D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Very true, although I'm still looking forward to it.
Most Overrated Player ON THIS FORUM
- Thread starter Andyk028
- Start date
Andyk028
Professional
A 500 title 6 years ago making a name for yourself?
J
JRAJ1988
Guest
Safin and Djokovic.
kingcheetah
Hall of Fame
Mens side I'll say Djokovic
Women's side: Graf
Women's side: Graf
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Most overrated:
Stannis Waronka: A hyped up Baghdatis that peaked at the right time.
Novak Djokovic: For losing slams to the above guy, in addition to letting guys like Cilic win slams in his prime, and people still elevate this man to higher than Everest. A somewhat inferior Agassi with poorer shotmaking and rubber limbs.
Both of these are naturally examples of the eternal bias towards the present.
Most underrated:
Peak Safin: The vast majority here has created some mythos that Peak Safin is a figment of the imagination and the definition of overratedness. This could clearly not be further from the truth. All hail peak Safin.
Grigor Dimitrov: Same as the above—underrating masquerading as overrating. Such conspiration.
David Nalbandian: Would be a multiple slam winner in this era. Also if he had Rasheed as a coach.
Stannis Waronka: A hyped up Baghdatis that peaked at the right time.
Novak Djokovic: For losing slams to the above guy, in addition to letting guys like Cilic win slams in his prime, and people still elevate this man to higher than Everest. A somewhat inferior Agassi with poorer shotmaking and rubber limbs.
Both of these are naturally examples of the eternal bias towards the present.
Most underrated:
Peak Safin: The vast majority here has created some mythos that Peak Safin is a figment of the imagination and the definition of overratedness. This could clearly not be further from the truth. All hail peak Safin.
Grigor Dimitrov: Same as the above—underrating masquerading as overrating. Such conspiration.
David Nalbandian: Would be a multiple slam winner in this era. Also if he had Rasheed as a coach.
Last edited:
Andyk028
Professional
Interesting. As a Murray fan, people on here give him A LOT of credit. If he can win another slam (he will, just waiting for it to come), it will solidify a lot of the greatness that has been said about him. Raonic too, I don't see that much talk about him as of late, but he's been injured.
Andyk028
Professional
Gotta disagree with that statement, Djoker is a top class baseliner (and I hate him). Pound for pound, Agassi vs. Djokovic would be a classic if both were in there primes, and I would give the edge to Djoker.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yeah but he is "respected" at the expense of guys like Rafter and Hewitt who aren't that far behind him in ability. If at all.
I think Ferrer is a bit overrated on here. He could win a GS in a different time period but he would never be a great force. If he was going to be he'd have made more of an impact on this time period.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic would have to outlast him. Problem is, if Agassi was on (all cylinders firing) he would most likely take Novak out. His pure ballstriking ability is something that will never be replicated.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Where are these "many people?" What tennis journalist (and I don't mean am idiotic Blogger like Chris Chase), still writes this? Dimi gets a lot of play of tennis forums like this and others, but I don't see any former great pro in tennis or any serious journalist touting him anymore. Had he been the second coming of Fed, he would have won 6 slams by now. Instead he's made it to one slam semi! The difference between their achievements at the same age is unbelievable.
When Fed was a comparable age to Dimi, he reached the finals in an astounding 16 of the 17 tournaments he entered during the season. To even compare him to Fed is not only hilarious but obscenely inaccurate. He has no results to speak of and to even mention his game in the same breath as Fed Is cringe-worthy. If they had met in this year's Wimbledon, old man Federer would have dusted him in straights.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Dimitrov is more like Gasquet. Or a poor man's Haas.
O
OhYes
Guest
Nishikori from the time I've started visiting this place.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Did this make sense to you?
Andyk028
Professional
Totally agree. As of now, aside from being no.1, Murray and Hewitt have very similar achievements and level of talent. If Murray was prime in 2000, he would be no.1.
Andyk028
Professional
You said people started calling Dimitrov the second coming of Federer after his 2009 showing in Rotterdam (which I just looked up, he didn't win). Now you contend that he's been his own man since then, but you seem to use three 250 titles and 1 500 title as credit to your statement. All I'm saying is that people here call Grigor "Young GOAT", which is utterly ridiculous.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Maybe Marcelo Rios, who's rep is based entirely on how he played. At least Safin won a couple of slams. People seem to really love Tommy Haas too, but I don't know if this is based on people just liking him.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Agreed completely...
Andyk028
Professional
why the ellipsis?
J
JRAJ1988
Guest
People on here give Murray a lot of credit? Seriously? 50% of the posters are always mocking him, always comparing his career against the big 3, people jump in with the disparaging remarks...I'd say Murray is underrated on here.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
It's how I type, I guess. Perhaps it wasn't needed in that sentence, but I'm not one to nitpick when it comes to grammar.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Roger Federer, obviously.
He wins every poll, including polls for big Slam matches in latter stages of tournaments, and almost never comes good.
Forum has its whole head inside Roger. It has to be Federer.
With that said, he should have won 25 Slams (Sampras should have won 30).
He wins every poll, including polls for big Slam matches in latter stages of tournaments, and almost never comes good.
Forum has its whole head inside Roger. It has to be Federer.
With that said, he should have won 25 Slams (Sampras should have won 30).
K
King Fed WW
Guest
Oh right, people are that dim that they think the term Young Goat is serious.
Then again, people seriously think Tennis_Commentator is a Nadal fanatic.
Then again, people seriously think Tennis_Commentator is a Nadal fanatic.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Sureshs is underrated, IMO.
kingcheetah
Hall of Fame
If Sureshs is a mansion
Then Fed is a humble town house
and Murray is a trap house.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Tomas Berdych 1.5
K
King Fed WW
Guest
Pancho Gonzalez.
