Most overrated player in the Open Era

Most overrated player in the Open Era

  • Nadal

    Votes: 18 16.8%
  • Safin

    Votes: 16 15.0%
  • Nalbandian

    Votes: 20 18.7%
  • Sabatini

    Votes: 4 3.7%
  • Kuznetsova

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • Seles

    Votes: 6 5.6%
  • Agassi

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • Zverev

    Votes: 18 16.8%
  • Capriati

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Sharapova

    Votes: 11 10.3%

  • Total voters
    107
Nalbandian at least has won big titles over all those great players. Kyrgios generally can only cause one upset and never go all the way. Acapulco this year was the only exception.
True. I did not mean to lump them together. At this point Nalbandian had a far greater career than Kyrgios and also has far greater wins. He beat Fedal at their respective prime/peak and thus even in best of five. However compared with Rios even Kyrgios has the better wins. Rios of course had more success at slams Masters up to this point, but I don’t think it is a coincidence that he peaked in 98 where no good competition was around.
 
From that list I went with Nadal. His resume is too damn skewed to be considered a GOAT candidate in the true sense of the word.

Australian Open
Djokovic-7
Federer-6
Agassi-4
Wilander-3

French Open
Nadal-11
Borg-6
Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten-3

Wimbledon
Federer-8
Sampras-7
Borg-5
Djokovic-4

USO
Federer, Sampras, Connors-5
McEnroe-4
Nadal, Lendl and Djokovic-3

WTF
Federer-6
Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl-5

Clearly Federer, Sampras and Novak have more clearance than Nadal. And then you throw in Borg with his percentages. How the hell am I suppose to take Nadal seriously over those 4 guys? And when accounting for era you inevitably fall into Jimmy Connors as well.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian at least has won big titles over all those great players. Kyrgios generally can only cause one upset and never go all the way. Acapulco this year was the only exception.
Nalbandian won Shanghai Masters Cup, madrid and Paris - Bercy Masters 1000.
Kyrgios can only dream of winning such tournaments.
 
Seles, Sharapova, and Pierce are all insanely overrated. Not sure why Pierce isnt on the poll.

There arent many overrated mens players, but the most overrated is probably David Nalbandian.
 
Seles, Sharapova, and Pierce are all insanely overrated. Not sure why Pierce isnt on the poll.

There arent many overrated mens players, but the most overrated is probably David Nalbandian.
LOL you have not heard many of the guys talking about their own games on the college team tournaments, have you? They are not the self deprecating sort.
 
LOL you have not heard many of the guys talking about their own games on the college team tournaments, have you? They are not the self deprecating sort.
True. I am talking mostly about well known pros and the fan base though. I cant think of many excessively overrated in that regard. Probably only David Nalbandian, Marcelo Rios, and maybe Marat Safin and Andre Agassi at times.
 
It is really a joke to say nadal lacked versatility. He wasn't as good on hard and grass but he still managed 6 non clay titles despite facing the grass goat (federer), the HC goat (nole) and the HC runner up goat (federer). 6 slams is actually 10th in the open era and that is on his weakest surfaces despite facing the strongest HC era ever.

In another era nadal would have easily had 10+ hc+grass slams.

You can rank novak (and of course federer) above him due to versatility (albeit 1 clay slam is pretty weak for a baseline grinder who likes slow surfaces) but really nobody else.

I mean sampras certainly wasn't more versatile than nadal. Yeah he won more on two out of the 3 surfaces but was a total zero on clay while nadal was the clay goat and still a top10-12 all time player on non clay.

Borg has an argument as he dominated clay and grass albeit he wasn't good on hc. Hard to hold that against him though as hc wasn't really meaningful back then. Who knows how good he would have been on hard 10 years later.
 

skaj

Professional
Who do you believe is the most overrated player in the Open Era. I have picked 5 womens and 5 men who seem like obvious candidates.

Women:

Sabatini
Sharapova
Seles
Capriati
Jaeger

Men:

Nadal- a controversial pick maybe, but people forget how ridiculously clay heavy his record is when evaluating his greatness
Safin
Agassi- not really now, but the hype machine during many stages of his career being so out of control
Nalbandian
Zverev

My vote went to Nadal. It is crazy some have him 2nd best of the Open Era when Borg, Sampras, Djokovic are better than him on every single surface except for clay.
You should give the reasons why you think they are overrated, because it is not obvious at all. Except maybe for Sharapova and Sabatini who both because of their conventional good looks got more attention then some other people.

