Players that were a poorer version of someone else

The most obvious is Irina Spirlea. I’ll never forget watching her in 1997 and thinking at least The Poor Woman’s Steffi is still playing, since the real deal was out injured and I missed her game. It’s crazy how her entire game is literally based on Grafs, right down to the iconic high toss + pause at the balls apex. It’s kind of bizarre. Obviously she had none of Steffi’s movement and athleticism but she was fun to watch when Graf was off the tour.

Otherwise Bartolli and Jan Michael Gambill are obvious Seles imposters.

The vast majority of the tour are PWCC… Poor Womens Chrissie Clones and have been for around 5 decades.

I wish we had hoardes of Martina Navratilova Clones. Or Steffi clones. But it’s all PWCCs with modern equipment and power.

Bleh.
 
Don't quite understand your reasoning here, buddy. If a player like Sanchez Vicario could play back-to-back finals at Wimbledon and was couple of games away from winning it against (still) prime Graf, why would Seles be lucky to win it (if not for stabbing, of course)?

She reached her fist Wimbledon final in her third appearance at the age of 18, with a win over Navratilova and while she got beaten pretty badly by Graf, she still showed her potential on grass. She already started working on her volleying actively in 1993 and approached the net more often (probably as a part of her preparation for the grass) and would definitely be one of the favorites. My guess is her best chances are 1993 , but most probably the 1994 edition as there was no Graf and she was a nightmare match-up for the S&V players left in the draw. But would never call it a luck, rather an expected development of events.

Btw, I would love to see Mustard's statement of Seles winning 4-5 Wimbledon titles if the incident never happened, I believe I'm familiar with his posting history here and, honestly, never see him making such exaggerations.
Well I should have left out the “lucky” maybe and say she realistically wins one (and 2 if lucky). After the 1992 final, even if improving I don’t see her beating Graf, she has realistic chances in 1994 but does not win it in 1995, 96 or 97 (against Graf or Hingis). 1998 onwards she will likely already have declined so chances would not get better. Maybe she has outsider chances in 1998.
4-5 Wimbledon titles is definitely out of reach. Whether @Mustard ever claimed that I cannot tell, as I didn’t see it. I was responding to @martinezownsclay regarding the statement in general saying that it is absurd.
 
Last edited:
I watched the world championship final and a bit of the Premier League. It's all very impressive. He needs to stick to darts because his football pundit takes are a bit ''weird.'' I say this because he was asked about Rashford leaving United. He said he didn't want him to leave because it would feel weird. OK, maybe there is nothing wrong with such a comment. I think it would have been weird to keep him, considering he hasn't shown up this season (or any season jk) and Ruben Amorim doesn't want anything to do with him. But yeah, weird.

Yeah, I was rattled.
To busy being a winner unlike Man Utd :sneaky:
 
Well I should have left out the “lucky” maybe and say she realistically wins one (and 2 if lucky). After the 1992 final, even if improving I don’t see her beating Graf, she has realistic chances in 1994 but does not win it in 1995, 96 or 97 (against Graf or Hingis). 1998 onwards she will likely already have declined so chances would not get better. Maybe she has outsider chances in 1998.
4-5 Wimbledon titles is definitely out of reach. Whether @Mustard ever claimed that I cannot tell, as I didn’t see it. I was responding to @martinezownsclay regarding the statement in general saying that it is absurd.

1997 she was a balloon, and there is no way that was only due to the stabbing (her dad was at the height of his illness at that point). There is no way on earth she beats Hingis or Novotna at Wimbledon 97, even without the stabbing.

As for 94, if Seles is ranked #1 as Seles fans will surely believe she would have been, there is no chance Graf draws McNeil first round of that Wimbledon, and she is the super likely winner now. And if Seles is not ranked #1, it is highly doubtful she is strong enough to win a slam on her worst surface, even if Graf does lose.

I would say 93 and 94 are her best chances, but she isn't the likely winner of either one at all. 98 she ironically had a better shot with the stabbing and the exact draw she got, then no stabbing and probably a higher ranking and harder draw. Although even in the real timeline I doubt she beats Novotna in the final, if she makes it.

99 or after really forget it.

I think 1 if she is lucky is a very fair assessment.

