Biggest OVERachiever? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Biggest OVERachiever?

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 03:14 PM
Well we have a thread by aura of moya that got us thinking about people who have underachieved, and tennischick made a comment about an overachiever, so that got me thinking...

Any names for who some major overachievers are? People who made the most of the little talent they had, wether they were just mentally stronger than their peers, or they happened to have a window of opportunity - old great players on their way out, young players not quite there yet..

Anyhow , I have heard people refer to Courier in this catagory a lot before, but I didn't watch tennis enough back then to clarify this.

Any thoughts?

TheBoiledEgg
07-24-2002, 03:41 PM
overachiever in winning SLAMS he shouldn't have
or just in terms of getting way too high a ranking for doing nothing ??

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 03:45 PM
Having a succesful carreer for someone you would think wouldn't have done that well..

Winning slams isn't key, though it is easier to define.

Like maybe someone who won like a dozen or so titles, and was consistently well ranke, without really being remarkabley talented, and just a hard worker.

People who worked hard, and made the most of little talent - wether that means slams or not, is up for you guys to decide.

tazban1
07-24-2002, 04:42 PM
I think Michael Chang did a lot more with his talent than he should have. He was just so determined. I don't think that his talent ever quite matched his career high number 2 ranking.

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 05:02 PM
Thanks tazban - I never saw Michael in his prime, so I'm not sure what to make of him.

It sounds bad, but its sort of a shame he is American - I mean being in the shadow of Agassi and Sampras all that time - had he been from *almost* anywhere else, save Germany or Sweeden, I think that what he has done would have been celebrated a lot more.

Saying someone overachiever IMO is a compliment - its sort of saying that "play X made it because they worked hard and earned it the hard way"... so fans of the players named shouldn't feel it is a slap at that player!

Dissident
07-24-2002, 06:05 PM
When I think of hard work, Patrick Rafter comes to my mind instantly. A great guy, totally focused in what he was doing, and making the most of his talent. He is not like an Overachiever for me, though, caue he should have won Wimbledon and the Aussie Open at least one time each.

Chang is a good name, too. He was like number two in the world with his consistency.

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 06:07 PM
Rafter is more your typical late bloomer... if I remember right he was in challengers till his early 20's and did nothing remarkable untill the year before that first US Open win.

The Crow
07-24-2002, 08:00 PM
Not Chang I think. He is/was really talented. Courier surely has had a bigger career than I thought he would have. Others? Korda: a slam and a slam final, more than other, more gifted players. Todd Martin maybe (not necessarily in slams, but in position on the ranking list in his best period)?

Pea
07-24-2002, 10:09 PM
One name comes to mind, agassi.

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 10:15 PM
Pea - can you elaborate a bit?

The popular concensus is that Agassi underachiever, due to his lapses of interest and weak pysch.

Just curious why you feel the way you do.

tennischick
07-24-2002, 10:46 PM
Lleyton Hewitt aka The Potato. he doesn't have a single weapon but he is the #1 player in the world and he already has the Slams and titles to prove it. unbe-fricking-lievable! :mad: he has already overachieved! :eek:

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 11:35 PM
I disagree TC ;)

Hewitt *does* have weapons - he has a decent serve, that is consistent and doesn't break under pressure. I may be wrong, but I think Schalken is the only player who broke him at Wimbledon?

And he has great returns, either the best on tour, or second the Agassi, IMO.

He is also among the fastest guys on tour.

His shot selection is very good. His groundstrokes are excellent.

But hey we''ll just have to disagree me thinks :o

Sonic
07-25-2002, 12:42 AM
I think Kafelnikov was an overachiever....

2 GS Wins
1 GS Final
Olympic Gold

25 titles in total.

When you see how he plays when he is off it is a wonder how different he is when he is on. Unfortunately I can't get my head round how well he's done. He hasn't won a Masters Series event, I would have thought 5 or 6 masters events instead of a grand slam. But he won 2! amazing.

Sonic
07-25-2002, 12:43 AM
Also #1 ranking

And all his doubles success.

Chloe le Bopper
07-25-2002, 12:50 AM
Sonic, funny - you think he overachieved for the same reason that I think he underachieved.

When he is on, he can beat anyone.

He just is so in and out, that that stopped him, IMO :o

Sonic
07-25-2002, 12:53 AM
Esp weird is the #1 ranking. For all his ups and downs, and the more strict ATP ranking system, he still reached the top.