On the top of that there's no "someone else" option in the poll.
 
It is really a joke to say nadal lacked versatility. He wasn't as good on hard and grass but he still managed 6 non clay titles despite facing the grass goat (federer), the HC goat (nole) and the HC runner up goat (federer). 6 slams is actually 10th in the open era and that is on his weakest surfaces despite facing the strongest HC era ever.

In another era nadal would have easily had 10+ hc+grass slams.

You can rank novak (and of course federer) above him due to versatility (albeit 1 clay slam is pretty weak for a baseline grinder who likes slow surfaces) but really nobody else.

I mean sampras certainly wasn't more versatile than nadal. Yeah he won more on two out of the 3 surfaces but was a total zero on clay while nadal was the clay goat and still a top10-12 all time player on non clay.

Borg has an argument as he dominated clay and grass albeit he wasn't good on hc. Hard to hold that against him though as hc wasn't really meaningful back then. Who knows how good he would have been on hard 10 years later.
I agree. I don't even like Nadal but he's not "just a clay courter." I think what makes him different than traditional clay courters is his serve and backhand. his backhand may not be as good as the greats but he hits it early and flat which works well on faster surfaces. His serve isn't top 5 in his era nor does it get lots of aces but it's also pretty good at getting him free points or control of a point. And outside of Djokovic and the new Fed, no player has shown to be able to do much against it. Like you said, 6 slams outside the French would still put him in the conversation of great tier 2 players.
 
Nadal is the most overrated for the fact that people on this forum mention him as a GOAT candidate.

He is easily the Clay Goat for eternity, that is indisputable, but someone who cannot win even a single WTF in all his years on tour, plus his general ineptitude on anything indoor completely disqualifies him from any overall Goat discussion.
 
Nadal is the most overrated for the fact that people on this forum mention him as a GOAT candidate.

He is easily the Clay Goat for eternity, that is indisputable, but someone who cannot win even a single WTF in all his years on tour, plus his general ineptitude on anything indoor completely disqualifies him from any overall Goat discussion.
If Nadal is easily the GOAT clay player, then surely it's understandable why people would think he's a candidate for GOAT players? He doesn't need to win WTFs, he's already got several slams under his belt. He also posses great weapons such as his FH which also factors in to why people would consider him as the "GOAT". Him choosing not to play indoors is his choice, he doesn't have to, he can still be a candidate of one of the greatest of all time players without (same goes with fed not playing clay) There's nothing overrated about Nadal, he's struggled with injuries also which has forced him to pull out. If you were a tennis professional and playing tennis was your job, you would focus on grand slams as priority, would you not?
 
If Nadal is easily the GOAT clay player, then surely it's understandable why people would think he's a candidate for GOAT players? He doesn't need to win WTFs, he's already got several slams under his belt. He also posses great weapons such as his FH which also factors in to why people would consider him as the "GOAT". Him choosing not to play indoors is his choice, he doesn't have to, he can still be a candidate of one of the greatest of all time players without (same goes with fed not playing clay) There's nothing overrated about Nadal, he's struggled with injuries also which has forced him to pull out. If you were a tennis professional and playing tennis was your job, you would focus on grand slams as priority, would you not?
Being the GOAT means being the overall GOAT in the game of tennis, not just the best ever on one surface.

The man has a hole in his resume the size of Alaska and so cannot be considered as overall GOAT in any way.

His titles on clay will last until the sun burns out, I truly believe that, but he should never be even mentioned as "the" GOAT in tennis. You have to be able to win on all surfaces which Fed and Nole have done.
 

skaj

Professional
How on earth is Federer overrated? He dominates nearly every statistically significant tennis metric. The guy has been at the top of the sport for the past 15 years! That is mind boggling. He just won a masters at 38. If anything he is underrated.
I answered that already, scroll up.
 
I don't see how Nadal is overrated. Even if you point out that his ATG resume is too clay-heavy and that being the clay GOAT =/= the GOAT, you're still admitting that he's 1/3 the GOAT.

Plus, he's made enough finals at the other slams to help pad out his non-clay resume, with 5 finals appearances at Wimbledon and the AO, and 4 finals appearances at the USO. The only thing he's really missing is a WTF title (and yet he's made two finals there too), and a Miami title (which in the grand scheme of things really isn't all that important even if desirable).

