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

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Nam forgets that Federer did not win the 2005 AO. I don't get why he uses this as an example.

Yes, a 35 year old Agassi is not a good example, but that is what Namranger does..provides illogical and poor examples when making an arguement.


He didn't win because Safin played at a level of tennis that was just abit higher than Federer. I highly doubt anyone in that tournament could have come as close to beating Safin as Federer did.


Illogical and poor examples? Yea, more like no one here can argue against my arguments, so they just resort to name calling. Real mature.
 

blue12

Semi-Pro
Agreed completley about both players.



Thank you! Finally some people with common sense.

Yeah I agree too. Alot of the commentating in tennis is ridiculous. I like hearing McEnroe, and I think Jim Courier is really good but he probably won't be hired on a long term basis cause he actually talks some sense.
The commentators today make me hate Federer for the exact reason you guys were talking about.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Feder did not win the 2005 AO. YEA, He was on fire!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


He was the heavy favorite to win that year. He had just destroyed the so called King of the Australian Hardcourts with ease in the QFs in straights. I would have to say he was playing at an extremely high level of tennis, even for him.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
He didn't win because Safin played at a level of tennis that was just abit higher than Federer. I highly doubt anyone in that tournament could have come as close to beating Safin as Federer did.


Illogical and poor examples? Yea, more like no one here can argue against my arguments, so they just resort to name calling. Real mature.

1995, us open finals prime agassi vs prime sampras, agassi at age of 25, sampras 24
agassi hardly wins a set, eventually losing in 4

10 years later, 2005 us open finals
agassi vs prime federer, agassi at age of 35, federer at age of 24 (same age as sampras in 95)
agassi wins a set, has a break in 3rd, comes very near being 2 sets to one up, loses energy together with match in the end (due to playing 3 five setters before finals)
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
He was the heavy favorite to win that year. He had just destroyed the so called King of the Australian Hardcourts with ease in the QFs in straights. I would have to say he was playing at an extremely high level of tennis, even for him.

but that same safin played his best tennis in 2000, 5 years before...
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
He didn't win because Safin played at a level of tennis that was just abit higher than Federer. I highly doubt anyone in that tournament could have come as close to beating Safin as Federer did.


Illogical and poor examples? Yea, more like no one here can argue against my arguments, so they just resort to name calling. Real mature.
Your posts with regard to Federer are anything, but logical. You clearly stated that Agassi and Sampras has no chance in hell to beat prime Federer. Any person with a common sense should know that Sampras and Agassi at their primes have the ability to beat anyone, including Federer. I'm not saying that Federer has no chance. Certainly there are going to be wins and losses, but it is never going to be a no chance situation like you said. In fact, even today in a one match best of 3 situation, I'm pretty sure Sampras, at the age of 37, would have a chance winning. Oh I forgot, he did!! :twisted:
 

akv89

Hall of Fame
1995, us open finals prime agassi vs prime sampras, agassi at age of 25, sampras 24
agassi hardly wins a set, eventually losing in 4

10 years later, 2005 us open finals
agassi vs prime federer, agassi at age of 35, federer at age of 24 (same age as sampras in 95)
agassi wins a set, has a break in 3rd, comes very near being 2 sets to one up, loses energy together with match in the end (due to playing 3 five setters before finals)

You make it sound as though Sampras gave a prime Agassi a bigger beating than Federer gave a 35 year old Agassi. You neglect to mention the 18 break point opportunities Federer had or that Federer was the non-American in a stadium full of Agassi supporters, or the wind conditions that favored Agassi.

And you should know better than to make arguments on the basis of a couple matches.
 

Azzurri

Legend
topic was deleted due to "friendly" conversations
and yes that was when u started telling me that i was ******** etc
u dont need to apologise

I don't use that word. never havd and never will. you must have me mixed up.
 

Azzurri

Legend
He didn't win because Safin played at a level of tennis that was just abit higher than Federer. I highly doubt anyone in that tournament could have come as close to beating Safin as Federer did.


Illogical and poor examples? Yea, more like no one here can argue against my arguments, so they just resort to name calling. Real mature.

you state that Pete and Andre in their primes could not beat Fed (can't remember if it had to do with slow HC surface...doesn't really matter). You then cite, as an example, a tournament he DID NOT WIN. EVERYONE in their right mind would disagree with you. NOT one person has jumped to your defense. Does that tell you something? Use another example.
 

