OVERACHIEVERS in the modern game [Connors-->Chang etc.] [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

OVERACHIEVERS in the modern game [Connors-->Chang etc.]

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:03 PM
:cool:
:devil:
:angel:
In my opinion the following players are the biggest `overachievers` in the modern game!
i.e. achievments relative to talent [or lack of]:

1. Jimmy Connors [8-slams, 109-titles, former #1]
**
2. Mats Wilander [7-slams, 33-titles, former #1]
**
3. Michael Chang [1-slam, 33-titles, former #2]
**
4. Jim Courier [4-slams, 23-titles, former #1]
**
5. Lleyton Hewitt [2-slams, 26-titles, former #1]
**
6. Thomas Muster [1-slam, 44-titles, former #1]
**
7. Gustavo Kuerten [3-slams, 20-titles, former #1]
**
8. Yevgeny Kafelnikov [2-slams, 26-titles, former #1]
**
9. Thomas Johannson [1-slam, 9-titles]
**
10. Albert Costa [1-slam, 12-titles]

--->>
What do you think:confused: Agree with me:confused:

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 06:06 PM
no,Kafelnikov should be ranked way higher and you need to add Ferrero

Snowwy
10-22-2007, 06:15 PM
Not a bad list, one thing to add Kafelnikov is also a former number 1

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:24 PM
Not a bad list, one thing to add Kafelnikov is also a former number 1

:cool:
cheers, i`ve added it now;)

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:25 PM
no,Kafelnikov should be ranked way higher and you need to add Ferrero



JCF is a major underachiever~~ should have won 3-4 slams & a lot more titles:eek:

scarecrows
10-22-2007, 06:29 PM
JCF is a major underachiever~~ should have won 3-4 slams & a lot more titles:eek:

noshitsherlock

RagingLamb
10-22-2007, 06:33 PM
why Kuerten?

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 06:37 PM
:cool:
:devil:
:angel:
In my opinion the following players are the biggest `overachievers` in the modern game!
i.e. achievments relative to talent [or lack of]:

1. Jimmy Connors [8-slams, 109-titles, former #1]
**
2. Mats Wilander [7-slams, 33-titles, former #1]
**
3. Michael Chang [1-slam, 33-titles, former #2]
**
4. Jim Courier [4-slams, 23-titles, former #1]
**
5. Lleyton Hewitt [2-slams, 26-titles, former #1]
**
6. Thomas Muster [1-slam, 44-titles, former #1]
**
7. Gustavo Kuerten [3-slams, 20-titles, former #1]
**
8. Yevgeny Kafelnikov [2-slams, 26-titles, former #1]
**
9. Thomas Johannson [1-slam, 9-titles]
**
10. Albert Costa [1-slam, 12-titles]

--->>
What do you think:confused: Agree with me:confused:

What the fuck? How did Kuerten NOT diserve his three slams? How the heck did he overachieve. If he still were competitive today, he'd be unstoppable on clay.

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 06:38 PM
JCF is a major underachiever~~ should have won 3-4 slams & a lot more titles:eek:

So Ferrero is an underachiever and Kuerten is an overachiever? Yyyyyyeah, right! :retard:

Andre♥
10-22-2007, 06:39 PM
Chang a overachiever? :lol:

A guy that was freaking talented, wins a GS with 17 years old and then doesn't win another GS and he's a overachiever?

LeChuck
10-22-2007, 06:40 PM
Thomas Muster was not an overachiever at all. The guy was an absolute genius on clay during his prime, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he won 40 claycourt titles, and 4 more titles on hard/carpet.

scarecrows
10-22-2007, 06:41 PM
So Ferrero is an underachiever and Kuerten is an overachiever? Yyyyyyeah, right! :retard:

Chang a overachiever? :lol:

A guy that was freaking talented, wins a GS with 17 years old and then doesn't win another GS and he's a overachiever?

threads from CmonAussie dont necessarily have to make sense

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 06:42 PM
Chang a overachiever? :lol:

A guy that was freaking talented, wins a GS with 17 years old and then doesn't win another GS and he's a overachiever?

Thomas Muster was not an overachiever at all. The guy was an absolute genius on clay during his prime, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he won 40 claycourt titles, and 4 more titles on hard/carpet.

What do you expecy? He included Kuerten on his list! :rolleyes:

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:43 PM
why Kuerten?

Kuerten`s high risk game & long loopy strokes made it hard for him to be consistent;)

Notice that Guga never went beyond QF @ the other 3 slams.
Also @ FO he really only played three good touneys [97, 00 & 01]~~ yet managed to win them all:worship:

2000 was especially sweet for Guga, as he finished #1 & won TMC [he never repeated such a high performance on hard courts again, of course he deserved it~~ by making the most of his chances]!

Kuerten should be well satisfied with 3-slams, #1, TMC, etc. [he maximised his potential]:angel:

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 06:45 PM
Kuerten`s high risk game & long loopy strokes made it hard for him to be consistent;)

Notice that Guga never went beyond QF @ the other 3 slams.
Also @ FO he really only played three good touneys [97, 00 & 01]~~ yet managed to win them all:worship:

2000 was especially sweet for Guga, as he finished #1 & won TMC [he never repeated such a high performance on hard courts again, of course he deserved it~~ by making the most of his chances]!

Kuerten should be well satisfied with 3-slams, #1, TMC, etc. [he maximised his potential]:angel:

So which way do you want to go? He maximized his potential or he overachieved? Those two are not the same thing, you know.