Overrated is when the perceived abilities of a player is significantly higher than the actual abilities of said player. If you take out the vocal minority, ie anomalous idiots who actually think that Nadal is the clear GOAT (which to be fair exist with the Djokovic / Sampras / Borg fanbases as well) then what you're left with is a large number of people who think that he is the clay GOAT (at this stage more or less undisputed) with an ATG if not at least HOF resume everywhere else. That's not overrated, that's pretty accurate.

No, the most overrated player has to be someone like Nalbandian who on these boards is often touted as some sort of world-beater if he focused more on tennis and less on doughnuts. That could be true, but since it never actually happened, how he's perceived as a player (at least around here) is much higher than what he was actually able to produce. That, and the fact that as far as his arsenal goes, only his backhand was ATG material. I do think is court craft / artistry is underrated, but I think that's more than eclipsed by the view that he was some sort of complete package when he really wasn't.

Edit: amongst the current crop of players, Shapovalov is quickly becoming overrated. He hits hard and has a 1HBH; according to TTW that equates to becoming a multi-slam champion. At least Thiem isn't overrated despite having those two same characteristics because he has a strong clay resume, which on these boards equates to having neither skill nor talent.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how Nadal is overrated. Even if you point out that his ATG resume is too clay-heavy and that being the clay GOAT =/= the GOAT, you're still admitting that he's 1/3 the GOAT.

Plus, he's made enough finals at the other slams to help pad out his non-clay resume, with 5 finals appearances at Wimbledon and the AO, and 4 finals appearances at the USO. The only thing he's really missing is a WTF title (and yet he's made two finals there too), and a Miami title (which in the grand scheme of things really isn't all that important even if desirable).

Overrated is when the perceived abilities of a player is significantly higher than the actual abilities of said player. If you take out the vocal minority, ie anomalous idiots who actually think that Nadal is the clear GOAT (which to be fair exist with the Djokovic / Sampras / Borg fanbases as well) then what you're left with is a large number of people who think that he is the clay GOAT (at this stage more or less undisputed) with an ATG if not at least HOF resume everywhere else. That's not overrated, that's pretty accurate.

No, the most overrated player has to be someone like Nalbandian who on these boards is often touted as some sort of world-beater if he focused more on tennis and less on doughnuts. That could be true, but since it never actually happened, how he's perceived as a player (at least around here) is much higher than what he was actually able to produce. That, and the fact that as far as his arsenal goes, only his backhand was ATG material. I do think is court craft / artistry is underrated, but I think that's more than eclipsed by the view that he was some sort of complete package when he really wasn't.
He's overrated because people actually mention him as a GOAT candidate.

Someone that can't win a single WTF in 15 years on tour cannot be an overall GOAT candidate like Fed or Nole. How many indoor titles overall has he won? Plus every year he goes out of his way to make up injuries and hide from the event. Always injured for the WTF but somehow never for the clay season.

He's the clay GOAT for eternity but that's as far as it goes.
 
Last edited:
How on earth is Federer overrated? He dominates nearly every statistically significant tennis metric. The guy has been at the top of the sport for the past 15 years! That is mind boggling. He just won a masters at 38. If anything he is underrated.
How is he underrated when seemingly everyone says he is the GOAT and any time any one tries to critique him or suggest an area in which he may not be the GOAT its like a swarm to defend him and classify anything other than glowing praise as hatred/jealously/lacking in intelligence? Federer is in no way underrated around here.
 
He's overrated because people actually mention him as a GOAT candidate.

Someone that can't win a single WTF in 15 years on tour cannot be an overall GOAT candidate like Fed or Nole. How many indoor titles overall has he won?

He's the clay GOAT for eternity but that's as far as it goes.
Those people I think make up a very vocal minority, which unfortunately make up a fair portion of the Nadal fans on these boards. None of the Nadal fans I've met IRL think that way, and I'm inclined to believe that it is a vocal minority although TBH there's really no way to tell. What is accurate is that there are only a handful of posters around these parts who believe that Nadal is the clear GOAT.

Re: clay, tennis has 3 surfaces; 4 if you count indoors as a surface (which I don't because it isn't a surface technically). As I said, Nadal is the clay GOAT with a low-tier ATG / high-tier HOF resume everywhere else, which IMO is slightly underrated since finals appearances often go forgotten. That's why Fed has the strongest case for GOAT with only one RG title. Either way, Nadal with his clay dominance is 1/3 GOAT, just not 3/3 GOAT. Not great, but no other GOAT candidate can even make that claim safely. There is still some wiggle room between Fed and Sampras for grass especially given the change in the grass in recent years, and Fed, Djokovic, and Sampras are contenders for the HC title.