Chloe le Bopper
07-25-2002, 01:03 AM
Its funny, if I recall correct after reaching number one he lost 6 straight matches :o

tazban1
07-25-2002, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Rebecca
Its funny, if I recall correct after reaching number one he lost 6 straight matches :o

The funny/sad thing is that he became number 1 DURING the losing streak. I think people made too much out of that losing streak though. True, he definitely tightened up a couple times, but he ALWAYS has a bad clay court season. People acted as if it was just so shocking that he kept losing.

The other strange thing that year was that he held the number 1 position for 6 weeks, all through the slump, while other players who were playing well only managed to hold it for 1 or 2 weeks.

P.S. when I write funny/sad, I mean that it was sad for him. He was so depressed when he became number 1. Can you imagine finally achieving your lifelong dream and have it be one of the most miserable periods of your career? I think Yevgeny truly wants the game to do well, so he felt bad because he thought he was hurting the game when he became number 1. I remember the big uproar when John McEnroe made the "You're number 1" comment to Yevgeny and Yevgeny answered "Unfortunately". Fortunately, he seems to be able to look back and appreciate and take pride in it.

It was also really sad for him because the game was really being criticized and scrutinized and Yevgeny took a lot more scorn than even he's used to. It's still amazing to me that people can't figure out that the ranking is based on a whole year so a top player can lose and still hold his place.

I mean really, when I started watching tennis, I knew ZERO about the game. I learned the rules through watching it on TV and it took me a little while to figure out the scoring systems. I remember it took me the longest time before I even figured out whether Mary Carillo was a man or woman! (sadly, I'm not joking). And even as ignorant as I was, I never once thought, oh, he lost, why is he ranked that high?

P.P.S. To explain the Mary Carillo thing. When I was still in the "figuring it out" stage of my tennis watching, she had this really poofy curly hair that didn't have much shape. I couldn't figure out if it was a woman with really bad hair (I've seen women with hair like that) or a man with really bad hair (I've seen men with hair like that). Plus, her voice is so low, but at the same time, I didn't think it sounded exactly like a man's or a woman's. I went back and forth for a long while. It wasn't until I actually saw her name go up on the screen that I finally knew for sure. I must have had the worst luck in timing because it was a couple months before I actually saw her name come up on the screen.

tazban1
07-25-2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by The Crow
Not Chang I think. He is/was really talented.


Yes, he's very talented, but I think that there were a lot of guys who were a lot more talented than Chang but didn't do nearly as well. He trumped them with determination, hard work, and mental strength. That's why I think he overachieved.

tazban1
07-25-2002, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Rebecca
Thanks tazban - I never saw Michael in his prime, so I'm not sure what to make of him.

It sounds bad, but its sort of a shame he is American - I mean being in the shadow of Agassi and Sampras all that time - had he

I was a fan of Michael at the time and I thought the exact same thing. I felt kind of bad for him. Though, isn't he still really popular in Asia? I know that he at least had a huge following their when he was in his prime. So at least he gets appreciated somewhere.

Dissident
07-25-2002, 05:29 AM
Im not sure because i didnt follow tennis that time, but I heard Brad Gilbert was the biggest case of overacchieving? Is that right?
I know he wrote a book about winning ugly, but Im not sure of what he acchieved in his carreer.

Chloe le Bopper
07-25-2002, 03:15 PM
hitman - I've read about Brad, but never saw him play of course..

I read once he was playing a match against some guy, and he was winning and some guy in the audience yelled "Brad, how are you winning, you aren't doing anything!" and he yelled back "He keeps missing!" about his opponent.

I think that kind of summed up his strategy - I might be wrong but he was a junkballer,... got everything back and figured his opponent would screw up eventually.

Chloe le Bopper
07-25-2002, 03:16 PM
tazban - I agree about the ranking system... i fail to understand why it is so hard to get :rolleyes:

Man the conversations I've had with people on wtaworld about it *shudders*

Nimi
07-25-2002, 08:39 PM
Pete Sampras.
I mean, he should have won 6, 7 Slams. 50 titles at most, 3-4 years world champion.

BUT 13 FREAKINGS SLAMS?!?
63 TITLES??!?
6 YEARS WORLD CHAMPION?!?
5 WORLD CHAMIONSHIP TITLES?!?

I mean, DAMN!

Dissident
07-25-2002, 11:26 PM
Pete an overachiever?
Well, theres someone I would never expect to see in this thread.

I disagree, peaceful and respectfully.
Pete used to be the ONE player to beat for many many years. He played unbelievable tennis, and edged his opponents from the serve to the net play, passing even for his pasing shots (remember how people used to praise his forehand on the run drive???). You cant, imo, put him in a overachiever group because he was totally the most talented player around for many years. So, no, he is not an overachiever. :)

Dissident
07-25-2002, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Rebecca
hitman - I've read about Brad, but never saw him play of course..