LeChuck
10-22-2007, 06:45 PM
What do you expecy? He included Kuerten on his list! :rolleyes:

Yeah labelling Guga as an overachiever is ridiculous.

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:49 PM
What the fuck? How did Kuerten NOT diserve his three slams? How the heck did he overachieve. If he still were competitive today, he'd be unstoppable on clay.

:rolleyes:

"unstopable on clay"~~i don`t think so, even Hewitt managed to beat Guga in straight sets on clay in Brazil [when Kuerten was ranked #1]:p

**
As I already said, Guga played FO great three times [97, 00 & 01]...apart from that he never went beyond QF;)

Contrast with JCF, who could have won a few more [JCF @ FO, 2000 (SF), 2001 (SF), 2002 (F), 2003 (W)...]:sad:

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:50 PM
Yeah labelling Guga as an overachiever is ridiculous.


okie dokies, make your own list then smarty pants:devil:

LeChuck
10-22-2007, 06:54 PM
Had Al Costa not won his French Open title in 2002, he would have seriously underachieved during his career. His matches against a peak form Muster at Roland Garros and Kitzbuhel in 1995 and Monte-Carlo in 1996, highlighted just how good he was on clay when he played to the best of his abilities. He was then annointed as a future Roland Garros champion and consistently failed to live up to his billing. At Roland Garros 2002, he seized his opportunity to redeem his past failures. His backhand was outstanding.

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 06:56 PM
Had Al Costa not won his French Open title in 2002, he would have seriously underachieved during his career. His matches against a peak form Muster at Roland Garros and Kitzbuhel in 1995 and Monte-Carlo in 1996, highlighted just how good he was on clay when he played to the best of his abilities. He was then annointed as a future Roland Garros champion and consistently failed to live up to his billing. At Roland Garros 2002, he seized his opportunity to redeem his past failures. His backhand was outstanding.

i`d still like to know who you`d put in your overachievers list:confused:

LeChuck
10-22-2007, 06:57 PM
i`d still like to know who you`d put in your overachievers list:confused:

The whole concept of an overachievers list is ridiculous.

scarecrows
10-22-2007, 06:57 PM
Contrast with JCF, who could have won a few more [JCF @ FO, 2000 (SF), 2001 (SF), 2002 (F), 2003 (W)...]:sad:

Federer at RG, 2005 SF, 2006 F, 2007 SF

big underachiever this Ego King

Eden
10-22-2007, 07:02 PM
:cool:
:devil:
:angel:
In my opinion the following players are the biggest `overachievers` in the modern game!
i.e. achievments relative to talent [or lack of]:


Just out of interest: How do you judge why someone overachieved? :scratch: How can you put on a formula of the talents these players haved?
They all achievemed far more than most of the players who competeted on the tour: They won GS tournaments. Why don't just give credit to their achievements instead of asking how much they deserved to win them?

2. Mats Wilander [7-slams, 33-titles, former #1]
**
6. Thomas Muster [1-slam, 44-titles, former #1]
10. Albert Costa [1-slam, 12-titles]


What do you think:confused:

I think you are in trouble when GWH gets to see your post ;)

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 07:06 PM
The whole concept of an overachievers list is ridiculous.


thanks for your contributions, i gues i can LeChuck them with a grain of salt then:devil:

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 07:06 PM
Thomas Muster was not an overachiever at all. The guy was an absolute genius on clay during his prime, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he won 40 claycourt titles, and 4 more titles on hard/carpet.

true, one of the best five all-time claycourters

Dougie
10-22-2007, 07:11 PM
What exactly makes Connors an overachiever!!?? The guy is a legend for a reason. It´s not all about pure talent, Connors worked, grinded and fought throughout his long career, and deserved everything he won. I only wish there´d be more players like him around nowadays.

KitinovRules
10-22-2007, 07:11 PM
Kafelnikov has to be much higher on the list.
On the list of active players-Djokovic definitely.

Eden
10-22-2007, 07:11 PM
As I already said, Guga played FO great three times [97, 00 & 01]...apart from that he never went beyond QF;)

Contrast with JCF, who could have won a few more [JCF @ FO, 2000 (SF), 2001 (SF), 2002 (F), 2003 (W)...]:sad:

You are aware of the fact how often Guga was hampered by injuries?

So in your opinion JCF was a better player as Guga on clay?

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 07:12 PM
Just out of interest: How do you judge why someone overachieved? :scratch: How can you put on a formula of the talents these players haved?
;)


i believe someone is an overachiever when they win more relative to their more talented rivals;)

eg. Connors vs. McEnroe [Mac was more talented but Connors won more];)
eg. Wilander vs. Becker & Edberg [Wilander won more slams, but Becker & Edberg were more talented]
eg. Kuerten vs. JCF & Safin [you get the idea];)

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 07:13 PM
:rolleyes:

"unstopable on clay"~~i don`t think so, even Hewitt managed to beat Guga in straight sets on clay in Brazil [when Kuerten was ranked #1]:p

He was not as consistent as for example Nadal is on it, but his highest level was out of this world. Federer lost to Cañas on hard. Twice. So


As I already said, Guga played FO great three times [97, 00 & 01]...apart from that he never went beyond QF;)

Contrast with JCF, who could have won a few more [JCF @ FO, 2000 (SF), 2001 (SF), 2002 (F), 2003 (W)...]:sad:

Generally speaking, you cannot use someone's achievements to say that they overachieved. I could just as easily say: "He convincingly won the French Open three times, yet failed to go past a quarter final the other times he played. Obviously, he's such an underachiever!" You have to give a reasonable explanation to why they achieved more (or less) than they should. Who should have won the years Kuerten won? Who could have stopped him? More specifically, the 2001 semi - WTF? Kuerten won in straights!