Again, this isn't an argument for why Nadal is GOAT, since I don't believe that. It's a point about being overrated. Yes, Nadal = clear GOAT would be an overstatement, but you get that sort of claim from the vocal minority of fans in the Djokovic, Sampras, and Borg camps as well, so there's no real point in using that as a basis to say that Nadal is overrated. In my mind, the only way Rafa would be overrated is if his non-clay resume were no more than a smattering of QFs and SFs here and there, but his resume is worlds better than that. The only real blemishes in his non-clay resume as I mentioned earlier is that he hasn't won as many as Fed or Djokovic (but at least he's tied with Djokovic at the USO for now at least in titles), and he's never won the WTF.

Speaking of the WTF, Rafa does have two finals at the WTF, and lost those to two players who are ATG indoors players in Fed / Djoker. So while his record there is patchy at best, at least he's shown that a title there is within his abilities, even if the likelihood is somewhat slim. He's also withdrawn from a few editions of the WTF due to injury so it's not like every year was an opportunity for him to win the title.
 
Those people I think make up a very vocal minority, which unfortunately make up a fair portion of the Nadal fans on these boards. None of the Nadal fans I've met IRL think that way, and I'm inclined to believe that it is a vocal minority although TBH there's really no way to tell. What is accurate is that there are only a handful of posters around these parts who believe that Nadal is the clear GOAT.

Re: clay, tennis has 3 surfaces; 4 if you count indoors as a surface (which I don't because it isn't a surface technically). As I said, Nadal is the clay GOAT with a low-tier ATG / high-tier HOF resume everywhere else, which IMO is slightly underrated since finals appearances often go forgotten. That's why Fed has the strongest case for GOAT with only one RG title. Either way, Nadal with his clay dominance is 1/3 GOAT, just not 3/3 GOAT. Not great, but no other GOAT candidate can even make that claim safely. There is still some wiggle room between Fed and Sampras for grass especially given the change in the grass in recent years, and Fed, Djokovic, and Sampras are contenders for the HC title.

Again, this isn't an argument for why Nadal is GOAT, since I don't believe that. It's a point about being overrated. Yes, Nadal = clear GOAT would be an overstatement, but you get that sort of claim from the vocal minority of fans in the Djokovic, Sampras, and Borg camps as well, so there's no real point in using that as a basis to say that Nadal is overrated. In my mind, the only way Rafa would be overrated is if his non-clay resume were no more than a smattering of QFs and SFs here and there, but his resume is worlds better than that. The only real blemishes in his non-clay resume as I mentioned earlier is that he hasn't won as many as Fed or Djokovic (but at least he's tied with Djokovic at the USO for now at least in titles), and he's never won the WTF.

Speaking of the WTF, Rafa does have two finals at the WTF, and lost those to two players who are ATG indoors players in Fed / Djoker. So while his record there is patchy at best, at least he's shown that a title there is within his abilities, even if the likelihood is somewhat slim. He's also withdrawn from a few editions of the WTF due to injury so it's not like every year was an opportunity for him to win the title.
Nice post.

Couple of points though..

You said that only a handful of people have called Rafa an overall GOAT contender but I have even heard commentators call him that. That said, one was Jmac who proclaims a new GOAT every 3 days.

Point two is you said Rafa has been injured a lot during the WTF but I think many of those were made up or exaggerated to give him an out/excuse at the WTF. I find it cowardly myself. He is NEVER injured during the clay season yet always has a problem at the WTF...very suspicious.

Indoor is not a surface but its certainly a large part of the season. There is the Hardcourt/clay/grass/indoor structure of the tour.
1/4 of the season Rafa is relatively inept at.
 
From that list I went with Nadal. His resume is too damn skewed to be considered a GOAT candidate in the true sense of the word.

Australian Open
Djokovic-7
Federer-6
Agassi-4
Wilander-3

French Open
Nadal-11
Borg-6
Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten-3

Wimbledon
Federer-8
Sampras-7
Borg-5
Djokovic-4

USO
Federer, Sampras, Connors-5
McEnroe-4
Nadal, Lendl and Djokovic-3

WTF
Federer-6
Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl-5

Clearly Federer, Sampras and Novak have more clearance than Nadal. And then you throw in Borg with his percentages. How the hell am I suppose to take Nadal seriously over those 4 guys? And when accounting for era you inevitably fall into Jimmy Connors as well.

