Who's the biggest overachiever among current players? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who's the biggest overachiever among current players?

johnemms2003
03-21-2007, 02:18 PM
So we all kind of agreed that people like Nalby, Haas, and Gonzo underachieve. How about the overachievers? I'd say definitely Ferrero and maybe Robredo.



John
:worship: TripleMatchPoint (http://www.triplematchpoint.com)

Action Jackson
03-21-2007, 02:19 PM
Very original topic.

The answer is Federer.

johnemms2003
03-21-2007, 02:36 PM
Was it already posted?

TheMightyFed
03-21-2007, 02:48 PM
Canas, Puerta, Chela, Coria

Hendu
03-21-2007, 03:10 PM
Canas, Puerta, Chela, Coria

and any other Argie junkie.

Saumon
03-21-2007, 03:12 PM
Was it already posted?

not this month

Adler
03-21-2007, 03:13 PM
not this month
week

Norrage
03-21-2007, 03:14 PM
Roddick

Bilbo
03-21-2007, 03:25 PM
Roddick comes first to my mind

~*BGT*~
03-21-2007, 03:30 PM
So we all kind of agreed that people like Nalby, Haas, and Gonzo underachieve. How about the overachievers? I'd say definitely Ferrero and maybe Robredo.



John
:worship: TripleMatchPoint (http://www.triplematchpoint.com)

Define 'overachiever'.

Norrage
03-21-2007, 03:35 PM
Define 'overachiever'.

A player who despite limited technique managed to achieve a lot on the tour. While it can be disputed that at least this person has put a lot of effort in the game, you can also look at the ease of draws the player achieved and the amount of top 10 players he was able to play(and beat) during his career...

Which leads to: Roddick...

silverwhite
03-21-2007, 03:37 PM
Bye

Andre'sNo1Fan
03-21-2007, 03:42 PM
So we all kind of agreed that people like Nalby, Haas, and Gonzo underachieve. How about the overachievers? I'd say definitely Ferrero and maybe Robredo.



John
:worship: TripleMatchPoint (http://www.triplematchpoint.com)
Ferrero, an overachiever? With his talent he should have had at least 3 slams by now.......I have no idea why you think he's an overacheiver.

My answer would be either Ljubicic or Davydenko.

Jimnik
03-21-2007, 03:46 PM
:retard:

How is it possible to "over-achieve"?

johnemms2003
03-21-2007, 03:53 PM
It is possible to overachieve if you get lucky or get a good draw or just keep pounding. I think Henman has overachieved in a sense. Sure, he's not won a slam but he has been in semis and quarters and ... consistently (well maybe not the past year). For God's sake, he reached the semis of Roland Garros, so that's overachieving to me. I think Roddick has definitely overachieved as his era has been full of ace-friendly people. Imagine if we had 20 people who could block Roddick's serve and put it back in play... Ferrero overachieved as I don't think he would've won his clay slam if someone like Nadal was around. I mean who was there to challenge him? Martin Vervek overachieved so did Thomas Johansson the Australian Open Champion

Pea
03-21-2007, 03:55 PM
It is possible to overachieve if you get lucky or get a good draw or just keep pounding.

How bout a giftwrapped slam by the USTA?

Hendu
03-21-2007, 03:59 PM
It is possible to overachieve if you get lucky or get a good draw or just keep pounding. I think Henman has overachieved in a sense. Sure, he's not won a slam but he has been in semis and quarters and ... consistently (well maybe not the past year). For God's sake, he reached the semis of Roland Garros, so that's overachieving to me. I think Roddick has definitely overachieved as his era has been full of ace-friendly people. Imagine if we had 20 people who could block Roddick's serve and put it back in play... Ferrero overachieved as I don't think he would've won his clay slam if someone like Nadal was around. I mean who was there to challenge him? Martin Vervek overachieved so did Thomas Johansson the Australian Open Champion

leave while you can!