Azzurri

Legend
He was the heavy favorite to win that year. He had just destroyed the so called King of the Australian Hardcourts with ease in the QFs in straights. I would have to say he was playing at an extremely high level of tennis, even for him.

he did not win the AO 2005. By your logic, then a PRIME SAFIN IS BETTER THAN A PRIME FEDERER????? hahhahahahahahahahahahah. I can't laugh any harder. hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
he did not win the AO 2005. By your logic, then a PRIME SAFIN IS BETTER THAN A PRIME FEDERER????? hahhahahahahahahahahahah. I can't laugh any harder. hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

well, safins 100% is at least on the same level as feds 100%
however
safin plays 100% once per year and fed plays like that quite often
 

Azzurri

Legend
u used "mentally disabled", its kind of... similar

aaaah, ha ha. I remember that. I did say you were mentally disabled. But you never told me if it was from an accident or birth.:p

I was teasing you. you just need to inform yourself more on tennis and provide more logical responses.
 

Azzurri

Legend
well, safins 100% is at least on the same level as feds 100%
however
safin plays 100% once per year and fed plays like that quite often

that is an opinion. I don't think Safin's 100% is as good as Fed's 100%. but again, that is my opinion.:)
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
aaaah, ha ha. I remember that. I did say you were mentally disabled. But you never told me if it was from an accident or birth.:p

I was teasing you. you just need to inform yourself more on tennis and provide more logical responses.

believe me i do know a lot about tennis like game since i have been playing it myself for 10 years, played tournaments, leagues etc
i probably dont know as much tennis history as some other people here because i dont follow tennis that much (i havent watched a single match from this years masters cup for example) but i definitely have my opinion about every player, even though i watch like 20-30 matches a year, not more
well i dont write explainations for everything 20 times
i wrote once why i believe agassi at his best is about the same level as fed for example
and im not going to write it ever again, u can take a look at my posts where i explain why i say something
btw, i dont care if you think im stupid or not, people called einstein stupid and he became one of the biggest scientists of all times so i really dont care for others opinions
everyone who cares about what others say can just become insane, cant benefit from it at all
 

Azzurri

Legend
believe me i do know a lot about tennis like game since i have been playing it myself for 10 years, played tournaments, leagues etc
i probably dont know as much tennis history as some other people here because i dont follow tennis that much (i havent watched a single match from this years masters cup for example) but i definitely have my opinion about every player, even though i watch like 20-30 matches a year, not more
well i dont write explainations for everything 20 times
i wrote once why i believe agassi at his best is about the same level as fed for example
and im not going to write it ever again, u can take a look at my posts where i explain why i say something
btw, i dont care if you think im stupid or not, people called einstein stupid and he became one of the biggest scientists of all times so i really dont care for others opinions
everyone who cares about what others say can just become insane, cant benefit from it at all

so you have been playing since you were 6 years old? you must be very good.

yes, don't worry about other people's opinion. so what if most people on the boards think you have a mental disability. It does not matter. If you have a mental disability then they should be ok with that.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
so you have been playing since you were 6 years old? you must be very good.

yes, don't worry about other people's opinion. so what if most people on the boards think you have a mental disability. It does not matter. If you have a mental disability then they should be ok with that.

only person who might have mental disabilities here is you because no one without serious mental problems feels such a strong need to insult others
btw long time ago i offered u a deal: i can easily prove that im not disabled and if i do you will officially say that you are disabled, agree with that?
 

Azzurri

Legend
only person who might have mental disabilities here is you because no one without serious mental problems feels such a strong need to insult others
btw long time ago i offered u a deal: i can easily prove that im not disabled and if i do you will officially say that you are disabled, agree with that?

how are you able to prove this? if I show 100 people all of your posts on TT, they would agree with me.:)

Cenc..I am teasing you. Don't be so bothered. I said recently (to you) that you have become a better poster as of late. I am joking on you because you take me seriously. I know you are NOT mentally disabled. I even offered to speak to a relative at Oxford for you. If you are truly rated top 5 in science and math in all of Croatia. They give full scholarship to many foreign students that are skilled in math and science.
 

Azzurri

Legend
i dont think so but ok...

