Who do you regard as tennis history's 2 most overrated players and why ?

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Who has Rios even at his best beaten? Only Agassi at the 98 Miami really. Agassi was nowhere near his best here, he was only starting to work his way up from dropping out of the top 100 at the end of 1997. He wouldnt even get past the 4th round of any 1998 slam event so he was far from his best at this point, and that is Rios's only ever big win. To put Rios in the same sentence of any of Sampras, Federer, Agassi, or Safin, as far as peak level of play is a true joke. By the way I started following tennis closely in 1990, and I have seen Rios play plenty of times, including when he was at his very best. He is no Safin in terms of natural talent, ability to take down the biggest guns at his best, or accomplishments.



LOL the fact that he thinks Rios at his best could even beat Federer at his best is preposterous. Federer beat Rios in 2002 twice, well before Federer's prime. Heck, he 6-2ed him in the last set they played against each other.


And he somehow thinks Rios could have beaten Federer in 2005. LOL.


Here, let me show you a glimpse of what would happen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXMnsDODx4&translated=1


That's a pre-prime Federer also.
 

bet

Banned
Oh yes, cherry picked youtube videos. I mean, Safin only redirects Agassi's crosscourt backhand at will the entire match. We all know how good Agassi's crosscourt backhand is also.



The fact that you think Rios is anywhere near the talent level of Safin is just ridiculous. Safin has had just as many injury problems, and is probably even less motivated then Rios, and is even more of a headcase than he is. Yet he won two slams, and it sure wasn't because of work ethic.

Yes, Safin redirected them with his STRENGTH, Rios was better than anybody I've seen at redirecting shots with his hands. I've already gone over this but you seem unable to understand this. Further, showing a video of Safin beating Agassi IS NOT EVIDENCE that he is more talented than Rios. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. Again, you just don't seem able to respond rationally and on topic.

What you are doing amounts to shouting "Safin rules! Rios sucks! Who can do what safin did? NOT rioS! LOL!" It's not evidence, it's not relevant and it's not condusive to discussion.

If you simply want to say my opinion is "ridiculous", that's fine. There are a lot of ridiculous tennis experts who agree with me, while you seem to have trouble even understanding Rios' game.

PS. For anyone else reading, one of the people would agree with me about Rios' talent and hands is....AGASSI. Who specifically said he couldn't believe how Rios can handle and use pace and that he had thought he could back Rios into the paint but that he discovered you must address Rios as a big man. Another expert who agreed with me is none other than Agassi's father! He specifically said that Rios had abilities with his hands to redirect the ball at a level beyond Andre's.

In any case, the irony is that I'm stuck defending Rios (this often happens when you deal with a rabid fanboy) whom I have almost no respect for!
 

thalivest

Banned
Marcelos Rios was world #1 in one of the most f'ed up systems in the open era. They restructured the point system because of Rios and Kafelnikov. His ability to redirect balls, his touch, his ability to take balls on the rise, all of that is HIGHLY overrated, because he couldn't get it done on the big stage, where the best players bring out their best game. Safin did it despite being a much bigger headcase, and Rios didn't.

Exactly. That Rios or Kafelnikov were ever ranked #1 was due to the ridiculous ranking system them and the major dropoff in the quality of the field in the late 90s. In the early to mid 90s mens tennis was very strong, then it really fell off drastically starting around 96/97 with Agassi's slump, Becker retiring, Edberg retiring, Stich retiring, Courier burnt out and finished completely now, Chang about to be burnt out and finished completely, Ivanisevic sucking everywhere outside of Wimbledon the rest of his career now. Basically only Sampras, Rafter, and the 7 dwarves left. Players like Rios and Kafelnikov were the beneficiaries to become two of the worst #1s in the history of the sport, albeit very briefly.
 

bet

Banned
LOL the fact that he thinks Rios at his best could even beat Federer at his best is preposterous. Federer beat Rios in 2002 twice, well before Federer's prime. Heck, he 6-2ed him in the last set they played against each other.


And he somehow thinks Rios could have beaten Federer in 2005. LOL.


Here, let me show you a glimpse of what would happen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXMnsDODx4&translated=1


That's a pre-prime Federer also.

Yep. That sums it up right there! You see, I have played and coached tennis for a long time. As I explained to you in detail, none of the players at this level would be winless over the long run against the other if they played at their best. It simply doesn't work that way. Maybe you'll understand this one day, maybe not. If you ever do, think of me and what I TRIED to explain to you.

In the meantime carry on with your arguments e.g. "superman is WAY stronger than the Hulk, look at the time he lifted that office building with one hand and made it look easy, that's way better than when the hulk lifted that mountain and had to use both hands!!!" "hulk hogan beat the rock and the rock once beat kane so kane wouldn't have a chance against hulk hogan!"
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Yep. That sums it up right there! You see, I have played and coached tennis for a long time. As I explained to you in detail, none of the players at this level would be winless over the long run against the other if they played at their best. It simply doesn't work that way. Maybe you'll understand this one day, maybe not. If you ever do, think of me and what I TRIED to explain to you.