Umm Federer has 1 French Open Title
 
Nice post.

Couple of points though..

You said that only a handful of people have called Rafa an overall GOAT contender but I have even heard commentators call him that. That said, one was Jmac who proclaims a new GOAT every 3 days.

Point two is you said Rafa has been injured a lot during the WTF but I think many of those were made up or exaggerated to give him an out/excuse at the WTF. I find it cowardly myself. He is NEVER injured during the clay season yet always has a problem at the WTF...very suspicious.

Indoor is not a surface but its certainly a large part of the season. There is the Hardcourt/clay/grass/indoor structure of the tour.
1/4 of the season Rafa is relatively inept at.
I still do think only a handful of people actually think Rafa is the overall GOAT. Sure, a lot of people say it, but I don't think many actually think it or would believe it if they thought it through.

Commentators are particularly guilty of overhyping players, because that's their job. Any one of the big four would hit a backhand smash and the commentators would proclaim it's the most difficult shot ever, yet I've seen journeymen hit similar quality backhand overheads without so much as a peep from them. JMac's "Rafa has the best volleys" is another example of that sort of thing (that said, I do think he's a close second behind Fed amongst the Big 4 but that's not really saying much).

Rafa's record at the WTF and how it correlates with his clay season is something I see that gets brought up often. The argument as I understand it is that since he is never injured during the clay swing (which is almost never except in 2003 / 2004 / 2009 / 2016), then he must be faking his injuries or at the very least exaggerating when he skips the second half of the season or loses early.

That's one way to look at it, but tbh it's a lot simpler to see it the way I see it: Rafa knows wins on clay are a sure thing provided he is fit enough to play, so he goes all in during the clay swing (skipping tournaments if he needs to in order to ensure he is well enough to play by the time it starts) then sees everything post RG as a bonus if he is still fit enough to play. It's like his health has a very limited "pool" and since clay is almost a guaranteed win provided he's playing well, he uses up 90% of his budget there and sees where the remaining 10% gets him. It's not that different from Fed skipping clay in 2017 and 2018--because he knows that part of the season will make too much of a dent in his body. Unfortunately for Rafa, that same part of the season is the bit he's best at, so he doesn't have a choice other than to just keep at it and hope his body doesn't implode again after RG.

Sometimes, he's healthier for longer than usual (most recently 2017); other times not so much (most recently 2018). Even if he's fine after clay, I think his clay schedule leaves his body rather fragile and susceptible to injury, and that is exacerbated by the brutal effect of HCs on joints in combination with the intensity and physicality of Rafa's style. Hell, even Fed had to have a surgery in his knee, and Rafa's got that foot condition that he sort of "fixed" by wearing special shoes that as a side effect put extra stress on his knee.

Anyway I don't think Rafa's the type to chicken out from matches--for instance, he kept showing up in 2009, 2011, 2015, and 2017 even though he was being routinely beaten by one player (2011, 2017) or by the whole field (2009, 2015). In 2015 he didn't have any major injuries; just played like garbage and yet still showed up for his drubbing. His best results that year were ironically during the indoor HC swing where he showed up to get drubbed yet again by a peak Djokovic. Yes, Rafa does have a record of playing like a chicken once a match starts (eg AO 2019), and I do think a lot of his withdrawals from tournaments are partly preventative and not completely rehabilitative in nature.

But what are we suggesting if we decide that withdrawals for injury prevention or in anticipation of injury are cowardly? We are saying that an athlete should withdraw only after they've already injured themselves, and that if they have a niggling little thing that has a good chance of snowballing into a proper injury, they should play anyway and then withdraw after they've injured themselves. I think we'd both agree that is an unreasonable thing to expect, even from a professional.

Edit: removed a typo
 
Last edited:
I still do think only a handful of people actually think Rafa is the overall GOAT. Sure, a lot of people say it, but I don't think many actually think it or would believe it if they thought it through.

Commentators are particularly guilty of overhyping players, because that's their job. Any one of the big four would hit a backhand smash and the commentators would proclaim it's the most difficult shot ever, yet I've seen journeymen hit similar quality backhand overheads without so much as a peep from them. JMac's "Rafa has the best volleys" is another example of that sort of thing (that said, I do think he's a close second behind Fed amongst the Big 4 but that's not really saying much).