Most underrated, Borg.
Most underrated, Borg.
Last edited by a moderator:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Well at least Novak's in good company!
Andyk028
Professional
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
don't know about overrated, but Federer is by far the GOAT of winning TT polls
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, you have your nerve typing dots. Obviously your punctuation is substandard for this forum.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
At the moment I'd say Wawrinka.
I remember when most people were calling him a fluke, winning the AO, or at least a lot of people.
Now he is hyped so high that if he does not win Wimbledon it will almost seem like a failure.
That's nothing against the man. I'm only pointing out the fickleness of fans.
I remember when most people were calling him a fluke, winning the AO, or at least a lot of people.
Now he is hyped so high that if he does not win Wimbledon it will almost seem like a failure.
That's nothing against the man. I'm only pointing out the fickleness of fans.
It would've been a piece of cake for Federer if he could time travel and play in the 90s when the general level of tennis wasn't as evolved. If, let's say, top ten players in the 90s and those of now have team competition, I think the latter can toy with the former.
I don't believe in such a notion as weak era or strong era... but even if there is, next generation of weak era is stronger than past generation of strong era.
Why every Nadal fan never fails to show butthurt towards Wawr? I guess it is for the same reason Toni Nadal dislikes The Man.
And show me a single poster, who has said he is the Top favorite for Wimbledon. It's obvious grass is his weakest surface but still he is one of favorites to win according to odds. He has certainly delivered "hype" making QF for two straight years and even if he loses today, I wouldn't call it failure because his game is not made for grass.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Is it all Nadal fan-butthurt?
I looked at Stan's win at the AO as a fluke because there was nothing suggesting before that which said he was that good.
Stan is an outlier. He is now establishing a peak that great players usually show in their mid 20s. I also overlooked him going into the FO this year. A lot of people like me have their doubts about one-slam winners, but start to be convinced after the second slam.
I thought Stan's play this year at the FO was magnificent. I'm not ready to assume he will win W this year, but if he does, I will have nothing but admiration for him. He plays the most attacking tennis I've seen from the back court in a long time. I love his BH.
I never said he would be a failure no matter what he does or does not win.
I think what Stan is doing is great. It makes tennis far less predictable.
Just too obvious. He denied Nadal for double career GS, which could have seen him entering in GOAT debates. Argument in his favor would have been much stronger than it is now. That match will hurt every Nadal supporter forever since he has decisively came short in chasing Federer's count. You are one of the objective Nadal fans here but still you don't form exception because I have seen mocking him at least twice before. He has won second GS title now, yet you've not toned down negativity towards him. Murray who has equal number of GS wins as that of Man which brings "a big smile" on your face. You give full credit for his GS win in this "strong era" but you still mock Wawr as fluke winner, you call him overrated. Why this double standards? It's obvious.
Fair enough. You still believe his first GS was fluke?
You said anything less than the trophy almost will be failure for him. He is fourth biggest favorite according to odds. If he wins today, then I will say he has managed to deliver all the hype. Everything after that will be bonus.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Mocking him? Nadal is one of my favorite players, and I have been watching him for a very long time. I don't like his time delays. Those have hurt him. I don't like his rituals because they have hurt him. I would like to see him get someone else besides his uncle as a coach. Hardly mocking.
Very wrong. And my opinion that he was not a top player had nothing to do with negativity. I have seen a lot of players win one slam, never to win another one. Stan has two now. Full credit to him. Being surprised is not the same as negativity. It is rare to see someone have so much success at his age.
Wrong again. I am saying that right now many people have become "fair-weather fans". It is easy to support a player after the second slam.
After Murry's second slam suddenly he got a lot of fans. Many of them gave up on him when he fell in ranking. I always felt that Murray would not be himself until he got over surgery, and I was right.
I'm not sure why you are always ready to attack me. And this is not the first time.
Murrayjuannow
Banned
1. Suresh
2. Maximagqk
2. Maximagqk
You misunderstood. May be my fault. I was referring to Wawr not Nadal. You have called him "fluke winner" at least twice before. I ask you again, do you still believe his AO win was fluke?
OK. He is a late bloomer not fluke winner. Just deal with reality.
You missed the point. I have seen you giving full credit and respect to Murray for his achievements. Only thing I'm demanding is equal treatment from objective fan.
I have nothing against you but every time you'll bring this fluke win in discussion, I will not hesitate to point the obvious.
Yet, you haven't explained me how he is overrated. You conveniently skipped most relevant portion of my post.
I have posted in your most recent thread about return games. I have few questions, can you reply that post?
Last edited:
rossi46
Professional
Defensive baseliners Nadal, Djokovic & Murray don't exactly make tennis interesting to watch.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I have said repeatedly that I thought Stan's win at the AO in 2014 was a fluke. I think ANY player with his record who wins a slam is a fluke. This is nothing against Stan. But if you look at his record before that slam:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/stan-wawrinka/w367/titles-and-finals
Look at what he won before the AO. He won 4 tournaments, no Masters, and that was between 2006 and 2013. He has still only won one Masters, the last one in 2014. This year he won two titles on HC, which is pretty good, but he looked pretty awful on clay.
So did I expect him to win the FO at the beginning?
Absolutely not.
Did I think he had a great chance by the end?
Yes, I did.
You seem to have a problem with the fact that I did not have faith in Wawrinka winning big before the FO.
Why?
This guy has like 17000 posts in like two years, Breakpoint has like 100,000 posts too. Why is it the dumbest posters are the one's who talk the most????
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I've never really understood why anyone would have a problem with how active certain posters are on these boards. I mean, how on earth does it affect your life? Very strange indeed.
Similar threads