A pre-prime put a clinic on a Marcelos Rios still playing at a very high level in 2002. Don't even give me this bullcrap about your coaching experience or anything else. Federer playing at his peak was near unbeatable. He nearly beat Nalbandian on Nalbandian's best surface, while Nalbandian was playing near his best, with a freaking ankle injury which limited his movement greatly. Give me a break. You seriously think somehow the highly overrated Rios is going to beat that?
 

thalivest

Banned
LOL the fact that he thinks Rios at his best could even beat Federer at his best is preposterous. Federer beat Rios in 2002 twice, well before Federer's prime. Heck, he 6-2ed him in the last set they played against each other.


And he somehow thinks Rios could have beaten Federer in 2005. LOL.


Here, let me show you a glimpse of what would happen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXMnsDODx4&translated=1


That's a pre-prime Federer also.

Yeah I am a Federer hater and I would probably cheer for Rios if they ever played (even though i like neither player). However realistically what does Rios have to hurt Agassi with at all. Certainly not the serve, ground game isnt nearly powerful enough and Federer has too much variety to let Rios get in a pattern and use his pace which he liked to do. Rios's speed wouldnt bother Federer, only someone as fast as Nadal can bother Federer this way, even Hewitt and Coria arent quite fast enough to get so many balls back to bother Federer and they are much faster then peak Rios. Rios certainly doesnt hit with enough spin to bother Federer. He certainly doesnt return serve well enough to make Roger press on his serve. Certainly doesnt volley well enough to bother Federer by coming in. What would be left, imposing his will on Federer, LOL!

Federer was less then half the player he was starting in 2004 in 2002. He was atleast as far from his best as Rios who was still having good results was. That match pretty much says it all with baby Federer toying with Rios.

Rios hasnt proven he can beat any great player at their best. Beating a barely starting to comeback Agassi in 1998 is not good enough. If he beat Agassi in 1994, 1995, 1999, heck even 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 it might mean something but not in 1998. The other guys Rios beat to win those 2 Masters during his most dominant and best month or so of tennis ever were guys like Gambill, Rusedski, and Henman (on hard courts). Wow, what an amazing lineup Rios at his best was taking down. In his one ever slam final he couldnt handle the powerful ground game and explosive shotmaking of Petr Korda, a 30 year old in only his 2nd ever slam final, and was embarassed getting only 6 games in defeat.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Yeah I am a Federer hater and I would probably cheer for Rios if they ever played (even though i like neither player). However realistically what does Rios have to hurt Agassi with at all. Certainly not the serve, ground game isnt nearly powerful enough and Federer has too much variety to get in a pattern and use his pace. Rios's speed wouldnt bother Federer, only someone as fast as Nadal can bother Federer this way, even Hewitt and Coria arent quite fast enough to get so many balls back to bother Federer and they are much faster then peak Rios. Rios certainly doesnt hit with enough spin to bother Federer. He certainly doesnt return serve well enough to make Roger press on his serve. Certainly doesnt volley well enough to bother Federer by coming in. What would be left, imposing his will on Federer, LOL!

Federer was less then half the player he was starting in 2004 in 2002. He was atleast as far from his best as Rios who was still having good results was. That match pretty much says it all with baby Federer toying with Rios.

Rios hasnt proven he can beat any great player at their best. Beating a barely starting to comeback Agassi in 1998 is not good enough. If he beat Agassi in 1994, 1995, 1999, heck even 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 it might mean something but not in 1998. The other guys Rios beat to win those 2 Masters during his most dominant and best month or so of tennis ever were guys like Gambill, Rusedski, and Henman (on hard courts). Wow, what an amazing lineup Rios at his best was taking down. In his one eer slam final he couldnt handle the powerful ground game and explosive shotmaking of Petr Korda, a 30 year old in only his 2nd ever slam final, and was embarassed getting only 6 games in defeat.


LOL, yes. I actually loved those guys, Gambill, Rusedski, and Henman, but they just weren't that good to be honest.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Federer as well is wildly orrerated and boy is that saying something for a player of his calibre. Only goes to show what foolish extents his fanboys will go to. The biggest thing about Federer is that playing in a weak era, he was never forced to expand his game and more importantly, never developed the mental toughness to match his elite(even by goat standards) talent/game. Nevertheless, he is indeed top 5 of all time and may yet go higher!