Cenc,
this is what I mean. Federer has had the greatest 3 years of any pro in history (or at least since 1968). That is a run no one may ever match. The consecutive finals streak was incredible. from 2005 he went to 10 consecutive finals and 13/14. I think he had a much longer "better playing" streak than Safin's 2 week streak in 2000.
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
Cenc,
this is what I mean. Federer has had the greatest 3 years of any pro in history (or at least since 1968). That is a run no one may ever match. The consecutive finals streak was incredible. from 2005 he went to 10 consecutive finals and 13/14. I think he had a much longer "better playing" streak than Safin's 2 week streak in 2000.

u dont understand me again
maybe i should start writing with proper grammar or something
yes looking at results fed had 3 best years in the last 30 years
however, theres something else:
feds slam f victories were against
baghdatis, gonzalez, 35 years old agassi, 3 times roddick, out of prime hewitt, murray

imo these wins cant be compared to sampras' (for example)
4 times prime agassi, 2 times prime ivanišević, prime chang, prime moya, prime becker, prime rafter, martin, 2 times pioline, prime courier

see any difference?

also what i said was ONE MATCH, one safins match, uso 2000 finals what is top 3 performance of all times
fed played for a long time on very high level but what i meant was that one match, i dont remember fed playing better than THAT ONE MATCH
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
how are you able to prove this? if I show 100 people all of your posts on TT, they would agree with me.:)

Cenc..I am teasing you. Don't be so bothered. I said recently (to you) that you have become a better poster as of late. I am joking on you because you take me seriously. I know you are NOT mentally disabled. I even offered to speak to a relative at Oxford for you. If you are truly rated top 5 in science and math in all of Croatia. They give full scholarship to many foreign students that are skilled in math and science.

1) i can easily prove that i was not lying about my successes since ranking lists are online
2) i think there are several posters who dont like you either
3) i take your posts seriously due to the way how you behaved some time ago and how u talked to me
4) i dont think i am any different than before, maybe i just stopped taking care of what others say here
5) thx for contacting them, i already have (in my email inbox) mails from the university of oxford so and believe it or not (it was when i tried to write as well as possible) they didnt say my english was bad
 

Azzurri

Legend
u dont understand me again
maybe i should start writing with proper grammar or something
yes looking at results fed had 3 best years in the last 30 years
however, theres something else:
feds slam f victories were against
baghdatis, gonzalez, 35 years old agassi, 3 times roddick, out of prime hewitt, murray

imo these wins cant be compared to sampras' (for example)
4 times prime agassi, 2 times prime ivanišević, prime chang, prime moya, prime becker, prime rafter, martin, 2 times pioline, prime courier

see any difference?

also what i said was ONE MATCH, one safins match, uso 2000 finals what is top 3 performance of all times
fed played for a long time on very high level but what i meant was that one match, i dont remember fed playing better than THAT ONE MATCH

I understand your point, but its not really important. what I mean is ONE match means nothing, zip, zero. ONE match cannot define a career. Maybe you can be remembered, but that is not what you seem to be stating. I would not rate Safin (on hist best day ever) to Federer on his..like yours, that is my opinion.
 

Azzurri

Legend
1) i can easily prove that i was not lying about my successes since ranking lists are online Please prove then
2) i think there are several posters who dont like you eitherDoes that really matter to me??
3) i take your posts seriously due to the way how you behaved some time ago and how u talked to meyou have had issues with common sense..so...
4) i dont think i am any different than before, maybe i just stopped taking care of what others say hereits obvious you have not
5) thx for contacting them, i already have (in my email inbox) mails from the university of oxford so and believe it or not (it was when i tried to write as well as possible) they didnt say my english was bad
Were you contact by David L. Sawyer??
 

fastdunn

Legend
Cenc,
this is what I mean. Federer has had the greatest 3 years of any pro in history (or at least since 1968 ). That is a run no one may ever match. The consecutive finals streak was incredible. from 2005 he went to 10 consecutive finals and 13/14.

That is correct but at the same time that could be the source of overrating, IMHO.

Federer is a phenomenal player and there is no question about it. But he record looked even more amazing because he was the 1st dominant player after the dramatic changes in ATP conditions between 2001-2003.

People were suprised because he was accumultaing type of records that hardly happened since 1970 (fully professional tennis). But now people slowly realizes what happened between 2001-2003 in ATP.