As for Sanchez Vicario, Sanchez Vicario is actually a much tougher match up (note I said match up, not opponent) for Graf than Seles is. Notice how Sanchez Vicario does much better vs Graf than any other great player, even Hingis who has only 1 more slam than Sanchez, and even than an old Navratilova. Now despite that Seles is probably the tougher "opponent" for Graf on non grass surfaces, only since she is so much better than Sanchez, especialy on hard courts or carpet. Although even that could be debated, Sanchez has a better record vs Graf at the US Open (2-1) than Seles (0-2) and very similar at the French (3-3 vs 2-3), and similar or better in some other veins. However on grass where she isn't that much weaker than Seles (well in the timeline with the stabbing better in fact, but in an alternative timeline Seles probably could end up better on grass than Sanchez career wise) it is almost certain Sanchez would definitely be a tougher opponent for Graf than Seles would be, and she still never beat Graf at Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:
There are now. Phil Taylor becoming such a dominant winner with coaching from Eric Bristow alone says it all. Phil said that it was Eric who taught him that first was everything and that any position lower was failure, whereas previously Phil thought that second or third was putting on a good show.


Do you watch darts?
No becuse most of the top players all seem to have some kind of super Autism almost no verbal when they do speak they are yelling louder then me as a person with mid Level Aspergers and no more then 1--3 words at most some even having these specific metal silver frame Autism glasses with lenses all scratched up or never cleaned ever. One fat older guy is so out of it with Donald Trump lying disease he thinks he is always right even when the video shows him stepping over the line/faulting the sensor which he seems to do if he is not winning by so much the other player can't make a comeback and is always when really pissed off doing the jumping up and down thing Donald Trump would do pre 2000's before Donald Trump got super beyond too out of shape when he is most pissed off doing some kind of Autism thing. He even says things so disgusting to throw off players he has literally forced a rule in the top darts leagues, the top 2 or 3 where nobody including fans/spectators are allowed to talk during the darts throw only after the throw can fans/spectators say stuff all except for the commentators who are usually off set anyhow in a studio or in own booth. This one player used to be better before he hit the age of 60 and was not such an ass style looser.
 
Last edited:
He was peak in some ways, i.e. mobility (pre-Mueller Weiss), fearless youth of just going for it with wild abandon. Nadal was even 15-20 seconds between points in 2005.

Nadal won 4 masters in 2005, only bettered by 2013 when he won 5.
And was only 3 points in a tiebreak away from a 5th Masters of the year in Miami. And the way he won those 4 M 1000s at age 18-19 was incredible--beating defending champ Coria in MC, the 5 hr 13m EPIC against Coria in Rome; beating Agassi in Canada; coming from 2 sets down to beat Top 10 player Ljubicic in Madrid. 4 M1000s, his first Slam, 11 titles overall ..18-19 year old Nadal put together perhaps the best teenaged season ever for the men in ATP history
 
Do we really need to discuss that Nadal in 2008, 2010, 2012 just to name a few was easily better on clay than in 2005? Two of the masters in 2005 were not on clay, and he didn’t make much noise outside the FO at slams. He was not prime/peak in any way.
Nadal had a 25-match win streak on clay in 2005, winning Barcelona, winning MC and Rome over Coria (with the Rome Finals being a classic), and the French Open. Oh he also won Acapulco on clay
 
Nadal had a 25-match win streak on clay in 2005, winning Barcelona, winning MC and Rome over Coria (with the Rome Finals being a classic), and the French Open. Oh he also won Acapulco on clay
Nadal won his last 36 clay matches of 2005, all 26 clay matches in 2006, and his first 19 clay matches of 2007, i.e. 81 clay wins in a row.
 
And was only 3 points in a tiebreak away from a 5th Masters of the year in Miami. And the way he won those 4 M 1000s at age 18-19 was incredible--beating defending champ Coria in MC, the 5 hr 13m EPIC against Coria in Rome; beating Agassi in Canada; coming from 2 sets down to beat Top 10 player Ljubicic in Madrid. 4 M1000s, his first Slam, 11 titles overall ..18-19 year old Nadal put together perhaps the best teenaged season ever for the men in ATP history
Ljubicic was #12 at that point, but more importantly, though, is his run on indoor hc right before the Madrid Masters, he won in Metz and Vienna back to back titles and was on a hot streak (right after the Madrid, he also reached the Paris Masters final losing to Birdman in five, which just confirms how good his form was), so Nadal beating him in the finals was a very nice feat, especially knowing it was his only indoor title (by indoor, I mean indoor hard/carpet of course).
 
Ljubicic was #12 at that point, but more importantly, though, is his run on indoor hc right before the Madrid Masters, he won in Metz and Vienna back to back titles and was on a hot streak (right after the Madrid, he also reached the Paris Masters final losing to Birdman in five, which just confirms how good his form was), so Nadal beating him in the finals was a very nice feat, especially knowing it was his only indoor title (by indoor, I mean indoor hard/carpet of course).
That's such a great point. Ljubicic was in terrific form during the Fall of 2005. He was hammering his forehand and getting to almost every ball hit back to him. It really looked like he would blast Nadal off the court for the first 2 sets of the match
 
Nadal won his last 36 clay matches of 2005, all 26 clay matches in 2006, and his first 19 clay matches of 2007, i.e. 81 clay wins in a row.
That damn streak still seems completely unreal. 81 matches on a single surface, over 3+ years, so many M1000s, 500s, and 250s is just inhuman. Fed's 65-match win streak on grass is also otherworldly, but that 81-match win streak on such a punishing/physical surface like clay....will never be touched
 
Wilander was no poor player for nobody. Borg had the better first serve, his second was always a bit short, following McEnroes assesment, Both had great stamina and were fast on quick legs, Borg was a bit stronger, but Wilander was more clever and tactically versatile on hard and clay, Borg had the more powerful forehand, but Wilander the imo better backhand.