Fanboys of every player vastly overrate their favourite player whether it be Federer,Sampras or Nadal(and belive me some of the things I read on this forum about the 2 latter very much rivals what most fanatical Fed followers say about their hero)so it's definitely not solely a Fed fanboy thing.Top 5 of all time at the age of 27? And may even go further? Sorry if Fed is all that then he just can't be considered one of the most overrated in the history of tennis(as per the title of the thread),he has accomplished too much for that label.

Wow, is Safin your boyfriend or something? This proves my point perfectly. People are in love with Safin on this board, so much so that he can play like absolute garbage for years, and people would still create polls like "Who Will Win the Australian Open?" and Safin would be a poll choice even though he hadn't won back-to-back matches in months LOL.

The guy had a great spell from 01'-02. Then he disappears for two years, comes back and wins for like 3 months, and then he's gone again until June 2008 when he makes the Wimbledon semis. But reading posts like yours, you would think the guy has been winning slams for the whole 8 years. Other then that one year bout he had with an illness called "consistancy" he's a completely streaky player, and the definition of overrated.

I would say you have a different definition of overrated than me.For me overrated players are guys like Rios,Haas,Kiefer,Gasquet(so far) etc. the player with overall nice and very entertaining games to watch that were touted for greatness but haven't really achieved anything significant on the tour.

Safin can't be overrated for the sole reason that he actually has proven his ability on the biggest stages in tennis(grand slams).He won his 2 slams by beating 2 of the GOAT contenders Federer and Sampras at their relative best(in Sampras's case).With those wins,Safin actually gave you a reason for you to consider him a massive underachiver(very different than overrated IMO),something those guys I mentioned above never did.

Sigh. This is the argument style of little kids. It's absurd. To post cherry-picked youtube clips of a player playing well and declare it as some kind of evidence of his superiority to a different player.

No, I don't think Rios can do "that". I think he can do "this" to a YOUNGER Agassi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UlWD1z4MjU

As to the rest of your wild claims....you need to take a course in logic when you grow up. "safin out hit some of the best.....Rios couldn't dream of doing such a thing"...where do you start....this isn't even an argument. I wonder if somebody can post 10 problems with this argument. It should be quite doable.

As someone who questions people's age on an internet message board I'm sure you're well aware that in 1998 Agassi was just recovering from his 1996-1997 slump(caused by lack of confidence and injuries)so that wasn't anything close to Agassi at his best.And besides masters aren't the biggest stages and most people forgot them over time,it's big wins at slams that truly matter and stay in ones memory.

At their best Safin is way better than Rios,most tennis fans would agree with me on this and on top of that Safin has proven what he can do at his best in slams,Rios got past the quarter of a slam once in his career and got trumped badly in his only slam final.

Also I do find it funny that you consider Federer overrated yet you defend one of the weakest(if not the weakest)number ones in tennis history-Rios.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
zagor, you made me cry. I remember the days of Haas actually being good, and then injuries set in and he never put it together. Sigh. He was destined for greatness, :( If only he had a BIGGER FOREHAND. GAH.



Really though Haas suffered from no continuity at all in his tennis career. His parents nearly died, he had to stop playing for about a year, shoulder/abdominal injuries, etc. It's really too bad, because in 2001 and 2002, it looked like he was a promising player. Sure, he wasn't going to be the next Federer or anything, but I think he had a slam or two in his career had he kept building on his success.
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Yeah,if ONLY.I remember people touting him as the next big thing for Germany after Becker and Stich.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
zagor, you made me cry. I remember the days of Haas actually being good, and then injuries set in and he never put it together. Sigh. He was destined for greatness, :( If only he had a BIGGER FOREHAND. GAH.



Really though Haas suffered from no continuity at all in his tennis career. His parents nearly died, he had to stop playing for about a year, shoulder/abdominal injuries, etc. It's really too bad, because in 2001 and 2002, it looked like he was a promising player. Sure, he wasn't going to be the next Federer or anything, but I think he had a slam or two in his career had he kept building on his success.

Maybe,who knows.He did suffer a great mount of setbacks with taking time off with his parents being in coma and all sort of injuries.But he still doesn't strike me as some truly great player capable of winning multiple slams.He's overall a complete player(nice BH,volleys,serve)who does everything pretty good but just doesn't have that one thing to separate him from the rest IMO,plus he has always been a bit of a headcase too.I always liked to watch him play though(love his BH)and he could give Federer some troubles from time to time.
 
Last edited:

thalivest

Banned
It would have been great for the mens game if Haas had panned out to be as great as expected too. He had the personality, the looks, the all around game style, came from a tennis nation with great recent history in the sport. It is sad how his career has panned out.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Maybe,who knows.He did suffer a great mount of setbacks with taking time off with his parents being in coma and all sort of injuries.But he still doesn't strike me as some truly great player capable of winning multiple slams.He's overall a complete player(nice BH,volleys,serve)who does everything pretty good but just doesn't have that one thing to separate him from the rest IMO,plus he has always been a bit of a headcase too.I always liked to watch him play though(love his BH)and he could give Federer some troubles from time to time.