For example, one of amazing thing was that Federer does equally well at French Open and Wimbledon same year. Now Nadal, new #1, did it better. 1st a few years, people were amazed by it but now they finally understood what kind of changes were at Wimbledon only after Nadal won both French and Wimbledon. Between 2004-2006 or so, people kept talking about how amazingly Federer did at both clay and grass, now people are only talking about how easy it is now for clay courters to win Wimbledon.

Another thing is his high degree of domination. It has been surely amazing records. But it now looks not as amazing as before. The changes in ATP conditions between 2001-2003 created highly homogeneous conditions. Now people have realized that top player tends to win pretty much everything.

Mary Carrillo, for example, mentioned these in 2004-2005, and got burned pretty badly by Federer fans, both experts and general public, I remember. I think her insight had many valid points and now it shows.
 
Last edited:

Cenc

Hall of Fame
nop
if you mean that, people who answered my mails were:
lindsay campbell and sarah bartlett

about ranking lists:
http://www.azoo.hr/tekst/testovi-i-rezultati-natjecanja-iz-matematike,-2008./970/11
maths
- click on the link, then open, open the excel file from the zip
in the excel file open "KONACNA 1A"
and see "ivan čančarević" there

i cant find chemistry results right now but if you need i can scan them since i got the list after the competition


and i was talking about 1 match, i didnt say "1 match matters" i said that safins 100% (match) was perfect tennis
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
First of all older Agassi was 0-8 vs prime Federer so dont kid yourself into thinking he was truly a competitive rival at that point just because once in awhile he took a set. Secondly you point out a couple matches that were closer, yet there were many matches at that point where Federer slaughtered Agassi (2003 Masters final, 2005 Aussie Open, 2005 Dubai, etc..). Thirdly Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams, over half of them, from ages 29 to 33, so he wasnt nearly as past his prime as a more typical 35 year old. Agassi at 33-35 was playing alot better then he was at 26, 27, and 28, and if one were to dispute that then one just has to look at his results during those respective times. If Agassi were truly in his prime from 22 to 28 like a player more typically is then we wouldnt even be talking about him today, as his career would be inferior to someone like Jim Courier's in this case.

It is ridiculous to say Agassi was dominating half the 2005 final when he only won one set. As someone who actually watched the match, Agassi did well in a set and a half where Federer was spraying backhands and Agassi was playing near flawlessly and taking advantage of any Federer vurnerability, and even in those the main difference was the break point conversion. The other two and a half sets where Federer had his backhand under control (first set, second half of third set, fourth set) he was destroying Agassi by pelting winners from all parts of the court past him in a way Agassi never was to Federer even during the set and a half he did pretty well. McEnroe in the booth who is in love with Agassi basically said as much as well.

There have also been alot of older players who have fared alot better vs a younger great then Agassi did vs Federer, which again was go 0-8 and get destroyed in half their matches. Gonzales at a much older age did better vs Laver and Rosewall than that. Rosewall at a much older age did better vs Newcombe than that. Lendl at nearly as old an age was still getting wins over Sampras, which Agassi couldnt do to Federer ever at that point.

I agree, good post.
 

Azzurri

Legend
That is correct but at the same time that could be the source of overrating, IMHO.

Federer is a phenomenal player and there is no question about it. But he record looked even more amazing because he was the 1st dominant player after the dramatic changes in ATP conditions between 2001-2003.

People were suprised because he was accumultaing type of records that hardly happened since 1970 (fully professional tennis). But now people slowly realizes what happened between 2001-2003 in ATP.


For example, one of amazing thing was that Federer does equally well at French Open and Wimbledon same year. Now Nadal, new #1, did it better. 1st a few years, people were amazed by it but now they finally understood what kind of changes were at Wimbledon only after Nadal won both French and Wimbledon. Between 2004-2006 or so, people kept talking about how amazingly Federer did at both clay and grass, now people are only talking about how easy it is now for clay courters to win Wimbledon.

Another thing is his high degree of domination. It has been surely amazing records. But it now looks not as amazing as before. The changes in ATP conditions between 2001-2003 created highly homogeneous conditions. Now people have realized that top player tends to win pretty much everything.