I read once he was playing a match against some guy, and he was winning and some guy in the audience yelled "Brad, how are you winning, you aren't doing anything!" and he yelled back "He keeps missing!" about his opponent.

I think that kind of summed up his strategy - I might be wrong but he was a junkballer,... got everything back and figured his opponent would screw up eventually.

Oh, yeah Becca, I heard that one too. Everyone praises the guy for his winning ugly thing. :D

There are some players around who have that characteristic too, of beating their opponents even when they are not on good days: Hewitt, Guga and even Agassi sometimes. The pupil learned something, right? ;)

AtPGiRL
07-26-2002, 01:13 AM
:rolleyes: Andre Agassi :rolleyes:

Chloe le Bopper
07-26-2002, 05:30 AM
COuld the people who called Agassi an overachiever explain t heir point of view?

Throwing out names is no fun, if we're not going to debate about it :)

Scott Storm
07-27-2002, 12:11 AM
Chang, I agree
Korda, I agree
Agassi, Dissagree
Courier, Dissagree

Kafelnikov, I am undecided I would have said he was an underachiever but when you look at his victories, I just can't decide!

Chloe le Bopper
07-27-2002, 12:46 AM
For me, if someone overachieves, it would mean they did far more then i would have expected them to on the talent that they were given..

For me, Kafelnikov is so talented, that I'm not surprised with what he has accomplished, and its a wonder he hasn't done more..

But different strokes for different folks.

Lucas Arg
07-27-2002, 06:31 AM
Courier I AGREE.

harry_potter
07-27-2002, 06:34 AM
me! :D

i have managed to find this site even with my very small brain! :D

j/k :D

harry_potter
07-27-2002, 06:35 AM
i'm just bored :D sorry about the stupid replies

Layla
07-27-2002, 09:53 AM
It is true that Henman does not perform well at the slams, but he plays well all year round, is one of the most consistent players on the tour, was in the final of the first masters event this year and would have achieved a lot in Miami as well if not for that freak injury. He even made it to the semis a masters played on clay, which is his worst surface. He regularly makes it to the Masters Cup at the end of the year. You don't get to be no. 3 in the championship race and no. 4 in the entry system just by playing in the semis of Wimbledon, or else Nalbandian would be no. 2 in the world. As far as I'm concerned, the world of tennis does not revolve around the slams. I enjoy tennis all year and follow every single tournament. :p

Hey, where did the previous post go, the I am trying to respond to?????????? :confused: oh well :shrug:

JeNn
07-27-2002, 01:22 PM
Could we add Thomas Johansson to this list. His game is very workmanlike, much like many of the other players on tour. I don't think anyone ever expected him to win a slam. Winning the Oz Open makes him an overachiever IMO

Chloe le Bopper
07-27-2002, 04:59 PM
lol Layla, I was wondering who you were responding too hehe.

In a sense I'd say that TIm was an overachiever, but since he's never won a slam, and is more often second best than winner, I think he is about where he should be..

If he ever wins WImbledon, he'll have overachieved IMO.


Jenn - I'm not sure I agree about Thomas, but a lot of people do. He has a good serve, nice ground strokes - a pretty solid foundation. He's in good shape, works hard... Though I didnt ever think he'd win a slam either, so :confused:

per4ever
07-29-2002, 06:31 PM
some people even dare to mention Andre Agassi :eek:

no offense, but I'm sure he's one of the most talented, may be the most talented player of this decade (together with Sampras of course). If he would have been stronger mentally when he was younger, he would have won more slams..he had some bad years..even dropped out of top 100.

sorry..no way he's an overachiever.

per4ever
07-29-2002, 06:33 PM
I'm no fan of Pete Sampras at all...but he's not an overachiever either!!! He just has/had the perfect tennis to play on grass and hardcourts. He got the maximum out of his carreer imo, and he earned it all by himself.

irma
07-29-2002, 06:58 PM
I would not call andre an overachiever either, he won 7 grand slams but that still doesn't weight up to the many opportunities he missed over the years
even his biggest hater(and no that's not pea;)) admits that!