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 07:13 PM
JCF is a major underachiever~~ should have won 3-4 slams & a lot more titles:eek:

Maybe i was wrong and he did not overachieve but has not underachieved either

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 07:16 PM
i believe someone is an overachiever when they win more relative to their more talented rivals;)

eg. Connors vs. McEnroe [Mac was more talented but Connors won more];)
eg. Wilander vs. Becker & Edberg [Wilander won more slams, but Becker & Edberg were more talented]
eg. Kuerten vs. JCF & Safin [you get the idea];)

Ferrero was a more talented clay courter than Kuerten? You know, there's a word for that. BULLSHIT!

Renaud
10-22-2007, 07:19 PM
Each title won is deserved.

Eden
10-22-2007, 07:19 PM
i believe someone is an overachiever when they win more relative to their more talented rivals;)

eg. Connors vs. McEnroe [Mac was more talented but Connors won more];)
eg. Wilander vs. Becker & Edberg [Wilander won more slams, but Becker & Edberg were more talented]
eg. Kuerten vs. JCF & Safin [you get the idea];)

Sorry, I don't get all the talented talking here on the forum :shrug: You don't win matches just with being talented, you have to be consistent as well.

How do you judge if a player is more talented than another? What matters the most is that you take out the maximum of your abilities.

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 07:19 PM
Ferrero was a more talented clay courter than Kuerten? You know, there's a word for that. BULLSHIT!

yes & JCF was also more talented all-round player than Guga;)
JCF should have won 2003 USO, but A.Rod got a sweet schedule & JCF got 4-matches in successive days:sad:

KaxMisha
10-22-2007, 07:21 PM
yes & JCF was also more talented all-round player than Guga;)
JCF should have won 2003 USO, but A.Rod got a sweet schedule & JCF got 4-matches in successive days:sad:

So what? Several players are more talented all-round players than Nadal. He's still better on clay.

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 07:21 PM
Sorry, I don't get all the talented talking here on the forum :shrug: You don't win matches just with being talented, you have to be consistent as well.

How do you judge if a player is more talented than another? What matters the most is that you take out the maximum of your abilities.


:cool:
exactly i agree with you;)
& that is what makes the difference between `overachievers` & `underachievers`~~ who makes the most with what they`ve got, & who takes their chances when they have them:angel:

Dougie
10-22-2007, 07:23 PM
i believe someone is an overachiever when they win more relative to their more talented rivals;)

eg. Connors vs. McEnroe [Mac was more talented but Connors won more];)
eg. Wilander vs. Becker & Edberg [Wilander won more slams, but Becker & Edberg were more talented]
eg. Kuerten vs. JCF & Safin [you get the idea];)

I don´t question Edberg´s and Becker´s talent but it seems your definion of talent = neat volleys and great technique. Connors and Wilander might not have played the most beautiful kind of tennis, but maybe their talent was something else? Becker never had the consistency and cool of Wilander. McEnroe never had the heart of Connors. And those are qualities that shouldn´t be overlooked. Tennis is a great game because it´s about more than your ability to hit nice shots.
Did Connors and Wilander have the most beautiful shots ever? No.
Does that make them overachievers? Definitely not.

Drunken
10-22-2007, 07:59 PM
Kafelnikov if anything was an underachiever. Should have at least won five Slams with his talent.

Isn't Lendl called the "greatest overachiever"?

jayjay
10-22-2007, 08:13 PM
Sorry, I don't get all the talented talking here on the forum :shrug: You don't win matches just with being talented, you have to be consistent as well.

How do you judge if a player is more talented than another? What matters the most is that you take out the maximum of your abilities.

Ditto.

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 09:31 PM
Kafelnikov if anything was an underachiever. Should have at least won five Slams with his talent.

Isn't Lendl called the "greatest overachiever"?

Kafelnikov underachiever??? do not make me laugh...

thrust
10-22-2007, 10:06 PM
Connors- I was never a fan, but anyone who is capable of winning 100+ tournaments including 8Slams on various surfaces, has to be very talented. He got the most out of his natural talent, but I would not call him an overachiever. Chang- Was small in stature, won many tournaments and a Slam. I would say he was an overachiever, which is very admirable not a criticism. Courier could be considered an overachiever as well as Hewitt. I would consider Kafelnakov more of an underachiever, cerainly not an overachiever. Kuerten and Muster were clay court specialists not overachievers. I would not consider Wilander an overachiever. He was an outstanding and smart player.

Kolya
10-22-2007, 10:13 PM
Ivan Lendl - The No. 1 Overachiever!!!

World Beater
10-22-2007, 10:21 PM
Pete Sampras.

The guy was aloof, cutthroat, and sacrificed his life as a human being in his pursuit for greatness.

The guy wasn't called "mr.roomservice" for nothing. He described the pressure as being overwhelming when he was #1.

He jetted around europe to preserve his year end #1 rank by playing a bunch of MM's indoors, and was so spent by the time his career was over.

leng jai
10-22-2007, 10:37 PM
Kuerten? Thanks for the laugh.

CmonAussie
10-23-2007, 02:33 AM
Pete Sampras.

The guy was aloof, cutthroat, and sacrificed his life as a human being in his pursuit for greatness.

The guy wasn't called "mr.roomservice" for nothing. He described the pressure as being overwhelming when he was #1.

He jetted around europe to preserve his year end #1 rank by playing a bunch of MM's indoors, and was so spent by the time his career was over.