I'm warning you.

johnemms2003
03-21-2007, 04:01 PM
By Pounding, i mean people who don't go away. Like Ferrer. But, I think Gadio has definitely overachieved. I think Brad Gilbert overachieved but he is not current. I think Ginepri overachieved by reaching semis and Blake underachieved by not beating Agassi that year!

LinkMage
03-21-2007, 04:09 PM
Roddick. The only thing that guy has is a serve and he reached lots of GS finals.

GlennMirnyi
03-21-2007, 04:14 PM
Nadal, no doubt about it.

Stensland
03-21-2007, 04:44 PM
thomas johansson. how in the world could he ever have a go at safin?

Black Adam
03-21-2007, 04:45 PM
Ivan Ljubicic.

Stensland
03-21-2007, 04:48 PM
oh, i'd add schalken. one of the worst players i've ever seen and still: loads of qf's at slams.

Black Adam
03-21-2007, 04:51 PM
Roddick. The only thing that guy has is a serve and he reached lots of GS finals.
So , how come you forgot to mention Sampras who won 14 slams simply because he had that serve?

GlennMirnyi
03-21-2007, 05:17 PM
So , how come you forgot to mention Sampras who won 14 slams simply because he had that serve?

Get a clue, Sampras was far more than just serve.

CmonAussie
03-21-2007, 05:18 PM
Roddick [#1??]
Gaudio [slam winner?]
Blake [#4??]
Henman [#4??]
Johansson [slam winner?]
Rusedski [15-titles?]
Hewitt [until 2002 he overachieved, since 2003 he`s underachieved~~ still back-to-back #1 years & esp winning Wimby was somewhat an overachievment]!!

Bobby
03-21-2007, 05:19 PM
It is possible to overachieve if you get lucky or get a good draw or just keep pounding. I think Henman has overachieved in a sense. Sure, he's not won a slam but he has been in semis and quarters and ... consistently (well maybe not the past year). For God's sake, he reached the semis of Roland Garros, so that's overachieving to me. I think Roddick has definitely overachieved as his era has been full of ace-friendly people. Imagine if we had 20 people who could block Roddick's serve and put it back in play... Ferrero overachieved as I don't think he would've won his clay slam if someone like Nadal was around. I mean who was there to challenge him? Martin Vervek overachieved so did Thomas Johansson the Australian Open Champion


I wouldn't say Henman has been overachiever. I think he's one of the most talented players and he should have won much more. He's been in semis and quarters consistently because he happens to be a very good player. Having said that, I think he is past his prime by now.

CmonAussie
03-21-2007, 05:21 PM
From earlier eras:

Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander
Michael Chang
Jim Courier
Kafelnikov

Bobby
03-21-2007, 05:21 PM
One who comes to my mind is Jarkko Nieminen. I hope he will do well in the future, but every time I watch him play I wonder how he manages to stay in the top 20 or close to it.

Joyce_23
03-21-2007, 05:26 PM
Ferrero overachieved as I don't think he would've won his clay slam if someone like Nadal was around. I mean who was there to challenge him?

What kind of bogus argument is that?? Ferrero was clearly one of the best, if not the best, players on clay in 2003 and the year before that. His slam was a logical result of the way he had been playing on the surface.
And how the hell do you 'overachieve' anyway...That is such utter crap. If Roddick and Sampras, for instance, are only serve then where are Karlovic's slams??

Black Adam
03-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Get a clue, Sampras was far more than just serve.

Sampras was a serve, a volley plus a running forehand. And he also played in an era where the rackets allowed him to get away with with systematic serve and volley. If he played in this era, he would be behind guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Murray.And so is Roddick. He has got decent volley, Forehand, Backhand, Fighting spirit, but just because because his serve is far more visible than the rest of his game, people just see a serve and come come to silly conclusions.
And how the hell do you 'overachieve' anyway...That is such utter crap. If Roddick and Sampras, for instance, are only serve then where are Karlovic's slams??
Karlovic suffers from too many injuries, has no fighting spirit and no other shot apart from his serve. That's why he isn't like Rodddick or Sampras.