Mary Carrillo, for example, mentioned these in 2004-2005, and got burned pretty badly by Federer fans, both experts and general public, I remember. I think her insight had many valid points and now it shows.

good points. i agree with you. the "bland" court conditions are certainly a huge factor. i agree Federer has been "overrated" to a degree and your post is just one of the reasons. but my point to Cenc was his prime is better than Safin's prime.:)
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
good points. i agree with you. the "bland" court conditions are certainly a huge factor. i agree Federer has been "overrated" to a degree and your post is just one of the reasons. but my point to Cenc was his prime is better than Safin's prime.:)

it definitely was lol theres no question about it lol
however u havent answered the other post which i sent... i wish to know why... :roll:
 

Azzurri

Legend
i posted the rankings of croatian national mathematics competition and you havent said a word
now its ur turn to admit that you are disabled :)

oh, I admit I am more disabled than you. I was no where near top 5 in mtah in my graduating class in college , let alone the country. Good for you.

However, your "math and science brain" don't reflect your "tennis brain":)
 

Cenc

Hall of Fame
oh, I admit I am more disabled than you. I was no where near top 5 in mtah in my graduating class in college , let alone the country. Good for you.

However, your "math and science brain" don't reflect your "tennis brain":)

sure, some time ago i had a ranking even in tennis
not any more though
but still i know how every shot works and what worths more
and i definitely think agassis 8 slams were harder to win than feds 13
 

Azzurri

Legend
sure, some time ago i had a ranking even in tennis
not any more though
but still i know how every shot works and what worths more
and i definitely think agassis 8 slams were harder to win than feds 13

I understand. just wondering how many did Agassi win after 2001?
 

julesb

Banned
probably the most underrated tennis player is Jennifer Capriati and most overrated tennis player is Steffi Graf.
can somebody tell me a name of player that retired from tennis for almost 5 years and came back to win 3 slams??
she made the most memorable come back in tennis history.
I could not care less about h2h against other players.
The great Capriati was the one from 1991-1993. She beat Graf and won the gold medal against the overrated Graf.
Graf was extremely lucky when Seles was stabbed and Capriati "retired" for personal reasons. Seles and Capriati were the opponents.
There's a a very big what if involving Capriati...she retired when she should have played her best tennis, she retired at her peak, she didnt play in her early twenties and we missed the best years of Jennifer. Capriati without retiring in 1993 with the best years to come was going to win more than 10 slams.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
probably the most underrated tennis player is Jennifer Capriati and most overrated tennis player is Steffi Graf.
can somebody tell me a name of player that retired from tennis for almost 5 years and came back to win 3 slams??
she made the most memorable come back in tennis history.
I could not care less about h2h against other players.
The great Capriati was the one from 1991-1993. She beat Graf and won the gold medal against the overrated Graf.
Graf was extremely lucky when Seles was stabbed and Capriati "retired" for personal reasons. Seles and Capriati were the opponents.
There's a a very big what if involving Capriati...she retired when she should have played her best tennis, she retired at her peak, she didnt play in her early twenties and we missed the best years of Jennifer. Capriati without retiring in 1993 with the best years to come was going to win more than 10 slams.

Sorry No....You say you don't care about head to heads...and that is obvious because apart from that gold medal win, Capriati never once beat the "overrated Graf". In fact Graf won their last meeting in 99, when she was older and injury weakened by a score of 6-0 6-1. If the early 90's were Capriati's peak she certainly wasn't gonna get much better against graf because during the 90's when Graf was going through personal issues and injuries Capriati still couldn't beat her. Seles was a problem for Graf...but Caprati never was at all.

Up until Capriati retired, Steffi had a 9-1 head to head lead over Capriati, with 6 of those being straight set wins, doesn't seem like Jennifer was much of a problem for Steffi to me. Sabatini, Navratilova, Seles, Vicario and Novotna were all way bigger problems for Steffi at that time. Granted it would have been interesting had she stuck around if she could have evolved...but at that time Steffi was dominating her.

and if you want to talk luck...hingis and Clijsters choked away two of the three slams capriati won to her, so Capriati got pretty lucky to.
 

julesb

Banned
Sorry No....You say you don't care about head to heads...and that is obvious because apart from that gold medal win, Capriati never once beat the "overrated Graf". In fact Graf won their last meeting in 99, when she was older and injury weakened by a score of 6-0 6-1. If the early 90's were Capriati's peak she certainly wasn't gonna get much better against graf because during the 90's when Graf was going through personal issues and injuries Capriati still couldn't beat her. Seles was a problem for Graf...but Caprati never was at all.