:wavey:
Sampras was insanely talented, & as far as winning slams went he certainly made the most of it!
Of course if we do a comparison between McEnroe & Sampras [though different generations]~~ then Pete does appear to be an overachiever [relatively only];)

Marek.
10-23-2007, 02:39 AM
I don't really believe in overachieving. Some players like Chang or Hewitt, who don't have big weapons, are able to make the fullest of what they do have which is great defense and mental toughness. To me that is fulfilling their potential or making the most of what you do have. Underachieving, though, is a whole different story. IMO, McEnroe was the biggest one but that's a whole different topic.

World Beater
10-23-2007, 03:46 AM
I don't really believe in overachieving. Some players like Chang or Hewitt, who don't have big weapons, are able to make the fullest of what they do have which is great defense and mental toughness. To me that is fulfilling their potential or making the most of what you do have. Underachieving, though, is a whole different story. IMO, McEnroe was the biggest one but that's a whole different topic.

overachieving means going beyond predicted potential. i wouldnt predict sampras to win 14 slams when he showed up at the usopen and beat agassi in the final to win his first slam.

it depends on how you define it.

Jimnik
10-23-2007, 04:15 AM
How can Kuerten possibly be considered an "overachiever"? How many titles did he win on mental strength and determination alone?

He has a massive game. Without hip problems who knows what he could have achieved, and not just on clay.

Drunken
10-23-2007, 10:07 AM
Kafelnikov underachiever??? do not make me laugh...

Have you even seen him play? Kafelnikov was an all-rounder, could play from baseline and volley well and his double-handed backhand was one the best shots. He had the natural potential but was too erratic and lazy to carry it out, which is why I consider him an underachiever.

Action Jackson
10-23-2007, 10:36 AM
Ok, at least this list has some talking points.

Ferrero better than Kuerten on clay, well Antarctica will be a desert in 1 day if this is true.

stebs
10-23-2007, 11:38 AM
Kuerten on clay is better than Ferrero or Safin and that's siimply not up for debate.

ReturnWinner
10-23-2007, 01:18 PM
Have you even seen him play? Kafelnikov was an all-rounder, could play from baseline and volley well and his double-handed backhand was one the best shots. He had the natural potential but was too erratic and lazy to carry it out, which is why I consider him an underachiever.

Lazy? the guy was kinda like Davydenko of Nowadays, playing a tons of tournanemts and he was a really hardworker

CmonAussie
10-23-2007, 01:40 PM
Kuerten on clay is better than Ferrero or Safin and that's siimply not up for debate.


Kuerten = JCF on clay [yes Guga won 3x FO, that`s the point]
Kuerten < JCF on hardcourt
Kuerten < JCF on grass
Kuerten < JCF on indoor [yes Guga won TMC, again that`s the point]

Kuerten > Safin on clay
Kuerten < Safin on hardcourt
Kuerten = Safin on grass
Kuerten < Safin on indoor

thefore overall talent
**Safin > Kuerten
**JCF > Kuerten

on overall career results
**Kuerten >> Safin > JCF

thrust
10-23-2007, 01:54 PM
Pete Sampras.

The guy was aloof, cutthroat, and sacrificed his life as a human being in his pursuit for greatness.

The guy wasn't called "mr.roomservice" for nothing. He described the pressure as being overwhelming when he was #1.

He jetted around europe to preserve his year end #1 rank by playing a bunch of MM's indoors, and was so spent by the time his career was over.

Rather harsh assessment of Sampras! Yes, he wanted to win Slams and be #1. Most players do, but Pete was willing to do whatever his talent enabled him to do to achieve his goal. Some players have the talent but not the drive to be #1, others have the drive but not the talent. Pete, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, and Roger have both the drive and talent. That is why they are among the best of all time and should be praised rather than censured.

StevoTG
10-23-2007, 02:23 PM
I don't really believe in overachieving. Some players like Chang or Hewitt, who don't have big weapons, are able to make the fullest of what they do have which is great defense and mental toughness. To me that is fulfilling their potential or making the most of what you do have. Underachieving, though, is a whole different story. IMO, McEnroe was the biggest one but that's a whole different topic.

Yeah I don't really believe in overachieving either, however the arguement could be made that there is no such thing as underachiever because they did'nt/dont have the physical/mental/etc abillity to win the titles, it's an interesting discussion but if a player of the quality of Nalbandian had never won a masters series title then I would'nt argue with people saying he under-achieved.

StevoTG
10-23-2007, 02:27 PM
Lazy? the guy was kinda like Davydenko of Nowadays, playing a tons of tournanemts and he was a really hardworker

One thing you could say about Davydenko is that while he undeniably works very hard, he can seem reluctant to change his game during a match, you could argue that that is mentally lazy... but stubborn would probably be a better word.

CmonAussie
10-23-2007, 02:31 PM
Yeah I don't really believe in overachieving either, however the arguement could be made that there is no such thing as underachiever because they did'nt/dont have the physical/mental/etc abillity to win the titles, it's an interesting discussion but if a player of the quality of Nalbandian had never won a masters series title then I would'nt argue with people saying he under-achieved.


a lot of people seem to be angry at me for bring up this concept of `overachieving`:eek:
of course it`s all relative, to say that someone achieved more than their peers, despite not being the most talented of their generaton~~ then how would you like to classify that:confused:

Jimmy Connors was the epitome of `overachiever` in my book, yet with the exception of Borg old Jimbo managed to have the best career:devil: .. so my hats off to him:worship:

anyway it`s just a discussion, if you want to label it something else then that`s fine:cool:

Drunken
10-23-2007, 02:32 PM
Lazy? the guy was kinda like Davydenko of Nowadays, playing a tons of tournanemts and he was a really hardworker

Safin said Kafelnikov had "seven Fridays in a week". He loathed training, hence he played as many tournaments to keep fit.