Rafa's record at the WTF and how it correlates with his clay season is something I see that gets brought up often. The argument as I understand it is that since he is never injured during the clay swing (which is almost never except in 2003 / 2004 / 2009 / 2016), then he must be faking his injuries or at the very least exaggerating when he skips the second half of the season or loses early.

That's one way to look at it, but tbh it's a lot simpler to see it the way I see it: Rafa knows wins on clay are a sure thing provided he is fit enough to play, so he goes all in during the clay swing (skipping tournaments if he needs to in order to ensure he is well enough to play by the time it starts) then sees everything post RG as a bonus if he is still fit enough to play. It's like his health has a very limited "pool" and since clay is almost a guaranteed win provided he's playing well, he uses up 90% of his budget there and sees where the remaining 10% gets him. It's not that different from Fed skipping clay in 2017 and 2018--because he knows that part of the season will make too much of a dent in his body. Unfortunately for Rafa, that same part of the season is the bit he's best at, so he doesn't have a choice other than to just has to keep at it and hope his body doesn't implode again after RG.

Sometimes, he's healthier for longer than usual (most recently 2017); other times not so much (most recently 2018). Even if he's fine after clay, I think his clay schedule leaves his body rather fragile and susceptible to injury, and that is exacerbated by the brutal effect of HCs on joints in combination with the intensity and physicality of Rafa's style. Hell, even Fed had to have a surgery in his knee, and Rafa's got that foot condition that he sort of "fixed" by wearing special shoes that as a side effect put extra stress on his knee.

Anyway I don't think Rafa's the type to chicken out from matches--for instance, he kept showing up in 2009, 2011, 2015, and 2017 even though he was being routinely beaten by one player (2011, 2017) or by the whole field (2009, 2015). In 2015 he didn't have any major injuries; just played like garbage and yet still showed up for his drubbing. His best results that year were ironically during the indoor HC swing where he showed up to get drubbed yet again by a peak Djokovic. Yes, Rafa does have a record of playing like a chicken once a match starts (eg AO 2019), and I do think a lot of his withdrawals from tournaments are partly preventative and not completely rehabilitative in nature.

But what are we suggesting if we decide that withdrawals for injury prevention or in anticipation of injury are cowardly? We are saying that an athlete should withdraw only after they've already injured themselves, and that if they have a niggling little thing that has a good chance of snowballing into a proper injury, they should play anyway and then withdraw after they've injured themselves. I think we'd both agree that is an unreasonable thing to expect, even from a professional.
I dont think its bad if the injury is legit to pull out (no need to further injure oneself) but in Rafa's case it seems like he has pulled out of half the WTFs hes qualified for and at the same time never too injured to play clay (which is actually more taxing physically). Its just too much of a coincidence that all of his ailments are during the indoor season especially WTF.
 
I dont think its bad if the injury is legit to pull out (no need to further injure oneself) but in Rafa's case it seems like he has pulled out of half the WTFs hes qualified for and at the same time never too injured to play clay (which is actually more taxing physically). Its just too much of a coincidence that all of his ailments are during the indoor season especially WTF.
As I said, I'm somewhat convinced he saves his body up for clay (which as you said is more physically taxing) then plays whatever tournaments his body will let him. Given that it's a more taxing surface I'm not surprised that he's only able to keep his body together for the clay swing + a few non-clay tournaments here and there these days.

It used to last from AO to RG at the very least but I think he's past that point where his body can hold up even that long. One or two more years and his body won't even last the clay season I think, and he'll retire.
 
As I said, I'm somewhat convinced he saves his body up for clay (which as you said is more physically taxing) then plays whatever tournaments his body will let him. Given that it's a more taxing surface I'm not surprised that he's only able to keep his body together for the clay swing + a few non-clay tournaments here and there these days.

It used to last from AO to RG at the very least but I think he's past that point where his body can hold up even that long. One or two more years and his body won't even last the clay season I think, and he'll retire.
It may be more "taxing" in terms of length of time out on the court, but the clay surface is less damaging on the legs and knees.

Nadal has had trouble with the hard rubber surfaces and concrete subsurfaces which prevail on the"hardcourt" circuit, and given him leg and knee injuries.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Calling Nadal overrated is like calling LeBron overrated cuz some of their diehards say they’re the undisputed GOAT in their sport (which is obviously not true), but even then its pretty clear to every fan that they’re clearly among the best to ever play their sports.