Ace Tracker
07-30-2002, 02:01 AM
it is much harder to find an overachiever in the ATP than in the WTA Tour due to tougher opposition...but I don't think MaliVai Washington will be remembered as a great grass player and that Wimbledon finals appearance should be deemed as a fluke..

dbc
07-31-2002, 10:06 PM
I'm going to go way back.
To me the biggest over achiever was Lendl. Very little talent but a lot of hard work. I still don't know how he achieved al thesuccess he did.
courier was also an over achiever
The biggest un-achiever at the moment I think is Roger Federer. with Rios a close 2nd. He has all that talent & yet only managed 1 really good year & was No. 1 for a very short time.

mboyle1988
07-31-2002, 10:51 PM
Hewitt, I have no idea how the guy wins! He really does not have one big weapon to end points with (a la Roddick Forehand/Serve, Safin everything but his head, Grosjean Forehand, Blake Forehand, Agassi Backhand, etc.) and he is able to win through sheer will (and the fastest pair of legs ever). The media tries to make his forehand into a weapon, but in reality, it is not nearly as powerful as most top ten forehands and even certain top 20 forehands. His backhand is solid but not powerful. Basically he is the perfect counterpuncher.

tennischick
08-01-2002, 12:55 AM
mboyle i totally agree!! :eek:

the cat
08-01-2002, 01:12 AM
Albert Costa is the biggest overachiever! :)

Lleyton Hewitt? :confused: I don't think so! He is the fastest player in men's tennis. He is by far the smartest and most cunning player in men's tennis. Hewitt is also excellent off the ground, has a fine return of serve, is a capable volleyer and he has a quality serve as well! :bounce: Lleyton Hewitt is the best all around player in men's tennis! :bounce: And no one is even a close second! :eek: Lleyton Hewitt an overachiever? Absolutely not! :) He is clearly where he should be and deserves to be! And that is the best tennis player in the world! Bar none! :D

Gandalf
08-01-2002, 08:46 AM
Thomas Johansson, David Nalbadian, Michael Chang.

From the big names right now, Hewitt. Please Lleyton, stop running and hit a winner!. You're number 1 in the world!.

ys
08-01-2002, 02:41 PM
Pete Sampras, obviously.. He is a great player, but he is not the best ever by a long shot, and his results make him look like he is..

Chloe le Bopper
08-05-2002, 06:35 PM
Krajicek has had a LOT of injury problems though, which may have had something to do with that :(


Some thoughts on Hewitt -
He really does not have one big weapon to end points with

I respectfully have to disagree ;) It all depends on what you consider a weapon.

Hewitt has the weapons needed to keep him head in a point, to never give up, and not to have his concentration waver. Gee, can we give a dose of that to Marat Safin? ;)

Hewitt also has arguabley, the best return in the game (aside from Agassi in the opinion of some) - IMO the return is as important as the serve.. Hewitt's serve is solid enough that he isn't easy to break because he places it well, and the other player knows that Hewitt has such a fine return that he will be able to break - it puts pressure on the other guy who is serving!

His movement on court is incredible (though I'm not sure, but Canas could be faster), and not just his speed! He moves well side to side, as well as forward and back..

Furthermore his anticipation is right up their with the best - I just saw a replay of him and Agassi in San Jose, some reazlly awesome point - Agassi had Hewitt all over the place like yoyo and Hewitt was keeping up - not just cause he is fast but because he thinks fast! He was already one step ahead of Agassi, and eventually on the point with a net winner!

Anyhow I will remove myself from his butt now, I just had to disagree :)

Chloe le Bopper
08-05-2002, 06:39 PM
I find it funny that Nalbandian was brought up - I mean isn't he still only 20? He might be 21, I forget ;) So he's 20-21, hasnt' won much of note, and made the WImbledon finals - given his talent IMO he is going to do a lot more than that - maybe not win a slam, but have good appearance, win more tournaments, maybe break the top ten... Anyhow I'm biased :o


some people even dare to mention Andre Agassi

no offense, but I'm sure he's one of the most talented, may be the most talented player of this decade (together with Sampras of course). If he would have been stronger mentally when he was younger, he would have won more slams..he had some bad years..even dropped out of top 100.

sorry..no way he's an overachiever

I agree that Agassi isn't an overachiever - at least in my opinion :o I would be tempted to call him an underachiever - but I feel that those years he spent doing nothing of note, have allowed him to play so well into his 30's.

warfreakbix
08-07-2002, 12:34 PM
I think at the moment I would consider Marat Safin an over achiever. Hey, with his lapses in concentration and his temper I was amazed he won seven games to win US Open 2000.
Until and unless he proves once again that he can win consecutive matches to actually win another tournament, in my book he is an over achiever!

Nimi
08-07-2002, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by warfreakbix
I think at the moment I would consider Marat Safin an over achiever. Hey, with his lapses in concentration and his temper I was amazed he won seven games to win US Open 2000.
Until and unless he proves once again that he can win consecutive matches to actually win another tournament, in my book he is an over achiever!