ReturnWinner
10-23-2007, 02:35 PM
Safin said Kafelnikov had "seven Fridays in a week". He loathed training, hence he played as many tournaments to keep fit.

Safin is a very funny man, likely it was one of his jokes

Drunken
10-23-2007, 02:40 PM
Safin is a very funny man, likely it was one of his jokes
He is funny, but Safin's quote wouldn't have been funny if it had no truth to it. Kafelnikov did play many tournaments to make up for his lack of practice.

Jimnik
10-23-2007, 04:08 PM
Kuerten = JCF on clay [yes Guga won 3x FO, that`s the point]
Kuerten < JCF on hardcourt
Kuerten < JCF on grass
Kuerten < JCF on indoor [yes Guga won TMC, again that`s the point]
Mate, I like JCF even more than I like Guga but I don't think it's right to call them equal on clay. It's not just the RG titles, Guga was the only player to win all the major clay events MC, Rome, Hamburg and RG. Yes I know the h2h says 2-2 on clay but the last meeting was right in the middle of JCF's peak and besides Guga won the two more important matches.

I would even argue that they're about equal on hardcourts. JCF never won a TMS title in North America and only reached one final whereas Guga won in Cincy and reached the finals of IW, Miami and Canada. If you take out his run to the final in 2003, JCF's record at the USO is really quite shit. The AO is the only slam where he has a big edge over Guga's shocking record.

As for grass and indoors, well it's mostly nitpicking. Neither produced much on the fast surfaces although Guga won the TMC, JCF won Madrid and both have made the Wimby QF but neither have come close to winning a title on grass.

Kuerten > Safin on clay
Kuerten < Safin on hardcourt
Kuerten = Safin on grass
Kuerten < Safin on indoor

thefore overall talent
**Safin > Kuerten
**JCF > Kuerten

on overall career results
**Kuerten >> Safin > JCF
You know Kuerten's achievements haven't been that much greater than Safin and Ferrero. He won more slams but he didn't spend that many weeks at #1. He also never came close to a Davis Cup title whereas Marat and JCF have two each.

I would say overall career results:
Kuerten = Safin > JCF

ReturnWinner
10-23-2007, 04:09 PM
Mate, I like JCF even more than I like Guga but I don't think it's right to call them equal on clay. It's not just the RG titles, Guga was the only player to win all the major clay events MC, Rome, Hamburg and RG. Yes I know the h2h says 2-2 on clay but the last meeting was right in the middle of JCF's peak and besides Guga won the two more important matches.

I would even argue that they're about equal on hardcourts. JCF never won a TMS title in North America and only reached one final whereas Guga won in Cincy and reached the finals of IW, Miami and Canada. If you take out his run to the final in 2003, JCF's record at the USO is really quite shit. The AO is the only slam where he has a big edge over Guga's shocking record.

As for grass and indoors, well it's mostly nitpicking. Neither produced much on the fast surfaces although Guga won the TMC, JCF won Madrid and both have made the Wimby QF but neither have come close to winning a title on grass.


You know Kuerten's achievements haven't been that much greater than Safin and Ferrero. He won more slams but he didn't spend that many weeks at #1. He also never came close to a Davis Cup title whereas Marat and JCF have two each.

I would say overall career results:
Kuerten = Safin > JCF


as if Kuerten has had great partners in Brazil davis cup team :o

Jimnik
10-23-2007, 04:15 PM
as if Kuerten has had great partners in Brazil davis cup team :o
It's not just that. Guga has had some shocking losses in Davis Cup losing to Hewitt, Hrbaty and Escude at home on clay - and that was while he was still at his peak.

To summarize their achievements:

Kuerten won 3/3 GS finals, 5 TMS titles, TMC
Safin won 2/4 GS, 5 TMS titles, 2 DC
Ferrero won 1/3 GS finals, 4 TMS titles, 2 DC

Well the first two are definitely better but between them it's very close.

ReturnWinner
10-23-2007, 04:20 PM
It's not just that. Guga has had some shocking losses in Davis Cup losing to Hewitt, Hrbaty and Escude at home on clay - and that was while he was still at his peak.

To summarize their achievements:

Kuerten won 3/3 GS finals, 5 TMS titles, TMC
Safin won 2/4 GS, 5 TMS titles, 2 DC
Ferrero won 1/3 GS finals, 4 TMS titles, 2 DC

Well the first two are definitely better but between them it's very close.

yeah i agree both Safin and Ferrero are not too far of Guga, Ferrero reached a masters cup final too and was close to win it and he and safin are a round away in wimbledon to reach all slams semis

Guga could not reach quarters in Australian open -I think not even a fourth round- and never made a semis in the usopen

Pea
10-23-2007, 04:56 PM
Yevgeny and Gustavo, overachievers? Yikes.

thrust
10-23-2007, 06:11 PM
Mate, I like JCF even more than I like Guga but I don't think it's right to call them equal on clay. It's not just the RG titles, Guga was the only player to win all the major clay events MC, Rome, Hamburg and RG. Yes I know the h2h says 2-2 on clay but the last meeting was right in the middle of JCF's peak and besides Guga won the two more important matches.

I would even argue that they're about equal on hardcourts. JCF never won a TMS title in North America and only reached one final whereas Guga won in Cincy and reached the finals of IW, Miami and Canada. If you take out his run to the final in 2003, JCF's record at the USO is really quite shit. The AO is the only slam where he has a big edge over Guga's shocking record.

