 4 matches and you come up with an excuse for each one sorry it is excuse making. Djokovic is just flat out the much better and the more talented player. Nuff said.
davey25
Banned
Truth of the matter is in his very long career David Nalbandian hardly had any chances to win slams, so it is not even that big an underacheivement for him to not win one. Only 2 possabilities at most. U.S Open 2003 possibly. However on that day an on fire Nalbandian couldnt even finish off a subpar Roddick who played by far his worst match of the summer and still found a way to beat Nalbandian at his best. Australian Open 2006 possibly. Then again even if he didnt choke away the match vs a rookie slam semifinalist he hasnt beaten Federer on anything but an indoor court since summer of 2003. So even Federer not in his best form that event would still likely have beaten Nalbandian.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Didn't he make Wimby 02 final? That's not an 'opportunity to win a slam?' (Granted it would've been the upset of the century had he actually won that, and he's not a GC god by any stretch. But still.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I'm a pretty big Nalbo fan but that final was kinda of a fluke as grass is his worst surface by far.
davey25
Banned
I dont think so since lets face it we almost all know he didnt have the faintest prayer of winning that particular match at that point in time. I wouldnt say Wimbledon 2007 was a missed opportunity for Marion Bartoli to win a slam either, and her chances to win that day were probably about on par with Nalbandian's in 2002 or maybe even slightly more (since she was coming off a win over Henin atleast).
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, LOL and LOL !!!!!! Look who's talking. ha ha ha ha
umm, that's not tanking, he's just not as sharp in the smaller events . You CLEARLY do not understand the difference between tanking and not being at your sharpest or peaking for the slams
and your proof for that leap of logic would be ???
and he likes losing to the lower ranked players ?????? AFTER having matchpoint(s) ( baghdatis,berdych ) and losing tie-breaks after being up 5-2 ( montanes ) ???? That doesn't make much sense
the only 2 finals he reached he was beaten in straights, so yeah, the reason he is slamless is majorly federer, although he is not the only reason. The only chances he had at winning slams were snuffed out by federer. So yeah, its a huge joke you posted that the "still slamless" murray still has a winning H2H over federer
murray did play mediocore in the USO 2008 F, but he played quite well in the AO final in 2010, just came up short against federer in full flight
federer wasn't playing all that great in the USO 2007 F , djoker was playing closer to his best than federer to his , federer just played better on the big points in the first 2 sets
The logic doesn't work in the reverse because it is federer who is the proven champion not djoker ...
and LOL @ 2008 monte carlo match - chest ailment ? jeez, been trolling too much - too much to remember , I guess ??
He retired with umm, a sore throat - laughable !
LOL, you are crazy, he played no worse in that Aussie Open than he did when he won till the finals - where he was outplayed by agassi ...( though he played better in the semis and finals combined when he won in 94 and 97 than in 95 )
Again WATCH the matches cos its blindingly obvious you haven't !
Here, I'll put some stats forward for you...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4672203&postcount=134
yep, because media hype ( or lack of it ) is so reliable as a parameter to measure a player's talent/caliber
what excuses ? saying djoker was in much better form at queens is an excuse ?
Last edited:
PSNELKE
Legend
Dumb post, first of all his career wasn´t over in 2010, when the thread was made.
He was like 23 yo and was still ranked at #3 with one major.
So he´s got something like 7 years left in his career to win majors.
And now allmighty davey used to call him an underachiever, even though it was more than obvious that he is going to win more than the Ao 08 one.
He´s definately not an underachiever neither an overachiever, he lost to superior players in majors and the majors were split between the 2 best players of this era, the once he won he was just the superior player with some amazing superb tennis.
Especially 2011 titles he was totally dominant.
It´s simple as it can get.
However Nalbo indeed is an underachiever, event hough his Wimbledon final 2002 was indeed a fluke.
He was like 23 yo and was still ranked at #3 with one major.
So he´s got something like 7 years left in his career to win majors.
And now allmighty davey used to call him an underachiever, even though it was more than obvious that he is going to win more than the Ao 08 one.
He´s definately not an underachiever neither an overachiever, he lost to superior players in majors and the majors were split between the 2 best players of this era, the once he won he was just the superior player with some amazing superb tennis.
Especially 2011 titles he was totally dominant.
It´s simple as it can get.