Earlier in his career his forehand looked like it was making alot of improvements. Seemed like he had alot of zip on it, and was putting more on it. Too bad it all had to end.


He wouldn't have been great, but I think he could have snuck a slam or two. Maybe not 3 or more, but two would be a good estimate for him.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
It would have been great for the mens game if Haas had panned out to be as great as expected too. He had the personality, the looks, the all around game style, came from a tennis nation with great recent history in the sport. It is sad how his career has panned out.


Yea well, maybe he'll go out with a bang before he retires :p


Just like I was hoping Henman would :(
 

edmondsm

Legend
I would like to note that somehow in this thread the terms "overrated" and "not-talented" became synonomous. I don't know why, but I certainly never posted with this in mind. Overrated to me means "gets more respect then one deserves", which has nothing to do with talent. That is what I think is the case with Safin. People heap praise on him that he just flat out doesn't deserve IMO. Somehow that got twisted around into me saying he isn't talented which is just not the case.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I would like to note that somehow in this thread the terms "overrated" and "not-talented" became synonomous. I don't know why, but I certainly never posted with this in mind. Overrated to me means "gets more respect then one deserves", which has nothing to do with talent. That is what I think is the case with Safin. People heap praise on him that he just flat out doesn't deserve IMO. Somehow that got twisted around into me saying he isn't talented which is just not the case.


That's not a real overrated definition. Overrated is one who is rated above their own talent level. Rios is definitely way overrated. Roddick is way underrated. Safin definitely deserves the praise that he gets, because he won his slams in fairly dramatic fashions. It's not like Gaudio where he had a choke fest master on the other side, he had to play TWO GOAT candidates for his slams. Very strong ones too. Kinda tough to say that he doesn't deserve the praise that he gets.



I mean crap, I guess we can just go around calling everyone overrated now. Blake, Roddick, Tsonga, Djokovic, etc. etc. Every player gets some praise they don't deserve. However, it's not overboard ever. Safin proved it again this year that he can still play at a high level. No one ever said he could be at slam caliber winning level again, but he definitely has the game to be inside the top 20 if not top 10.



Oh, and if we're gonna use your definition. Federer and Nadal are the most highly overrated tennis players in the history of tennis. Seriously.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Yes, Safin redirected them with his STRENGTH, Rios was better than anybody I've seen at redirecting shots with his hands. I've already gone over this but you seem unable to understand this. Further, showing a video of Safin beating Agassi IS NOT EVIDENCE that he is more talented than Rios. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. Again, you just don't seem able to respond rationally and on topic.

What you are doing amounts to shouting "Safin rules! Rios sucks! Who can do what safin did? NOT rioS! LOL!" It's not evidence, it's not relevant and it's not condusive to discussion.

If you simply want to say my opinion is "ridiculous", that's fine. There are a lot of ridiculous tennis experts who agree with me, while you seem to have trouble even understanding Rios' game.

PS. For anyone else reading, one of the people would agree with me about Rios' talent and hands is....AGASSI. Who specifically said he couldn't believe how Rios can handle and use pace and that he had thought he could back Rios into the paint but that he discovered you must address Rios as a big man. Another expert who agreed with me is none other than Agassi's father! He specifically said that Rios had abilities with his hands to redirect the ball at a level beyond Andre's.

In any case, the irony is that I'm stuck defending Rios (this often happens when you deal with a rabid fanboy) whom I have almost no respect for!



And guess what, he ran into this guy named Safin in 2004. And he couldn't believe how fast the ball came back at him. Safin redirected all of Agassi's shots, and really killed him with the backhand up the line. He was hitting a clean 10 mph faster then Agassi was sometimes. That's sick.


I have no trouble understanding Rios' game. He's like a lesser and dumbed down version of David Nalbandian. Nalbandian is just sick when he's on. The only thing now is can he do it at the biggest stages. Until he can, he'll be stuck in that "overrated" category with Rios.



Here's what Agassi faced, despite hitting around 70 mph backhands or more.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0-HOq2E1Q


See how much faster Safin's balls are? And see how he just redirected Agassi's forehand at the end of that ralley? That was just pure timing and talent, not physical strength or any other bs excuse you're gonna throw out.
 
Last edited:

FitzRoy

Professional
Here, let me show you a glimpse of what would happen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXMnsDODx4&translated=1


That's a pre-prime Federer also.

Good find! I love seeing older videos of Federer, prior to his winning Wimbledon.

NamRanger: I do not disagree with you that Federer is better than Rios. There's absolutely no question about it. But I wanted to point out that it's ironic that you use Safin as an example of a purer talent, when Safin himself said that he considered Rios to be the best pure talent he's ever played against. This was said before Federer's emergence as an all-time great, so perhaps Safin would revise it in light of that.