As for grass and indoors, well it's mostly nitpicking. Neither produced much on the fast surfaces although Guga won the TMC, JCF won Madrid and both have made the Wimby QF but neither have come close to winning a title on grass.


You know Kuerten's achievements haven't been that much greater than Safin and Ferrero. He won more slams but he didn't spend that many weeks at #1. He also never came close to a Davis Cup title whereas Marat and JCF have two each.

I would say overall career results:
Kuerten = Safin > JCF

Usually, it takes more than one player to win a Davis Cup competition. Sampras came close to being a one man team against Russia, in Moscow, on clay when he won both singles matches and the doubles with Martin who was a good doubles player. One can^t blame Kuerten entirely because Brazil never won the DC. Also, Kuerten^s decline was due to serious injury. Safin^s is because of either laziness, attitude, emotional instability, or all three. Safin had the superior talent, Kuerten the better carrer.

spencercarlos
10-23-2007, 10:29 PM
Kuerten`s high risk game & long loopy strokes made it hard for him to be consistent;)

Notice that Guga never went beyond QF @ the other 3 slams.
Also @ FO he really only played three good touneys [97, 00 & 01]~~ yet managed to win them all:worship:

2000 was especially sweet for Guga, as he finished #1 & won TMC [he never repeated such a high performance on hard courts again, of course he deserved it~~ by making the most of his chances]!

Kuerten should be well satisfied with 3-slams, #1, TMC, etc. [he maximised his potential]:angel:
Yes those long loopy strokes made him beat Sampras and Agassi back to back in the Masters 2000 semis and final on hard courts respectively. :lol:

Jimnik
10-23-2007, 10:32 PM
Usually, it takes more than one player to win a Davis Cup competition. Sampras came close to being a one man team against Russia, in Moscow, on clay when he won both singles matches and the doubles with Martin who was a good doubles player. One can^t blame Kuerten entirely because Brazil never won the DC. Also, Kuerten^s decline was due to serious injury. Safin^s is because of either laziness, attitude, emotional instability, or all three. Safin had the superior talent, Kuerten the better carrer.
Safin's decline is also injury. The tendinitis means that he effectively has a permanent knee injury so he can't move as well as he use to.

Yes I agree Kuerten had little back-up in Davis Cup but his results were still not good enough. He definitely shouldn't lose to Hewitt and Hrbaty at home on clay. Ljubicic won it almost on his own in 2005. Ancic lost all of his live singles rubbers until he played Mertinak ranked 150.

spencercarlos
10-23-2007, 10:33 PM
Kuerten = JCF on clay [yes Guga won 3x FO, that`s the point]
Kuerten < JCF on hardcourt
Kuerten < JCF on grass
Kuerten < JCF on indoor [yes Guga won TMC, again that`s the point]

Kuerten > Safin on clay
Kuerten < Safin on hardcourt
Kuerten = Safin on grass
Kuerten < Safin on indoor

thefore overall talent
**Safin > Kuerten
**JCF > Kuerten

on overall career results
**Kuerten >> Safin > JCF
You think that Ferrero = Kuerten on clay results say that Kuerten was better, same for Hardcourts/Indoors.

:wavey:

spencercarlos
10-23-2007, 10:40 PM
It's not just that. Guga has had some shocking losses in Davis Cup losing to Hewitt, Hrbaty and Escude at home on clay - and that was while he was still at his peak.

To summarize their achievements:

Kuerten won 3/3 GS finals, 5 TMS titles, TMC
Safin won 2/4 GS, 5 TMS titles, 2 DC
Ferrero won 1/3 GS finals, 4 TMS titles, 2 DC

Well the first two are definitely better but between them it's very close.
Definetly putting team competition event results when comparing Singles carreer is only because your player is in real trouble.. At this time Safin and Ferrero.

ManOWar
10-23-2007, 10:45 PM
Ok, at least this list has some talking points.

Ferrero better than Kuerten on clay, well Antarctica will be a desert in 1 day if this is true.

Anarctica already is a desert :p

Hendu
10-23-2007, 11:11 PM
It's not just that. Guga has had some shocking losses in Davis Cup losing to Hewitt, Hrbaty and Escude at home on clay - and that was while he was still at his peak.

To summarize their achievements:

Kuerten won 3/3 GS finals, 5 TMS titles, TMC
Safin won 2/4 GS, 5 TMS titles, 2 DC
Ferrero won 1/3 GS finals, 4 TMS titles, 2 DC

Well the first two are definitely better but between them it's very close.

To be fair, when he lost to Escude the winner of that DC tie was already decided. And the match was played at the best of three sets.

And both Hewitt and Hrbaty are great Davis Cup players... Kuerten is a very good DC player.

Ferrero lost to Calleri in a DC tie played in home soil, when he was #1 in the ranking. That doesn't make him a worse DC player.

And you shouldn't consider the number of Davis Cup titles to compare the players, since DC is a team competition.

Jimnik
10-24-2007, 01:13 AM
To be fair, when he lost to Escude the winner of that DC tie was already decided. And the match was played at the best of three sets.

And both Hewitt and Hrbaty are great Davis Cup players... Kuerten is a very good DC player.

Ferrero lost to Calleri in a DC tie played in home soil, when he was #1 in the ranking. That doesn't make him a worse DC player.

And you shouldn't consider the number of Davis Cup titles to compare the players, since DC is a team competition.
Complete rubbish.