Bobby
03-21-2007, 05:33 PM
Sampras was a serve, a volley plus a running forehand. And he also played in an era where the rackets allowed him to get away with with systematic serve and volley. If he played in this era, he would be behind guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Murray.And so is Roddick. He has got decent volley, Forehand, Backhand, Fighting spirit, but just because because his serve is far more visible than the rest of his game, people just see a serve and come come to silly conclusions.

Sampras was one of the most complete players ever. Comparing him to Murray, Nadal and Roddick makes no sense to me.

Hendu
03-21-2007, 05:35 PM
Sampras was a serve, a volley plus a running forehand. And he also played in an era where the rackets allowed him to get away with with systematic serve and volley. If he played in this era, he would be behind guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Murray.And so is Roddick. He has got decent volley, Forehand, Backhand, Fighting spirit, but just because because his serve is far more visible than the rest of his game, people just see a serve and come come to silly conclusions.

Great post!!!

I love sarcasm.

Deivid23
03-21-2007, 05:51 PM
LaLo, definetely, he shouldn´t play tennis at all

ExcaliburII
03-21-2007, 05:54 PM
Johansson
Ljubicic
Blake
Davydenko
Volandri


In that order.

Black Adam
03-21-2007, 05:55 PM
Putting Sampras behind Roddick is the most unbelievable thing I have heard in 2007, bar none.
I am sure if Sampras played in this era (starting 2000) he would only have two slams. His game isn't tailored for this era. The wind started turning with this era's players and baseline game e.g. watch how Hewitt and Safin creamed him when he was doing his 90s act of serving then running to the net and kill the weak slow return. He managed to get 14 Slams because his serve was a puzzle to the guys of that era. Even Andy would have won at least 5 slams in that era because the returns were appalingly poor (due to poor racket technology) and he could have got way with his poor net approaches.

Byrd
03-21-2007, 06:00 PM
Gaudio

Black Adam
03-21-2007, 06:08 PM
Quite a dramatic drop off from 14 slams to two. Roddick as a 5 time GS is a fantasy that even he couldn't dream up.
Nothing dramatic, just telling the truth on how technology played a big part in Pete's big 14 :p

Bobby
03-21-2007, 06:37 PM
I am sure if Sampras played in this era (starting 2000) he would only have two slams. His game isn't tailored for this era. The wind started turning with this era's players and baseline game e.g. watch how Hewitt and Safin creamed him when he was doing his 90s act of serving then running to the net and kill the weak slow return. He managed to get 14 Slams because his serve was a puzzle to the guys of that era. Even Andy would have won at least 5 slams in that era because the returns were appalingly poor (due to poor racket technology) and he could have got way with his poor net approaches.

Comparing eras leads nowhere. Times change and we have no way of knowing how tennis will be played in 15 years time. Do you think Laver or Borg would win grand slams if they played today? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that they weren't excellent players. Your arguments are not very good...

Merton
03-21-2007, 06:39 PM
Vasilis Mazarakis

cmurray
03-21-2007, 06:46 PM
I;d thought of Henman too.

Peoples
03-21-2007, 06:55 PM
Djokovic, Robredo, Canas, Ferrer, Di Mauro.

r2473
03-21-2007, 07:03 PM
From earlier eras:

Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander
Michael Chang
Jim Courier
Kafelnikov

Would you care to expand on this? (As in, WTF are you talking about)?

AsianSensation
03-21-2007, 07:07 PM
Still don't understand how you can overacheive....if you've won a slam, you've earned it IMO

ranaldo
03-21-2007, 07:32 PM
Johansson has been lucky enough to run into a braincase who's a priori more talented.

Don't agree with Roddick though. Someone who repeatedly gets into GS semis can't be called an overachiever, rather a good steady top player.
Same for Ljubicic, he doesn't overachieve. He's that 'good'. His problem is that he's just a solid player, nothing more.