However Nalbo indeed is an underachiever, event hough his Wimbledon final 2002 was indeed a fluke.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Good to see the hugely talented Djokovic has stopped the underachieving which has plagued his career. And is now playing and achieving the results he was always capable of.
And LOL at further reminders of what a complete moron abmk is. Nalbandian's backhand further ahead of Djokovic's than Djokovic's forehand is ahead of Djokovic's. Djokovic not much faster or better defensively than a fit Nalbandian. Nalbandian supposably being a much better returner than Djokovic. Comedy gold.
And LOL at further reminders of what a complete moron abmk is. Nalbandian's backhand further ahead of Djokovic's than Djokovic's forehand is ahead of Djokovic's. Djokovic not much faster or better defensively than a fit Nalbandian. Nalbandian supposably being a much better returner than Djokovic. Comedy gold.
PSNELKE
Legend
I agree, Nalbo isn´t doing anything better than Novak except his BH.
Djokovic is Much better in every department but the BH.
I would disagree. I believe that Djokovic is slightly better player than Nalbandian.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Nalbandian>Djokovic
In fishing
In fishing
Luka888
Professional
and eating burgers plus hot dogs contests
.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
This thread sure looks funny now, almost a complete decade since it was initially created, isn't it?
Nadal_Django
Legend
Luka888
Professional
Well, that's how it seemed back in 2010 to so many people and I don't really blame them. However, Nalbandian, who I dearly love and respect, was never a better player than Djokovic. He had his indoor HC 'flashes' when he beat Fed, Nole and Rafa ... he won the ATP finals beating a 'prime' Fed.This thread sure looks funny now, almost a complete decade since it was initially created, isn't it?
many expected unexceptable but it never materialized at majors. Nalbadian loved enjoying life, he didn't care much about his diet, he loved his women ... Had he been more dedicated, God knows, he could have been a multiple GS champion. When he was on, everyone was in love with his mad tennis skills. He played effortlessly ...
However, he was more off than on. It's too bad. I was a huge fan but that guy broke my heart so many times ... oh, well. I hope he is happy now, enjoying his retirement.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
As if any of you guys predicted anything different that long ago either
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Okay but the 2013/2014 underrating of Djokovic was ridiculousAs if any of you guys predicted anything different that long ago either
As if any of you guys predicted anything different that long ago either
Anyone who understands tennis could see from 2006 that Djokovic will be 1 in 100 years tennis player and potential GOAT.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Yeah I can agree with that. By then it was obvious how great he was
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
You must be rich from all those good bets then
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
But obviously not even I predicted back in 2010 that he would win 15 slams.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
True true...back in 2010, when he was still just a one slam wonder i could see through some additional 5-6 slams in him to do maybe McEnroe/Wilander bussiness at very most! But i shall admit i never could have imagined (especailly back then!) he would one day surpass Sampras himself and achieve career grand slam along the way and win 4 majors in a row and so on so forth! If someone told me back then i would call the person out for a wishful thinking, despite being Novak's fan! So yeah...its been quite a ride for now! LOL
You must be rich from all those good bets then
I am not doing badly at all. If you go through old posts you could see that there were people that have seen that Djokovic is an extraordinary player from the begging.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Yes. He should be on 21 slamsThe big question remains: is Djokovic STILL under-achieving???
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Do you expect him to get there?
Luka888
Professional
You didn't ask me but I'll answer it anyway. You see, when it comes to Djokovic ... the way I feel or think is and here is your answer 'You are doomed if you do and you are doomed if you don't'
Mainad
Bionic Poster
You didn't ask me but I'll answer it anyway. You see, when it comes to Djokovic ... the way I feel or think is and here is your answer 'You are doomed if you do and you are doomed if you don't'
Why would he be doomed if he doesn't?
Luka888
Professional
No, sorry misunderstanding. I'm not talking about Djokovic.
I was talking about people who try to predict what is going to happen with Djokovic ... i.e. my point is 'you never know'. When everyone expected Djokovic after he won RG16 to keep winning left and right he disappeared completely ... then he was written off, nowhere to be found for almost 2 years ... then boom, wins 3 majors in a row ... similar scenario happened after his amazing run back in 2011 etc.
So, would it surprise me if he wins GS this year and reach 21 majors at some point? No.
Would I be surprised if he doesn't win another major next 2 years or ever? Not, really ... Nothing can surprise me when it comes to Djokovic. That's why I hesitate to predict anything.
Similar threads