I also think you're doing Safin a bit of a disservice by suggesting that he just goes out there hitting balls with no strategy or design. I think there was more sophistication to his game than people realize.
 

grafrules

Banned
I also think you're doing Safin a bit of a disservice by suggesting that he just goes out there hitting balls with no strategy or design. I think there was more sophistication to his game than people realize.

Yeah that is the Safin who gets frusterated and loses his cool. Once this happens he does indeed revert to this. When his head is together his game is far more then just hitting balls with no strategy or design.

Probably the most one dimensional player I can think of other then Karlovic is Gonzalez. No thinking, no strategy, no point construction, no variety off any shot, no feel, and not even any power really except for one shot. Only a really hard and powerful forehand, nothing else, not even much power off any other shot (first serve on occasion maybe) and definitely no thought or variation whatsoever either.
 
Last edited:
Overated.

My definition is overated would be a player who was either:

a) at one time touted for great things but faded away(fast or slow)

eg Roddick,ferrero,haas,keifer,henman,rios,scud,guga(will comeback to this)
, SAFIN, coria, (kiefer at one point was #6 in 1999)

b) continues to dissapoint to this day eg nalby/gasquet/berdych/baggy

c) did achieve but competition was weaker than expected...eg graf/hingis

Now back to a) some names are clouded by injury eg Guga/scud...
...because had it not been for injury they may well have achieved more.
You could put Haas and safin and Rios in this category too...50/50 thou.
Plyers like Kiefer and Ferrero and Nalby have no excuse at all IMHO.

Hewitt is an interesting case, when he starting winning slams a lot of
people he would have a career like courier because of his style....they
have turned out to be correct, also in 2004/2005 lleyton was denied
by Federer in 5 of 8 slams played...so it's a bit harsh putting Hewitt in
the overated category.

Roddick is an even more interesting case, in that the HYPE surrounding
him was ridiculous..even after fed had destroyed him 2003 wimby semi.
Like Henman, he was overhyped to the point some ppl didn't look at talent.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Good find! I love seeing older videos of Federer, prior to his winning Wimbledon.

NamRanger: I do not disagree with you that Federer is better than Rios. There's absolutely no question about it. But I wanted to point out that it's ironic that you use Safin as an example of a purer talent, when Safin himself said that he considered Rios to be the best pure talent he's ever played against. This was said before Federer's emergence as an all-time great, so perhaps Safin would revise it in light of that.

I also think you're doing Safin a bit of a disservice by suggesting that he just goes out there hitting balls with no strategy or design. I think there was more sophistication to his game than people realize.



Safin isn't exactly a strategic player though. Sure, he CAN do it, but that's not a strength of his. He's at his best when he's just out there hitting the ball without worrying about anything. I.E. Australian Open 2005.


I'm not saying he didn't use strategy, but he relied heavily more upon his ball striking talent rather than strategy to win his matches, don't you agree?
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Somebody on this thread asked what exactly does "overrated" mean.

Obviously, there has to be a "rating" to start with. Then there has to be a reason (provided by you) why that rating should be lower or not exist.

The best example, and I'm not saying I agree with this (or any of my examples), are people who think Graf is overrated:

(1) Her "rating" is (in many circles) - female GOAT. (2) Reason why overrated -- people believe that because her main rival was stabbed at the peak of her career, her competition was diminished. (3) Conclusion, she's not female GOAT, but still one of the greatest.

Or, take Nadal, whom people have rated as the best clay court player ever.

(1) Rating - clay GOAT. (2) Reason why overrated - He hasn't faced the same competition as Borg, or it's too early to tell, his career is not over and Borg won 5 FOs. (3) Conclusion, not clay GOAT, but certaintly one of the best clay courters ever.

With guys like Safin it gets a little tricker, because he's really an enigma and there is no concrete rating, but this is what I think people are getting at:

(1) Rating - one of the most talented players to ever play the game. (2) Reason why overrated - He hasn't achieved enough with only 2 Slams and talent is more than shotmaking and should reflect acheivement. (3) Conclusion - in a broader sense, he's not one of the most talented players ever. (Of course this leads to the "pure talent" arguments that really don't consider mental strength, focus, achievement as part of talent.)

So, to be overrated, IMO, you have to start from somewhere - a specific rating, give a reason why the rating is undeserved, and offer a conclusion of what you think the rating should be.

"Pat McEnrore sings his praises during telecasts, but I don't like him" really isn't a good example of a player being overrated.
 
Last edited:

Cenc

Hall of Fame
do you realize he is a kid. a 16 year old kid. funny you would agree with a child. go do another 1,000 crunches.

you are an idiot

so due to my age everything i say is wrong... wow...
however imho, i shouldnt be so mad because all the complexes you have arent your fault, so im very rude because i become furious while you are healing them
sry one more time
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Somebody on this thread asked what exactly does "overrated" mean.