SBruguera
03-22-2007, 01:01 AM
Among the spaniards I would say Corretja and, of course, Roberto Carretero

Emilio
03-22-2007, 01:08 AM
nadal

Byrd
03-22-2007, 01:11 AM
Hewitt possibly, he picked up most of his achievements in a transistional period where there was no one at the top, which he exploited.

Kolya
03-22-2007, 01:12 AM
Among the spaniards I would say Corretja and, of course, Roberto Carretero

No not Corretja - he deserves one French Open victory.

Julio1974
03-22-2007, 01:15 AM
Roddick. The only thing that guy has is a serve and he reached lots of GS finals.

you really think a guy can reach lots of GS finals with just a serve????

Why then Karlovic has never won anything?

Kolya
03-22-2007, 01:22 AM
Hewitt possibly, he picked up most of his achievements in a transistional period where there was no one at the top, which he exploited.

Thats true - I bet no one expected Hewitt to achieve as much as he did. He was lucky.

GlennMirnyi
03-22-2007, 02:33 AM
Sampras was a serve, a volley plus a running forehand. And he also played in an era where the rackets allowed him to get away with with systematic serve and volley. If he played in this era, he would be behind guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Murray.And so is Roddick. He has got decent volley, Forehand, Backhand, Fighting spirit, but just because because his serve is far more visible than the rest of his game, people just see a serve and come come to silly conclusions.

Karlovic suffers from too many injuries, has no fighting spirit and no other shot apart from his serve. That's why he isn't like Rodddick or Sampras.

How can you put Roddick and Sampras in the same sentence. You're stupid or :cuckoo: ?

Sampras was one of the most complete players ever. Comparing him to Murray, Nadal and Roddick makes no sense to me.

Makes no sense at all, doesn't matter the person.

Great post!!!

I love sarcasm.

:lol:

Putting Sampras behind Roddick is the most unbelievable thing I have heard in 2007, bar none.

Add me to that.

I am sure if Sampras played in this era (starting 2000) he would only have two slams. His game isn't tailored for this era. The wind started turning with this era's players and baseline game e.g. watch how Hewitt and Safin creamed him when he was doing his 90s act of serving then running to the net and kill the weak slow return. He managed to get 14 Slams because his serve was a puzzle to the guys of that era. Even Andy would have won at least 5 slams in that era because the returns were appalingly poor (due to poor racket technology) and he could have got way with his poor net approaches.

How come he won, old and injured, a GS in 2002 playing with the same racket he did in the 90s? Are you blind? Roddick is a clown with no game that only won a slam because the linesmen stole the win from Nalbandian.

:retard:

m9m9m9m9m9
03-22-2007, 03:08 AM
Jim Courier

alfonsojose
03-22-2007, 03:24 AM
So we all kind of agreed that people like Nalby, Haas, and Gonzo underachieve. How about the overachievers? I'd say definitely Ferrero and maybe Robredo.



John
:worship: TripleMatchPoint (http://www.triplematchpoint.com)

After reading some of your posts, i definitely believe you overachieve by being able to join a tennis forum and creating a new thread :bowdown:

alfonsojose
03-22-2007, 03:31 AM
Sampras was a serve, a volley plus a running forehand. And he also played in an era where the rackets allowed him to get away with with systematic serve and volley. If he played in this era, he would be behind guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Murray.And so is Roddick. He has got decent volley, Forehand, Backhand, Fighting spirit, but just because because his serve is far more visible than the rest of his game, people just see a serve and come come to silly conclusions.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: BRAVO :D

CmonAussie
03-22-2007, 03:48 AM
Would you care to expand on this? (As in, WTF are you talking about)?