Losing to Hewitt and Hrbaty at home on clay is poor for any RG champion of any kind let alone a legend like Guga. Regardless of how good they are in Davis Cup, they were playing on his strongest and their weakest surface in a hostile environment.

Kuerten's DC singles record reads 21-11 but 14 of these wins were against opponents ranked outside the top 100. His only good wins were against Moya. His losses include the likes of Washington and an old Courier (both at home) Nestor and an old Pioline.

Ferrero's record is 15-6 and includes wins over Kafelnikov, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter and Gaudio - all GS champions. Only 3 of those wins were against players ranked below 100. His 6 losses include Hewitt and Philippoussis on grass in Australia both of which went to 5 sets. His only losses on home soil were against Calleri and El Aynoui both of whom were top 20 at the time.

Regardless of what back-up he had there is no question that Kuerten was a very average Davis Cup player. I have already conceded that he was a better clay player but certainly not in JCF's league when it came to playing for his country.

AnnaK_4ever
10-24-2007, 01:21 AM
Safin said Kafelnikov had "seven Fridays in a week". He loathed training, hence he played as many tournaments to keep fit.

I wonder if you know what it means? Cos I failed to understand how it is related to Kafelnikov being overachiever or playing much :confused:

ReturnWinner
10-24-2007, 01:58 AM
He is funny, but Safin's quote wouldn't have been funny if it had no truth to it. Kafelnikov did play many tournaments to make up for his lack of practice.

i do not think so , he was a really hard worker and he played very many tournaments to get rhythm of competence, kinda like Davydenko does :D

KaxMisha
10-24-2007, 02:31 AM
Kuerten = JCF on clay [yes Guga won 3x FO, that`s the point]
Kuerten < JCF on hardcourt
Kuerten < JCF on grass
Kuerten < JCF on indoor [yes Guga won TMC, again that`s the point]

Kuerten > Safin on clay
Kuerten < Safin on hardcourt
Kuerten = Safin on grass
Kuerten < Safin on indoor

thefore overall talent
**Safin > Kuerten
**JCF > Kuerten

on overall career results
**Kuerten >> Safin > JCF

:retard:

nolop
10-24-2007, 04:06 AM
i will take all my guts on this post and say federer is a big a really BIG overachiever.

Hendu
10-24-2007, 06:04 AM
Complete rubbish.

Losing to Hewitt and Hrbaty at home on clay is poor for any RG champion of any kind let alone a legend like Guga. Regardless of how good they are in Davis Cup, they were playing on his strongest and their weakest surface in a hostile environment.

Kuerten's DC singles record reads 21-11 but 14 of these wins were against opponents ranked outside the top 100. His only good wins were against Moya. His losses include the likes of Washington and an old Courier (both at home) Nestor and an old Pioline.

Regardless of what back-up he had there is no question that Kuerten was a very average Davis Cup player. I have already conceded that he was a better clay player but certainly not in JCF's league when it came to playing for his country.

Funny how you distort things...

1st: I never said Guga was a better DC player than Ferrero.

2nd: You wrote about his loss against Escude, and forgot to tell that it was in a death rubber.

3rd: You talk about his losses against old Courier and Washington. But forgot to tell that the two Americans were much better ranked at the time than young Kuerten.(Courier #22, Washington #24, Kuerten #85).

4th: You talk about his loss with "old" Pioline, but you choose to ignore that it was in France, on carpet and when Pioline was a top 25 and ended the year as a top 15 (reaching semis in the US Open and Quarters in Wimbledon).

5th: And you also "forget" he beated Top 5 Corretja in Spain.

Hendu
10-24-2007, 06:08 AM
i will take all my guts on this post and say federer is a big a really BIG overachiever.

Well, you don't lack guts, you lack common sense.

;)

CmonAussie
10-24-2007, 10:23 AM
i will take all my guts on this post and say federer is a big a really BIG overachiever.

if FED wins 20+ majors & remains #1 for 8 years straight then i`d call him an overachiever:cool:

Jimnik
10-24-2007, 12:58 PM
Funny how you distort things...

1st: I never said Guga was a better DC player than Ferrero.

2nd: You wrote about his loss against Escude, and forgot to tell that it was in a death rubber.

3rd: You talk about his losses against old Courier and Washington. But forgot to tell that the two Americans were much better ranked at the time than young Kuerten.(Courier #22, Washington #24, Kuerten #85).

4th: You talk about his loss with "old" Pioline, but you choose to ignore that it was in France, on carpet and when Pioline was a top 25 and ended the year as a top 15 (reaching semis in the US Open and Quarters in Wimbledon).

5th: And you also "forget" he beated Top 5 Corretja in Spain.


1st: That's not the point. You said "Kuerten is a very good DC player" - I completely disagree. Forget the comparison with Ferrero, I've already given you plenty of results that prove otherwise. I mention JCF to show you what a real "very good DC player" achieves and also to demonstrate why he deserves credit for two DC titles.

2nd: Even in a dead rubber it's embarrassing to lose to Escude on clay, especially at home.

3rd: Doesn't matter. Washington was only ranked because of his freak run to the Wimbledon final and Courier was way past his best. 1997 was the year Guga made his big breakthrough and won Roland Garros but he still lost DC at home to the Americans.

4th: You talk as though Pioline was some kind of indoor expert which he wasn't. He was a 30 year old playing way past his peak while Kuerten was young and in the top 10. If he really was a "very good DC player" he wouldn't get demolished in straight sets by someone like that.