Obviously, there has to be a "rating" to start with. Then there has to be a reason (provided by you) why that rating should be lower or not exist.

The best example, and I'm not saying I agree with this (or any of my exmaples), are people who think Graf is overrated:

(1) Her "rating" is (in many circles) - female GOAT. (2) Reason why overrated -- people believe that because her main rival was stabbed at the peak of her career, her competition was diminished. (3) Conclusion, she's not female GOAT, but still one of the greatest.

Or, take Nadal, whom people have rated as the best clay court player ever.

(1) Rating - clay GOAT. (2) Reason why overrated - He hasn't faced the same competition as Borg, or it's too early to tell, his career is not over and Borg won 5 FOs. (3) Conclusion, not clay GOAT, but certaintly one of the best clay courters ever.

With guys like Safin it gets a little tricker, because he's really an enigma and there is no concrete rating, but this is what I think people are getting at:

(1) Rating - one of the most talented players to ever play the game. (2) Reason why overrated - He hasn't achieved enough with only 2 Slams and talent is more than shotmaking and should reflect acheivement. (3) Conclusion - in a broader sense, he's not one of the most talented players ever. (Of course this leads to the "pure talent" arguments that really don't consider mental strength, focus, achievement as part of talent.)

So, to be overrated, IMO, you have to start from somewhere - a specific rating, give a reason why the rating is undeserved, and offer a conclusion of what you think the rating should be.

"Pat McEnrore sings his praises during telecasts, but I don't like him" really isn't a good example of a player being overrated.



You can make the argument that Safin relied heavily on his pure talent to win his Slams. He was not a hard worker, and definitely did not have great mental strength. He had an entourage of lady friends with him at the Australian Open, come on now.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
c'mon Drak..Budge would slam that 105 MPH serve of yours.  How can you overrate this guy?:)I can't say much for the guys you mentioned, but I find that anyone playing in the wood era may be somewhat overrated to match up with today's game.  Not saying Laver would not be a good player today, but his game (and others) were so vastly different because of wood racquets.  who knows, maybe if someone plucked a 25 year old Laver and put a graphite racquet (like the K90) in his hand maybe he would be even better just Like McEnroe.
actually when i said the same thing u called me an idiot

one more proof that you are stupid:
when i say something u attack me for that, few weeks later u say the same thing
what means that all why you write on this forum is to insult others and heal your personal problems
amazing
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
You can make the argument that Safin relied heavily on his pure talent to win his Slams. He was not a hard worker, and definitely did not have great mental strength. He had an entourage of lady friends with him at the Australian Open, come on now.

As, I said, I'm just providing examples that I've seen on these boards. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them. I've seen Safin play live and I'd be hard pressed to not call him one of the most talented players ever.

I just think the discussion is more interesting if people really set out their arguments to get from point "a" to point "b". "I disagree with a television commentator's positive opinion of Player X" really isn't a great "overrated" argument.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
As, I said, I'm just providing examples that I've seen on these boards. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them. I've seen Safin play live and I'd be hard pressed to not call him one of the most talented players ever.

I just think the discussion is more interesting if people really set out their arguments to get from point "a" to point "b". "I disagree with a television commentator's positive opinion of Player X" really isn't a great "overrated" argument.



I think for how much work he put in, he achieved quite abit. Most people calling him overrated just don't understand the difference between underachiever and overrated.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
1. Maria Sharapova, is way overated but that's because the media hypes her all the time. I don't think that she's as attractive as she's made her out to be either.

2. Bill Tilden. Despite being a tennis player from 80 years ago, a lot of people consider him to be one of the GOAT. I even read an article where the writer ranked him ahead of Federer.
 

thalivest

Banned
1. Maria Sharapova, is way overated but that's because the media hypes her all the time. I don't think that she's as attractive as she's made her out to be either.

2. Bill Tilden. Despite being a tennis player from 80 years ago, a lot of people consider him to be one of the GOAT. I even read an article where the writer ranked him ahead of Federer.

Bill Tilden is quite overrated I agree. It is funny how Lenglen and Wills are so low balled with weakish competition in such a pre historic time yet he isnt. Also unlike Lenglen and Wills he was surprassed before his career ended, as the French started beating him down once they matured.

Maria Sharapova though isnt. The girl has 3 slam titles at only 21, even with almost two years wasted by injuries. When healthy she is very consistent making semis or better of every slam. When healthy she is one of the few reliables of this weak and erratic era of womens tennis.
 

Azzurri

Legend
Neither Sampras nor Agassi at their very peaks could beat Federer. Sampras at his best could not beat Agassi at the Australian Open, and Agassi certainly even when he was playing above his own maximum level couldn't beat Federer.