*Borg = overachiever~~> his playing style shouldn`t have enabled him to win 5-straight Wimbledons [granted he deserves his 6-FO titles:worship: ]!!... Basically he got a bit lucky playing guys like Gerulaitis in his early Wimby finals & then his aura spooked the other greats in later years [McEnroe should have won the 1980 final]. Borg didn`t have any huge weaposn~~ yet he won 11-Slams [overachiever];)

*Connors = overachiever~~> how did a guy with such an ugly game:devil: manage to win 8-Slams & stay #1 for 160 successive weeks:eek: :confused:

*Wilander = overachiever~~> Mats was perhaps the best pure conterpuncher ever:worship: . Wilander`s strokes & generally playing style didn`t look particularly special but he was a gladiator/fighter.. So 7-Slam wins on all surfaces was a huge effort [esp he overachieved in 1988~~ 3-Slams even though Becker, Edberg, Lendl were at their peaks].

*Courier = overachiever~~> Boring 1-dimensional game & yet he won 4-Slams & finished #1 in 1992:rolleyes:

*Chang = overachiever~~> 1989 FO title was pretty lucky, especially playing a serve volley specialist [Edberg] in the final.. Of course Chang`s achievments make me respect him even more, he made the most of his limited physical abilities:cool: ..

*Kafelnikov = overachiever~~> boring 1-dimensional game, nothing special but he was a warrior for a few years there, 2-Slams, Olympic Gold... pretty impressive considering his lack of talent!!

Action Jackson
03-22-2007, 04:56 AM
*Borg = overachiever~~> his playing style shouldn`t have enabled him to win 5-straight Wimbledons [granted he deserves his 6-FO titles:worship: ]!!... Basically he got a bit lucky playing guys like Gerulaitis in his early Wimby finals & then his aura spooked the other greats in later years [McEnroe should have won the 1980 final]. Borg didn`t have any huge weaposn~~ yet he won 11-Slams [overachiever];)

*Connors = overachiever~~> how did a guy with such an ugly game:devil: manage to win 8-Slams & stay #1 for 160 successive weeks:eek: :confused:

*Wilander = overachiever~~> Mats was perhaps the best pure conterpuncher ever:worship: . Wilander`s strokes & generally playing style didn`t look particularly special but he was a gladiator/fighter.. So 7-Slam wins on all surfaces was a huge effort [esp he overachieved in 1988~~ 3-Slams even though Becker, Edberg, Lendl were at their peaks].

*Courier = overachiever~~> Boring 1-dimensional game & yet he won 4-Slams & finished #1 in 1992:rolleyes:

*Chang = overachiever~~> 1989 FO title was pretty lucky, especially playing a serve volley specialist [Edberg] in the final.. Of course Chang`s achievments make me respect him even more, he made the most of his limited physical abilities:cool: ..

*Kafelnikov = overachiever~~> boring 1-dimensional game, nothing special but he was a warrior for a few years there, 2-Slams, Olympic Gold... pretty impressive considering his lack of talent!!

Disagree completely and have said it more than enough times elsewhere that it doesn't deserve repeating.

supertommyhaas
03-22-2007, 05:32 AM
it has to be boredo

Kolya
03-22-2007, 07:03 AM
*Borg = overachiever~~> his playing style shouldn`t have enabled him to win 5-straight Wimbledons [granted he deserves his 6-FO titles:worship: ]!!... Basically he got a bit lucky playing guys like Gerulaitis in his early Wimby finals & then his aura spooked the other greats in later years [McEnroe should have won the 1980 final]. Borg didn`t have any huge weaposn~~ yet he won 11-Slams [overachiever];)

*Connors = overachiever~~> how did a guy with such an ugly game:devil: manage to win 8-Slams & stay #1 for 160 successive weeks:eek: :confused:

*Wilander = overachiever~~> Mats was perhaps the best pure conterpuncher ever:worship: . Wilander`s strokes & generally playing style didn`t look particularly special but he was a gladiator/fighter.. So 7-Slam wins on all surfaces was a huge effort [esp he overachieved in 1988~~ 3-Slams even though Becker, Edberg, Lendl were at their peaks].