5th: I didn't forget but why should I mention it? Corretja never won a slam, and in case you hadn't noticed I was only talking about GS champions in my post. Yes it was by far the best DC weekend Guga ever had but considering his achievements at the major clay events you would have expected him to produce more results like that. He should have at least repeated the results he managed on the main tour but he failed to do that.

StevoTG
10-24-2007, 11:51 PM
a lot of people seem to be angry at me for bring up this concept of `overachieving`:eek:
of course it`s all relative, to say that someone achieved more than their peers, despite not being the most talented of their generaton~~ then how would you like to classify that:confused:

Jimmy Connors was the epitome of `overachiever` in my book, yet with the exception of Borg old Jimbo managed to have the best career:devil: .. so my hats off to him:worship:

anyway it`s just a discussion, if you want to label it something else then that`s fine:cool:

I'm definately not angry at you for bringing up the concept of overachieving :cool: , while I understand what is meant by the term 'underachieve` I just think it's a bit of a 'grey` area. When some ones career is over who's to say that they over or underachieved. Take Gasquet for example, some people refer to him as an underachiever, but if he never won another ATP match then would he be the worlds biggest underachiever? or would he, while clearly being technically talented, just be considered to be lacking the mental/physical or whatever ability to be a great tennis player?

I can see why people refer to Connors as an/the overachiever, I'm just not sure if it's correct.... and if it is correct then is it an insult or one of the finest compliments??

Look what you're doing, getting me all confused:lol:

Hendu
10-25-2007, 04:28 AM
1st: That's not the point. You said "Kuerten is a very good DC player" - I completely disagree. Forget the comparison with Ferrero, I've already given you plenty of results that prove otherwise. I mention JCF to show you what a real "very good DC player" achieves and also to demonstrate why he deserves credit for two DC titles.

What I said was probably a stretch, but was an overreaction to you unfairly exaggerating Guga's losses in Davis Cup.

And no, DC titles should not be taken into account to compare players. The individual performances of the players in DC is what counts.

2nd: Even in a dead rubber it's embarrassing to lose to Escude on clay, especially at home.

Dead rubbers don't have any importance. Those are exhibition matches.

3rd: Doesn't matter. Washington was only ranked because of his freak run to the Wimbledon final and Courier was way past his best. 1997 was the year Guga made his big breakthrough and won Roland Garros but he still lost DC at home to the Americans.

There was nothing shameful about that Brazilian loss against USA.

4th: You talk as though Pioline was some kind of indoor expert which he wasn't. He was a 30 year old playing way past his peak while Kuerten was young and in the top 10. If he really was a "very good DC player" he wouldn't get demolished in straight sets by someone like that.

There is nothing wrong about losing to Pioline in France on carpet.

As I said, Pioline was a top 25 at the time, and ended the season as a top 15. And was a pretty good Davis Cup player.

5th: I didn't forget but why should I mention it? Corretja never won a slam, and in case you hadn't noticed I was only talking about GS champions in my post. Yes it was by far the best DC weekend Guga ever had but considering his achievements at the major clay events you would have expected him to produce more results like that. He should have at least repeated the results he managed on the main tour but he failed to do that.

The victory against Corretja in Spain was a great win and shouldn't be ignored.

Fair enough, he showed in the ATP Tour a better level of play than in Davis Cup. But he was still a good Davis Cup player. There is no need to overemphasize the importance of his losses.

World Beater
10-25-2007, 05:20 AM
The victory against Corretja in Spain was a great win and shouldn't be ignored.

Fair enough, he showed in the ATP Tour a better level of play than in Davis Cup. But he was still a good Davis Cup player. There is no need to overemphasize the importance of his losses.

dont you get it. Guga is a mug :shrug:

Muga.

Jimnik
10-25-2007, 12:55 PM
What I said was probably a stretch, but was an overreaction to you unfairly exaggerating Guga's losses in Davis Cup.

And no, DC titles should not be taken into account to compare players. The individual performances of the players in DC is what counts.
"Unfaily exaggerating Guga's losses"? I mentioned his losses to Hewitt and Hrbaty at home on clay and labelled them as being very poor. Do you really think this is an exaggeration?

Dead rubbers don't have any importance. Those are exhibition matches.
To lose in any kind of exhibition to Escude on clay is embarrassing.

There was nothing shameful about that Brazilian loss against USA.
At home to USA, I disagree.

There is nothing wrong about losing to Pioline in France on carpet.

As I said, Pioline was a top 25 at the time, and ended the season as a top 15. And was a pretty good Davis Cup player.
Again I disagree, especially when you look at the scoreline.

The victory against Corretja in Spain was a great win and shouldn't be ignored.
It was a good expected win but nothing more. If he's beating Corretja on the main tour he should be beating him in Davis Cup.

Fair enough, he showed in the ATP Tour a better level of play than in Davis Cup. But he was still a good Davis Cup player. There is no need to overemphasize the importance of his losses.
Clearly there is because you would like to neglect achievements in Davis Cup when comparing players on the grounds that it's a team sport. You think Ferrero only did better than Kuerten because he had better team-mates. Yet again, I completely disagree.

Hendu
10-25-2007, 03:08 PM
Clearly there is because you would like to neglect achievements in Davis Cup when comparing players on the grounds that it's a team sport. You think Ferrero only did better than Kuerten because he had better team-mates. Yet again, I completely disagree.

As I wrote in the previous post:

DC titles should not be taken into account to compare players. The individual performances of the players in DC is what counts.

There are many great DC players who have never won the Davis Cup title, and there are also mediocre DC players, who have won the cup, just because of being in good teams.

The number of DC titles shouldn't be taken into account to compare players.