I think you are forgetting something. Agassi and Federer faced off in the QF that year at the Australian Open 2005, and Federer trounced him. Badly. It wasn't even close.


LOL at Rios being able to win matches against Federer. Federer is 10x the player Rios ever will be. Federer was UNSTOPPABLE in 2005. Only FOUR players were able to defeat Federer that year. Nadal, Gasquet, Safin, and Nalbandian. Nadal and Nalbandian are both incredible talents, and Gasquet's not shabby either.


These players though, had the benefit of an injury (Nalbandian) or they were playing Federer on his worst surface (Nadal and Gasquet). Safin straight up BEAT Federer on his own turf, with his sheer talent. He beat Federer at his very peak, by just outhitting him. That's a feat that has ONLY been accomplished by one other man, and that is Nadal at Wimbledon.

:roll::roll::roll:

you just get better and better.
 

edmondsm

Legend
That's not a real overrated definition. Overrated is one who is rated above their own talent level. Rios is definitely way overrated. Roddick is way underrated. Safin definitely deserves the praise that he gets, because he won his slams in fairly dramatic fashions. It's not like Gaudio where he had a choke fest master on the other side, he had to play TWO GOAT candidates for his slams. Very strong ones too. Kinda tough to say that he doesn't deserve the praise that he gets.



I mean crap, I guess we can just go around calling everyone overrated now. Blake, Roddick, Tsonga, Djokovic, etc. etc. Every player gets some praise they don't deserve. However, it's not overboard ever. Safin proved it again this year that he can still play at a high level. No one ever said he could be at slam caliber winning level again, but he definitely has the game to be inside the top 20 if not top 10.

What are you talking about dude? People were including Safin as a threat to win a slam as recently as this year's Aussie, when he hadn't done jack squat for two years.


Oh, and if we're gonna use your definition. Federer and Nadal are the most highly overrated tennis players in the history of tennis. Seriously.

No, because Federer and Nadal didn't go on epic sucking streaks, drop out of the top 100, and then still get talked about as potential slam winners. Give me a break. Safin of the last 3 years is the most overrated player in history.
 

Azzurri

Legend
Bill Tilden is quite overrated I agree. It is funny how Lenglen and Wills are so low balled with weakish competition in such a pre historic time yet he isnt. Also unlike Lenglen and Wills he was surprassed before his career ended, as the French started beating him down once they matured.

Maria Sharapova though isnt. The girl has 3 slam titles at only 21, even with almost two years wasted by injuries. When healthy she is very consistent making semis or better of every slam. When healthy she is one of the few reliables of this weak and erratic era of womens tennis.

that is not very good. considering women's prime is much sooner than the mens. Is she overrated compared to today's player or historically or neither?
 

Azzurri

Legend
Agassi was getting beat down by Federer in 2003 and 2004, both years that were great for Agassi. In 2005, on his best surface, Federer utterly DESTROYED him.

You said Sampras at his best could not beat Agassi. You have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. do you even read what you write?
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
You said Sampras at his best could not beat Agassi. You have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. do you even read what you write?


Did Sampras beat Agassi at the Australian Open? No, he didn't. You're the only one here who can't read.
 

anointedone

Banned
Did Sampras beat Agassi at the Australian Open? No, he didn't. You're the only one here who can't read.

This is true although one could question whether Agassi ever met Sampras at his best at the Australian Open. In 1995 Sampras was dealing with the news of his coach dieing with a brain tumour and was emotionally breaking down in many of his matches which went 5 sets, and seemingly spent by the final. In 2000 he suffered a hip flexor tear during his semifinal with Agassi, said himself he might have had to default the final to Kafelnikov had he won, and he had to miss the next month to recover. Would Agassi have been able to deal with the Sampras of 1994 or 1997 at the Australian Open? Interesting to ponder.
 

FitzRoy

Professional
Agassi was getting beat down by Federer in 2003 and 2004, both years that were great for Agassi. In 2005, on his best surface, Federer utterly DESTROYED him.

I recall almost all of the matches from those years. I am of the opinion that Federer is just a horrible stylistic match-up for Agassi. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if Agassi still had "young man" legs at that point; his lack of speed once he got into his 30s was something he was able to overcome against most opponents, but against Federer it was a real killer, since he almost never won a point once Federer was in a better than neutral position.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
This is true although one could question whether Agassi ever met Sampras at his best at the Australian Open. In 1995 Sampras was dealing with the news of his coach dieing with a brain tumour and was emotionally breaking down in many of his matches which went 5 sets, and seemingly spent by the final. In 2000 he suffered a hip flexor tear during his semifinal with Agassi, said himself he might have had to default the final to Kafelnikov had he won, and he had to miss the next month to recover. Would Agassi have been able to deal with the Sampras of 1994 or 1997 at the Australian Open? Interesting to ponder.