*Courier = overachiever~~> Boring 1-dimensional game & yet he won 4-Slams & finished #1 in 1992:rolleyes:

*Chang = overachiever~~> 1989 FO title was pretty lucky, especially playing a serve volley specialist [Edberg] in the final.. Of course Chang`s achievments make me respect him even more, he made the most of his limited physical abilities:cool: ..

*Kafelnikov = overachiever~~> boring 1-dimensional game, nothing special but he was a warrior for a few years there, 2-Slams, Olympic Gold... pretty impressive considering his lack of talent!!


Wrong... just because these guys play a conservative, consistent game and all reached the top does not mean they overachieved.

corporalclegg
03-22-2007, 09:01 AM
Off the top of my head...

... Agassi.

Norrage
03-22-2007, 09:28 AM
Wrong... just because these guys play a conservative, consistent game and all reached the top does not mean they overachieved.

Then you both have different understandings of "overachieving"..Instead of pinning posts of others down as "wrong" or "useless" you could have tried to say it a bit gentler.
I agree somewhat with CmonAussi, although I find it a long stretch to call Borg an overachiever...

SBruguera
03-22-2007, 09:40 AM
No not Corretja - he deserves one French Open victory.

Did you ever watched a Corretja-Pioline match?. The highest moonballing I have ever seen. Still feel pain in my eyes.

Sean.J.S.
03-22-2007, 09:46 AM
What a stupid thread. And people were saying my thread of "who are the most talented players" was stupid. :retard:

But to answer your question, Davydenko and Ljubicic.

CmonAussie
03-22-2007, 09:48 AM
Then you both have different understandings of "overachieving"..Instead of pinning posts of others down as "wrong" or "useless" you could have tried to say it a bit gentler.
I agree somewhat with CmonAussi, although I find it a long stretch to call Borg an overachiever...

:wavey:
Thanks mate:cool:

>>>Regarding Borg~ I`m not saying he didn`t deserve to achieve what he did, all I was pointing out is that his game style didn`t fit the mould of a dominant Wimbledon winner...& it surprises me that he was able to win 5-straight Wimby`s despite his games unsuitability to grass!! *For instance if Borg were playing Sampras or Federer [assuming they were from the same eras] then I highly doubt the Ice Man Swede could have matched his feats [he was a little fortunate with the draws he got & players he faced en route to winning 5-straight..]..

Take a look at Borg`s Wimby finals:
>>>>

1976 Wimbledon Ilie Năstase 6-4, 6-2, 9-7 ...[Nastase wasn`t exactly a master of grass]
1977 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 3-6, 6-2, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4 ...[Connors was a fellow baseliner]
1978 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 ...[Again Borg won at baseliner Jimbo`s expense]
1979 Wimbledon Roscoe Tanner 6-7, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 ...[Tanner wasn`t a great player~> still he managed to lead 2-sets-to-1]
1980 Wimbledon John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 ...[Basically Borg was mentally tougher than Bad Mac]

Norrage
03-22-2007, 09:59 AM
That's exactly the way I look at overachiever...Players with limited games (one-dimensional ones) winning as much as they did...Which puts players like Roddick, Courier etc in the overachiever league...
I would never put players like Borg, Agassi in that league though eventhough they were too pretty onedimensional...A very allround baseline game, and as good as for instance these two players have, is fenomenal. And having a baseline game is probably the very most important aspect of tennis (especially nowadays) since 75% of the tennis is the baseline rally.