What I'm about to write is a bit digressive, however:..:

A few months ago I listened to one of the many interviews that Horacio de la Peña conducted with Spanish-speaking tennis players during the lockdown. This one was with Guillermo Pérez Roldán.

Guillermo commented on how, during the semi-final of the Palermo tournament he played against the Växjö player in 1988, Roldán came out on the court determined to hurt Mats, to win. And Roldán won, he took the first game of the first set. The Argentine had the clear recollection of hitting a series of monster forehands, using all his mental and physical strength to win the opening game. Sitting back in his chair, he noticed that he was already sweating profusely, while Mats was not. GPR did not see a drop of sweat on Mats' shirt. By chance, Roldán looked at the clock and saw that they had played 20 minutes to end the game, and he tried not to think about what awaited him, which he failed to do. https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/guillermo-perez-roldan-vs-mats-wilander/p190/w023

Emilio Sanchez tells a similar story about how disheartening it was to see Mats after more than two and a half or three hours of play without a trace of sweat anywhere on his visible body (quarterfinals of the USO in '88, heatwave). Emilio was able to beat Mats in two matches, and it wasn't surprising that he also won sets against the Swede https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/mats-wilander-vs-emilio-sanchez/w023/s014 But the man from Madrid (where he was born) has often spoken about the paradox of Wilander's dominance: you could hurt him, he wasn't Ivan or Stefan, but you would end the match exhausted, physically and mentally, having lost.
 
Ljubicic was #12 at that point, but more importantly, though, is his run on indoor hc right before the Madrid Masters, he won in Metz and Vienna back to back titles and was on a hot streak (right after the Madrid, he also reached the Paris Masters final losing to Birdman in five, which just confirms how good his form was), so Nadal beating him in the finals was a very nice feat, especially knowing it was his only indoor title (by indoor, I mean indoor hard/carpet of course).
Ljubicic had a pretty good year in 2005, just not in the slams lol. No one really talks about his Davis Cup record that year, granted he did lose a match to Hrbaty (7-1) but he had wins over Agassi, Roddick and Davydenko. He also made 9(!!) finals, including 5 in the first half of the year - which I think probably hurt him in the bigger events, of course in October he made 4 straight finals. He lost three of those finals to Federer, two of which were tight three-setters. He gets meme'd a lot but he actually put together a good run in 2005-2006, finally putting it together in the slams with a QF and SF was bound to give him good ranking - of course in a stronger year he doesn't reach as high but there have been much worse top 10 players.
 
Wawrinka is a rich man's version of Federer - the backhand, specifically! If I had a dollar for every Federer fan(myself included) who wished Federer had Wawrinka's backhand, I would be rich!
Don't think he'd be better off at all considering a) how effective Federer's backhand was at his preferred venues b) how integral the slice was to his patterns of play in his heyday c) how much better at returning he was than Wawrinka off that wing
 
Ljubicic had a pretty good year in 2005, just not in the slams lol. No one really talks about his Davis Cup record that year, granted he did lose a match to Hrbaty (7-1) but he had wins over Agassi, Roddick and Davydenko. He also made 9(!!) finals, including 5 in the first half of the year - which I think probably hurt him in the bigger events, of course in October he made 4 straight finals. He lost three of those finals to Federer, two of which were tight three-setters. He gets meme'd a lot but he actually put together a good run in 2005-2006, finally putting it together in the slams with a QF and SF was bound to give him good ranking - of course in a stronger year he doesn't reach as high but there have been much worse top 10 players.
Another example of how form is a better indicator of player's real quality than the rankings. Ljubicic was a high quality opponent during that period and win over him had some weight.
He wasn't an elite mover and it hurt him more than anything IMO and his rather flat strokes were suited for quicker courts, so no wonder he did so well under the roof (6 of his 10 career titles were on indoor hard/carpet) where the margins are higher.

Glad he finally won his biggest title at IW, at the end of his career.
 