And I never got why nadal got picked on so much for having an “unbalanced” resume when he’s won all four slams and is one of only two players in history to win multiple titles on each surface.

Also, when you look at other ATG players, Borg never won the USO; Pete was never even a realistic contender at RG; Mac, Connors, Becker and Edberg never won RG either and Wilander never won Wimbledon, but yet no other ATG player gets called out for being a one-trick pony nearly as much as Nadal. The most important title Rafa has never won was the WTF (and even then he’s made the finals there twice losing to Fed and Nole), while many other ATGs failed to capture one of the MAJORS, which I think we can all agree is a much bigger “hole” in one’s resume.

Out of all the players mentioned in the poll, I gotta say Nalnandian or Safin. I hear a lot of ppl talk about how they would’ve been 6-10x slam winners if they “tried a bit more” like that’s a laughable claim imo
 
Last edited:
Calling Nadal overrated is like calling LeBron overrated cuz some of their diehards say they’re the undisputed GOAT in their sport, when they’re obviously not, even though they’re clearly among the best to ever play their sports.

And I never got why nadal got picked on so much for having an “unbalanced” resume when he’s won all four slams and is one of only two players in history to win multiple titles on each surface. Also, when you look at other ATG players, Borg never won the USO; Pete was never even a realistic contender at RG; Mac, Connors, Becker and Edberg never won RG either and Wilander never won Wimbledon, but yet no other ATG player gets called out for being a one-trick pony nearly as much as Nadal. The most important title Rafa has never won was the WTF (and even then he’s made the finals there twice losing to Fed and Nole), while many other ATGs failed to capture one of the MAJORS, which I think we can all agree is a much bigger “hole” in one’s resume.

Out of all the players mentioned in the poll, I gotta say Nalnandian or Safin. I hear a lot of ppl talk about how they would’ve been 6-10x slam winners if they “tried a bit more” like that’s a laughable claim imo
"Trying more" is part of what it takes to be a great, so if a player like Safin or Nalbandian or Nastase lacks that quality, it counts against.
 
Calling Nadal overrated is like calling LeBron overrated cuz some of their diehards say they’re the undisputed GOAT in their sport (which is obviously not true), but even then its pretty clear to every fan that they’re clearly among the best to ever play their sports.

And I never got why nadal got picked on so much for having an “unbalanced” resume when he’s won all four slams and is one of only two players in history to win multiple titles on each surface
Uh, do you not see that's how people get overrated, by people incorrectly overrating them?? :rolleyes:

Also if you cant see that Nadal's resume is ridiculously off balance then you're blind. Plus he has ZERO Wtf titles. In 15 years of trying. The guy can't play indoors. That throws his resume off balance too.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Uh, do you not see that's how people get overrated, by people incorrectly overrating them?? :rolleyes:

Also if you cant see that Nadal's resume is ridiculously off balance then you're blind. Plus he has ZERO Wtf titles. In 15 years of trying. The guy can't play indoors. That throws his resume off balance too.
He’s never won the WTF, but several other ATGs never won one of the majors like Borg at the USO and Pete at RG, etc. I think we can all agree that not winning one of the majors is much worse than not winning the WTF
 
It may be more "taxing" in terms of length of time out on the court, but the clay surface is less damaging on the legs and knees.

Nadal has had trouble with the hard rubber surfaces and concrete subsurfaces which prevail on the"hardcourt" circuit, and given him leg and knee injuries.
By "taxing" I'm really referring to the length of the points, which get drawn out on clay. The surface itself is far friendlier for the joints. Presume @Shaolin means the same.
 
In this forum Graf and Federer.
I dont think Graf is overrated since most dont even think she is GOAT anymore. Most rate Serena over her. Which I dont disagree with btw, I also probably rate Serena as the #1 over Graf at this point, but if she were really overrated most or nearly everyone (since even most ranking Graf as GOAT above Serena, while arguably wrong, isnt unreasonable, and wouldnt be enough to stamp her as that overrated) would still be ranking Graf as the GOAT which I dont believe most do. And she even has a fairly large legion of extreme haters, mostly Seles fanatics, who say she is much worse than that, and try and put her out of the top 5 or lower than Seles (lol). Which goes against the idea of her being overrated even more.