I also disagree with Kafelnikov btw. Kafelnikov was one of the more complete players, and one of my alltime favorites. He could volley, he played doubles, he was good from the ground and good on all services! (won RG, Halle and got far at Wimby) so I think he would actually be an underachiever. He surely had his missed chances at RG (his close losses to Kuerten for instance, where he one time at had 4-2 40-15 lead in the 4th set while leading 2-1, and lost)

All_Slam_Andre
03-22-2007, 10:28 AM
Gaston Gaudio. Apart from the 2004 French Open, he has never been past the 4th round of a grand slam. He was 12-9 on clay in 2004 heading into Roland Garros. How the hell did this guy win a grand slam? Although fair play to him as he came through a very tough draw to win his French Open title

Guybrush
03-22-2007, 10:33 AM
Ivo Karlović. :o

Kolya
03-22-2007, 12:16 PM
:wavey:
Thanks mate:cool:

>>>Regarding Borg~ I`m not saying he didn`t deserve to achieve what he did, all I was pointing out is that his game style didn`t fit the mould of a dominant Wimbledon winner...& it surprises me that he was able to win 5-straight Wimby`s despite his games unsuitability to grass!! *For instance if Borg were playing Sampras or Federer [assuming they were from the same eras] then I highly doubt the Ice Man Swede could have matched his feats [he was a little fortunate with the draws he got & players he faced en route to winning 5-straight..]..

Take a look at Borg`s Wimby finals:
>>>>

1976 Wimbledon Ilie Năstase 6-4, 6-2, 9-7 ...[Nastase wasn`t exactly a master of grass]
1977 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 3-6, 6-2, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4 ...[Connors was a fellow baseliner]
1978 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 ...[Again Borg won at baseliner Jimbo`s expense]
1979 Wimbledon Roscoe Tanner 6-7, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 ...[Tanner wasn`t a great player~> still he managed to lead 2-sets-to-1]
1980 Wimbledon John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 ...[Basically Borg was mentally tougher than Bad Mac]


If you're saying Borg and co. are overachievers, then your man Hewitt is the biggest over achiever of all time.

CmonAussie
03-22-2007, 12:29 PM
If you're saying Borg and co. are overachievers, then your man Hewitt is the biggest over achiever of all time.


:wavey:
Yes;) ~ that`s a fair comment:devil: ...I`ve often called Rocky Llegs Hewitt an overachiever myself:p

rwn
03-22-2007, 12:53 PM
:wavey:
Thanks mate:cool:

>>>Regarding Borg~ I`m not saying he didn`t deserve to achieve what he did, all I was pointing out is that his game style didn`t fit the mould of a dominant Wimbledon winner...& it surprises me that he was able to win 5-straight Wimby`s despite his games unsuitability to grass!! *For instance if Borg were playing Sampras or Federer [assuming they were from the same eras] then I highly doubt the Ice Man Swede could have matched his feats [he was a little fortunate with the draws he got & players he faced en route to winning 5-straight..]..

Take a look at Borg`s Wimby finals:
>>>>

1976 Wimbledon Ilie Năstase 6-4, 6-2, 9-7 ...[Nastase wasn`t exactly a master of grass]
1977 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 3-6, 6-2, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4 ...[Connors was a fellow baseliner]
1978 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 ...[Again Borg won at baseliner Jimbo`s expense]
1979 Wimbledon Roscoe Tanner 6-7, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 ...[Tanner wasn`t a great player~> still he managed to lead 2-sets-to-1]
1980 Wimbledon John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 ...[Basically Borg was mentally tougher than Bad Mac]

I could easily claim that Sampras was lucky with the players he faced in his Wimbledon finals: Jim Courier, Cedric Pioline, Andre Agassi, Goran Ivanisevic. None of them are real grasscourt players IMO. Okay Sampras played Becker, but that was 6 years after Becker's last Wimbledon title. And Rafter... well he completely choked the match away when he had the chance to go 2 sets up against Sampras. I see no reason to think Sampras faced tougher players than Borg.
I also disagree with your claim that Borg's game wasn't great for grass: Very good serve, excellent returns, excellent mover. All great things for grass.