Up until Capriati retired, Steffi had a 9-1 head to head lead over Capriati, with 6 of those being straight set wins, doesn't seem like Jennifer was much of a problem for Steffi to me. Sabatini, Navratilova, Seles, Vicario and Novotna were all way bigger problems for Steffi at that time. Granted it would have been interesting had she stuck around if she could have evolved...but at that time Steffi was dominating her.

and if you want to talk luck...hingis and Clijsters choked away two of the three slams capriati won to her, so Capriati got pretty lucky to.

Most people rate Graf the greatest women player ever. She should only rate as the 8th greatest ever behind Navratilova, Evert, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Connoly, Seles. So that makes her the most overrated player.
 
overated

Agree largely with the graf overated part...disagree with capriati underr.

clijsters could have won that 2001 Rg final...she was a serious choker back then....I have always seen capriati as an untalented ball-basher type the WTA are getting criticised for now...lack of variety etc...

If her power was matched she had no chance...just check out the 2003
semi with henin where henin is screwed by injury and exhaustion and still wins against top-form capriati....

Hingi also could have won that 2002 aussei final...even by then her game was out-of date....no wonder you don't care about h2h's .

Once seles left the scene...there was no-one to fill the void...EOS.
Even peirce is overated too....the fact she beat graf just proves my point.
Even then graf has weird losses like Wimby 94...

A Strong period in womens tennis is either 99-03 or back when i wasn';t watching eveert/navs etc...
 

anointedone

Banned
Capriati was in fact one of the luckiest 3 time slam winners ever. She didnt have the ability of a 3-time slam winner at all, only a 0 or 1 time slam winner. It is completely unfair she ends with the same # of slam titles as Davenport who was a much better player.

I think Clijsters, Sabatini, and Novotna in their primes were all better players and they each won only 1. Look at the # of tournaments and tier 1 titles those 3 won compared to Jennifer. Capriati had trouble beating Clijsters in 2001-2002 when Kim and wasnt in their prime, then starting in 2003 Kim totally dominated Jennifer. Sabatini dominated Capriati during her first prime, and Novotna has a big career head to head edge on Jennifer. Sabatini and Novotna were unlucky to be at their peaks during Graf and some of Seles's peaks (as well as ASV) and also to lose a slam title or two they should have won via choking. Capriati got the luckiest circumstances to win her 3 slams imaginable, contrasted to the horrible luck Davenport always got in slams, and Seles got in her post stabbing years when she was still always a real contender. Davenport was playing at a much higher level overall even in 2001-2002 then Jennifer and still won 0 slams to Jennifer's 3 due to this contrast in luck, and Seles was playing at an equaly high or higher level the entire 8 year period of 95-2003 as Jennifer was the 4 year period of 2001-2004 but won 1 slam to Jennifer's 3 in over half the time playing atleast as well due to Jennifer's luck and Monica's non luck. I could go into great deal what I mean but most who followed the game during those time would already be aware what I am talking about.

Also I am no Graf fan, but anyone who rates her outside the top 4 women all time is just a biased hater. Is she #1, #2, #3, or #4 all time? Open for debate. #8 all time? Insanity.

I consider Jennifer an actual inferior tennis player to players with less slams like Mauresmo (2), Pierce (2), Clijsters (1), Sabatini (1), Novotna (1) who just got so much luck to win 3 slam titles. Considering she is hyped as an underachiever who had the promise to be an all time great I consider her one of the most overhyped and overrated players ever. The only head to head which will contrast this is her head to head with Pierce. Well Pierce's prime was 1994-2000 and 2005. Capriati's prime was 1991-1993 and 2001-2004. All their matches were in Capriati's prime, never Pierce's. You flip the other way and Pierce is just as dominant I bet. I guess this also showed even someone like Pierce who also had a mecurial career was still decent enough to play good players in their non-prime years, while Capriati sucked giant balls in her non prime years and hardly ever won enough matches to play someone decent.
 
Last edited:

BallzofSkill

Semi-Pro
djokovic and safin are overrated. they got slams under their belt but in no way did they deserve the attention they got. i remember at the beginning of the year most people, probably serbs or something, were all over his nuts on this forum and other tennis forums i go to.

and marat, geez, stop with the 'he's got the physical gifts just not the mental aspect' thing. Who reall cares.
 
Top