Another example of how form is a better indicator of player's real quality than the rankings. Ljubicic was a high quality opponent during that period and win over him had some weight.
He wasn't an elite mover and it hurt him more than anything IMO and his rather flat strokes were suited for quicker courts, so no wonder he did so well under the roof (6 of his 10 career titles were on indoor hard/carpet) where the margins are higher.

Glad he finally won his biggest title at IW, at the end of his career.
Very well deserved masters title that, although I would have loved Arod to win the sunshine double in the middle of the "strong era".
 
Wawrinka is a rich man's version of Federer - the backhand, specifically! If I had a dollar for every Federer fan(myself included) who wished Federer had Wawrinka's backhand, I would be rich!
Federer's backhand was amazing. The fact that only one man (Nadal), who's entire playing style seemed tailor made to be able to break it down, doesn't make it a weakness.
 
Federer's backhand was amazing. The fact that only one man (Nadal), who's entire playing style seemed tailor made to be able to break it down, doesn't make it a weakness.

I agree it was very good, amazing might be overstating it IMO. Nadal was the main one to break it down, but even a very old Agassi had success really breaking it down for periods in 3 or 4 of their matches, even though he ultimately didn't win any match, so it never lasted the entire match per say.
 
Stich was a poor man's Federer. A very talented shotmaker with an all-court game (Fed comes in less obviously, but offensive minded players approached more in Stich's era in general, so would Fed), known for his elegant playing style. Fed was much more consistent though and mentally stronger, but the essence of their games is still the same. Stich's serve was bigger, though.
 
Stich was a poor man's Federer. A very talented shotmaker with an all-court game (Fed comes in less obviously, but offensive minded players approached more in Stich's era in general, so would Fed), known for his elegant playing style. Fed was much more consistent though and mentally stronger, but the essence of their games is still the same. Stich's serve was bigger, though.
And his forehand was way worse.
 
Stich was a poor man's Federer. A very talented shotmaker with an all-court game (Fed comes in less obviously, but offensive minded players approached more in Stich's era in general, so would Fed), known for his elegant playing style. Fed was much more consistent though and mentally stronger, but the essence of their games is still the same. Stich's serve was bigger, though.
And his forehand was way worse.
 
Rublev reminds me a lot of Jim Courier—same height, athletically fast but not great footwork, big first serve with a lot of action, 2948493 inside-out forehands, ugly hitch on the backhand. Bashers who like clay because it gives them more time to run around the backhand.

Courier, however, was far superior in the transition game/at net [despite being only above average there. Rublev is @$$ at this], had a better second serve, and was mentally in a different world in terms of resilience.
 
And his forehand was way worse.
Well okay, worse forehand, better net game and serve, there are obviously differences, but I just see them as similar players, Fed of course un upgraded version (when it comes to consistency off the ground, mental focus), but he would probably play the same brand of tennis if he was 10 years older.
 
Rublev reminds me a lot of Jim Courier—same height, athletically fast but not great footwork, big first serve with a lot of action, 2948493 inside-out forehands, ugly hitch on the backhand. Bashers who like clay because it gives them more time to run around the backhand.

Courier, however, was far superior in the transition game/at net [despite being only above average there. Rublev is @$$ at this], had a better second serve, and was mentally in a different world in terms of resilience.

Courier didn’t know how to Bweh.

IMG-0060.webp
 
Rajeev Ram, when he played singles, was a poorer (much poorer) version of Sampras.
Yes for sure. They don't call him Rampras for nothing. I think both Taylor Dent and Phillipousis could also fill the bill for poor Sampras. They were both better than Rampras in singles. That said, Ram was a beast in doubles for a while.
 
Wilander and Vilas were both a poor mans Bjorn Borg- This applies to both. All 3 were predominantly hardcore baseliners, but all 3 could volley and volley well (Borg by far the most of the three mind you). Each hit with similar spins, each could play agressively from the baseline and go for winners, but generally prefered to outsteady and outgrind their opponents, especialy other basliners, from the backcourt, and grind them into the ground as opposed to outright hitting them off the court. All 3 were amazing movers, amazingly steady, stellar at defense, with a lot of margin of error off their shots. The other two were just inferior to Borg in everyway though.
I think you are right about the Borg Vilas comparison but I don't agree with the Borg Wilander comparison. Wilander was not a clone of Borg. He came to the net more, especially on hard courts, he sliced on the backhand more, he hit flatter more often. Borg was definitely greater but Wilander had strengths over Borg: better volley, slice backhand, strategy. I think Wilander's double handed backhand was as good if not better. Borg had a far better first serve, and a better forehand I think. Both were great athletes but Borg was the better athlete.
 
How about Rusedski vs. Ivanisevic? They have similar games in many ways, but Ivanisevic nearly always seemed to have that something extra when he faced Rusedski. I think Ivanisevic's unpredictability was the key factor in the matchup.
 
Back
Top