Norrage
03-22-2007, 01:10 PM
I could easily claim that Sampras was lucky with the players he faced in his Wimbledon finals: Jim Courier, Cedric Pioline, Andre Agassi, Goran Ivanisevic. None of them are real grasscourt players IMO. Okay Sampras played Becker, but that was 6 years after Becker's last Wimbledon title. And Rafter... well he completely choked the match away when he had the chance to go 2 sets up against Sampras. I see no reason to think Sampras faced tougher players than Borg.
I also disagree with your claim that Borg's game wasn't great for grass: Very good serve, excellent returns, excellent mover. All great things for grass.
I'd Say Ivanisevic is quite a grass-court player isnt he? Heck, his games is about the same as Pete's (except Pete is just a tad bit better in most aspects)...

But to be looking solely at the finals I'd say is stupid. Its the rest of the draw that is just as important...(which still says Sampras just didnt have that much grasscourt competition...just like Fed doesnt really have any).

lorenz
03-22-2007, 01:18 PM
Roddick is one for sure

Action Jackson
04-02-2009, 10:40 AM
Roddick is one for sure

Made the most out of his talent.

FlameOn
04-02-2009, 10:49 AM
I wish I could've seen this match. It looks like Andy did himself proud. :)

Action Jackson
04-02-2009, 10:58 AM
Federer and Nadal.

Har-Tru
04-02-2009, 11:09 AM
Tommy Robredo.

heya
04-02-2009, 11:36 AM
Good that you admit that Federer's extremely lucky.
Even Fed admitted it
after Roddick gifted him
the 3rd match that he should've won against Federer.
Masters Cup Shanghai, US Open, Miami.

Nadal's actually winning because he's smarter and more
humble than Federer.
Not the most talented, but admirable.

freeandlonely
04-02-2009, 12:36 PM
Roddick

thrust
04-02-2009, 04:58 PM
Ferrero, an overachiever? With his talent he should have had at least 3 slams by now.......I have no idea why you think he's an overacheiver.

My answer would be either Ljubicic or Davydenko.

DAVYDENKO! Then, probably Robredo

FedFan_2007
04-02-2009, 05:16 PM
Def Federer, with that weak single handed BH and questionable serve. Amazing that he could win 13 slams with it.

BIGMARAT
04-02-2009, 05:28 PM
there's no such thing as over achievers. I dont believed in that. All players deserves all their winnings because I dont believed you can win titles specially slams overnight.

LinkMage
04-02-2009, 05:39 PM
Nadull. Lucky as hell to play mental midget Fedmug at the Wimbledon and AO finals.

Albop
04-02-2009, 05:55 PM
Federer and Nadull.

born_on_clay
04-02-2009, 06:00 PM
Karlovic for sure

Andi-M
04-02-2009, 06:01 PM
Nalbandian. :D

Psichogauchovna
04-02-2009, 06:01 PM
Who's the biggest overachiever among current players? in here means = players you dislike

Albop
04-02-2009, 06:03 PM
Who's the biggest overachiever among current players? in here means = players you dislike

Not actually.

Psichogauchovna
04-02-2009, 06:04 PM
but it will turn out to be :)

Psichogauchovna
04-02-2009, 06:07 PM
i just don't understand how you can OVERachieve something?
you can't win with pure luck all the time :)

Ivanatis
04-02-2009, 06:11 PM
there's no such thing as over achievers. I dont believed in that. All players deserves all their winnings because I dont believed you can win titles specially slams overnight.

exactly what I think as well, plus it's really hard to tell to what extent a player was lucky with draws, mug competition etc. or whether he really was that good and peaking at a certain period of time
apart from that you cannot blame any player, if his competitors suck more than they usually do

anyway, to mention at least one name coming to my mind with this title: Mariano Puerta for obvious reasons

miura
04-02-2009, 06:12 PM
If someone is overachieving, they are achieving more than expected. People have misunderstood this it seems.

Har-Tru
04-02-2009, 06:35 PM
anyway, to mention at least one name coming to my mind with this title: Mariano Puerta for obvious reasons

:haha: good one