Federer is probably overrated. Many talk about him as the clear undisputed GOAT which is probably an overstatement when guys like Laver and Gonzales should have strong cases still, and maybe even Djokovic and Nadal considering how competitive they are with Federer in the same era. Some super biased tennis fans even try and pimp him up as the best athlete of all time which is extreme overrating. I am fine with Federer being considered GOAT, but he is overrated, I agree. Graf not really.
 
You should give the reasons why you think they are overrated, because it is not obvious at all. Except maybe for Sharapova and Sabatini who both because of their conventional good looks got more attention then some other people.

On the top of that there's no "someone else" option in the poll.
Everyone on that quoted list could be reasonably said to be overrated.

Sabatini- you already conceded.

Sharapova- you already conceded.

Jaeger- was predicted to be going to, along with Tracy Austin, be the one to take over womens tennis from Evert and Navratilova. Didnt even end up winning a single singles slam.

Seles- the large legion of Seles fanboys who insist she was a certain 25-30 slam winner without the stabbing already easily make her fall into the overrated category.

Capriati- if you were alive in the early 90s, I dont need to explain this one to you. Even in her second career as a top player (2001-2004) she was overrated by people like Mary Joe Fernandez and Cliff Drysdale and that dumb arse Mary Carillo who acted like just because she was the one who arguably played Serena the toughest she was Serena's equal and superior to the other top players, almost all who she had losing records against.


Nadal- OK probably not overrated too much, but those who talk about him as the GOAT are overrating him, and believe me there are some people who still try to argue Nadal as GOAT despite that it looks likely he is destined for a distant 3rd best in his own era.

Safin- The people who talk him about as a god who is unbeatable when he plays well.

Agassi- Just like Capriati, if you were alive in the early 90s, this needs no explaining.

Nalbandian- To a lesser degreee than Safin, but people seem to have this god complex and Nalbandian unbeatable when on myth.

Zverev- He sucks so anyone who thinks he is good period is overrating him.
 
Rios had talent for sure but he had a super crappy attitude. And no matter how talented you are, when you are a short player in the modern power game, you have to show that much more heart, and there probably isnt a player on tour that showed less heart than Rios.

While Nalbandiann and Safin are insanely overrated by some people, there are also people who wind up being to hard on them due to their being overrated, and claim them to be massive underachiever who didnt care. Which isnt entirely fair to either, as both also had extremely bad luck with injuries. Nalbandian atleast had questionable work ethics at times as he sometimes sported a gut, and both could be mentally up and down at times, but I think both still were much more consistently driven competitors who atleast tried to get something out of their immense talent than Rios was. While Rios also had some bad luck with injuries, it his case it was more a horrible attitude, a history of tanking, and a serious lack of competitive drive that hindered his career, unlike Safin and Nalbandian where it was atleast 60% injuries.

I am very surprised he wasnt included on this poll. He would probably be my vote if he were.
 
It is really a joke to say nadal lacked versatility. He wasn't as good on hard and grass but he still managed 6 non clay titles despite facing the grass goat (federer), the HC goat (nole) and the HC runner up goat (federer). 6 slams is actually 10th in the open era and that is on his weakest surfaces despite facing the strongest HC era ever.

In another era nadal would have easily had 10+ hc+grass slams.

You can rank novak (and of course federer) above him due to versatility (albeit 1 clay slam is pretty weak for a baseline grinder who likes slow surfaces) but really nobody else.

I mean sampras certainly wasn't more versatile than nadal. Yeah he won more on two out of the 3 surfaces but was a total zero on clay while nadal was the clay goat and still a top10-12 all time player on non clay.

Borg has an argument as he dominated clay and grass albeit he wasn't good on hc. Hard to hold that against him though as hc wasn't really meaningful back then. Who knows how good he would have been on hard 10 years later.
Surfaces have been slow down a lot. Nadal benefited from that.

He benefited from weak draws at wimbledon 2010 us open 2013 2017.

Nadal is the biggest fighter ever with amazing physical abilities. But his tennis shots are not as good and there's a lot of payers who hit the ball better than him.
 
Rios played awful in the Australian Open final. He wouldnt have beaten anyone. If anyone was robbed at that Australian Open by a juiced up Korda it is either Johansson or Kucera, as one of those would have won the title over a crappy non playing Rios in the final.
Rios would have even lost to Vince Spadea the way he played that final. It is one of the few times I think someone should have probably gotten a tanking fine in a slam final. Even Safin in the 2002 Australian Open final I do not think quite reached that point, although it was a seriously lackluster effort as well.
 
Top