He was still a force to be recokened with in 1995 and 2000. Maybe if Sampras threw everything he had at Agassi and overwhelmed him in 3 sets, he might have been able to do it. However, Sampras' had fairly low stamina due to a genetic condition, thus why in 2000 he had an even more competitive match (it was indoors and at night) then he did in 95 (when he was probably in better shape and better form, this match was outdoors during the day). 2000 was also probably the best Agassi had been playing for awhile while Sampras was playing not so great that year, so that shows how much the environment really affected the match-up.


And let's not forget, 1995 was one of Sampras' best years. The Wimbledon/US Open double, Australian Open Final, and 2 Masters titles. It wasn't like he was playing bad that year at all, Agassi was just too dominant at the Australian Open.


94 I believe Agassi did not play, and 97 he was injured and in a slump.



For Federer to dominate Agassi the way he did in 2005 also speaks as to how good Federer really was playing in 2005 at the Australian Open. It took a monumental effort by Safin to get by him.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I recall almost all of the matches from those years. I am of the opinion that Federer is just a horrible stylistic match-up for Agassi. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if Agassi still had "young man" legs at that point; his lack of speed once he got into his 30s was something he was able to overcome against most opponents, but against Federer it was a real killer, since he almost never won a point once Federer was in a better than neutral position.


I wouldn't say Federer is a bad match-up for Agassi, as Nalbandian has a very similar play style to Agassi, yet he has a good record against Federer.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
so you are either trying to say nalbandian is better than agassi or that fed has nalba complex
however
sampras lost 1 slam match to agassi while he was in his prime and it happened while his coach was dying so its not surprising
and no no and no feds wins over 33+ years old agassi dont count at all
fed at 27 already isnt as good as before
imagine how it would be if he played for the next 7 or so years
 

thalivest

Banned
I wouldn't say Federer is a bad match-up for Agassi, as Nalbandian has a very similar play style to Agassi, yet he has a good record against Federer.

I wouldnt consider Nalbandian to have a good record with Federer really. Since the 2003 Masters Cup Federer it is 10-3 vs Nalbandian, so extremely dominant in the last 5 years, and before that it wasnt the real Federer. Nalbandian's only 3 wins were indoors which is his favorite surface by far, he is 0-6 in that span outdoors, and even trails 3-4 indoors.
 

thalivest

Banned
Much better examples of players with a good record vs Federer would be Murray who is 4-2 vs Federer, and Nadal who is 12-6 vs Federer. Both of these players played all their matches vs prime Federer, unlike Nalbandian and others, and they still have winning records. Nalbandian's success vs Federer is vastly inflated by many people for some bizarre reason.
 

edmondsm

Legend
This is true although one could question whether Agassi ever met Sampras at his best at the Australian Open. In 1995 Sampras was dealing with the news of his coach dieing with a brain tumour and was emotionally breaking down in many of his matches which went 5 sets, and seemingly spent by the final. In 2000 he suffered a hip flexor tear during his semifinal with Agassi, said himself he might have had to default the final to Kafelnikov had he won, and he had to miss the next month to recover. Would Agassi have been able to deal with the Sampras of 1994 or 1997 at the Australian Open? Interesting to ponder.

I recall almost all of the matches from those years. I am of the opinion that Federer is just a horrible stylistic match-up for Agassi. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if Agassi still had "young man" legs at that point; his lack of speed once he got into his 30s was something he was able to overcome against most opponents, but against Federer it was a real killer, since he almost never won a point once Federer was in a better than neutral position.

Great posts.
 

Azzurri

Legend
Did Sampras beat Agassi at the Australian Open? No, he didn't. You're the only one here who can't read.

wow, you are seriously unbalanced. Pete's best friend and coach was DYING! If anything, Pete was not at his best. Pete was heads and above better than Agassi. RECORDS and HISTORY prove this. you're mindless.

It was ONE match.
 

Azzurri

Legend
you are an idiot

so due to my age everything i say is wrong... wow...
however imho, i shouldnt be so mad because all the complexes you have arent your fault, so im very rude because i become furious while you are healing them
sry one more time

Cenc...you must fix your English. Oxford won't accept you if you continue to write in this manner.
 

Azzurri

Legend
actually when i said the same thing u called me an idiot

one more proof that you are stupid:
when i say something u attack me for that, few weeks later u say the same thing
what means that all why you write on this forum is to insult others and heal your personal problems
amazing

please show me where I insulted you for the same thing I said. thanks.
 

Azzurri

Legend
so you are either trying to say nalbandian is better than agassi or that fed has nalba complex
however
sampras lost 1 slam match to agassi while he was in his prime and it happened while his coach was dying so its not surprising
and no no and no feds wins over 33+ years old agassi dont count at all
fed at 27 already isnt as good as before
imagine how it would be if he played for the next 7 or so years

I agree with everything.
 
Top