Ya, seven whole games??

Chloe le Bopper
08-07-2002, 06:46 PM
I'm pretty sure that he meant matches, silly Nim :p

eshell
08-07-2002, 08:16 PM
Overachievers:

I count Jim Courier. After he became physically fit, he grinded out matches. But even the instructors at the academy neglected him somewhat.

Magnus Norman. He could grind other players down as well.

Brad Gilbert. Had a winning record against Boris Becker (at one point) but did it by 'winning ugly'.

Richard K: Has only won 8 tournaments in his career. His game is suited for grass but injuries and other players have prevented him from dominating Wimbledon. This leads me to believe that he has overachieved.

Todd Martin: He's not particularly speedy around the court. He's steady and generally makes few errors. His will to win at times far exceeds his physical gifts. Given his size and talents, I count him as an overachiever. (Especially considering that he played during the Sampras/Agassi/Chang/Courier era)

warfreakbix
08-07-2002, 10:49 PM
:D Opps, I meant matches Niminator! I'm sorry my fingers ran away from my brain! :D

Martin
08-07-2002, 11:23 PM
I'd have to include Cedric Pioline in amongst that, due to the fact he made it to 2 Grand Slam finals, which is a very good achievement for a guy that only won 3 titles in his career or something.

lokon
08-08-2002, 01:00 AM
How about Kucera? He was never really able to find the form he had in 98 (SF - Aus, QF - US) Id say he pretty much overachieved, since I really doubt he will find that type of game again.

Norman also comes to mind, but hes been nursing injuries since 2000. Id be a little hesitant in labelling him as an overachiever since he had the talent, but the body wasnt able to compensate...

zeleni
04-02-2009, 10:32 AM
MTF people usually speak about certain players (Nalbandian, Gasquet, etc) as underachievers.

Who is the biggest OVERACHIEVER among active players i.e. who has accomplished most so far compared to his talent as you see it?

Older posters with good memory are free to name the biggest overachiever among retired players...

Action Jackson
04-02-2009, 10:34 AM
I will find the thread where overachievers has been mentioned.

Federer and Nadal.

rafa_maniac
04-02-2009, 10:34 AM
I love Hewitt, but being the year end #1 in back to back years is probably a better achievement than his career warrants.

Action Jackson
04-02-2009, 10:36 AM
From the baby days of MTF.

NadalSharapova
04-02-2009, 10:37 AM
Federer easily. On statistics, he is the 2nd greatest player of all time. On his tennis, no way is it anywhere near that good.

Thanos
04-02-2009, 10:48 AM
people use to talk about tennis back then :eek:

zcess81
04-02-2009, 10:50 AM
Lleyton Hewitt aka The Potato. he doesn't have a single weapon but he is the #1 player in the world and he already has the Slams and titles to prove it. unbe-fricking-lievable! :mad: he has already overachieved! :eek:

You are very wrong.

Hewitt's main weapons:

1.) Mental toughness
2.) Stamina
3.) Speed

Those 3 combined is what champions are made off. Technical tennis talent does not win you slams. What Hewitt had was more important than talent.

zeleni
04-02-2009, 11:01 AM
I will find the thread where overachievers has been mentioned.
Sorry. I didn't know about those older threads. They were opened before I joined.
Mods can merge or lock this thread.

Federer and Nadal.

I saw you said Federer in older thread too. Why? "Mug era" or some other reason?

Nacho
04-02-2009, 11:36 AM
this forum was so much better back then

no mug talk

GlennMirnyi
04-02-2009, 01:49 PM
Nadull.

feuselino
04-02-2009, 02:40 PM
Wow, MTF sure changed a lot since then...

A_Skywalker
04-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Nadal.

I agree, this is why Nadal is so great. Even though he doesn't have the best game he always finds a way to win. That makes him one of the best in history.

NadalSharapova
04-02-2009, 02:59 PM
Wow, MTF sure changed a lot since then...

I agree, too many uneducated people can afford computers nowadays unlike back then.

asmazif
04-02-2009, 03:19 PM
Del Potro. Kudos to him.

Certinfy
04-02-2009, 03:22 PM
Nadal.

jmf07
04-02-2009, 03:22 PM
How the hell Lapentti was ranked at number 6 in the world is beyond me.

Johnny Groove
04-02-2009, 03:24 PM
Roddick and Ljubicic. Big serves, yes, but a limited arsenal from the back of the court. Very hard workers both of them, though.

Collective
04-02-2009, 03:33 PM
It has to be Nadull... talentless moonballer with 6 GS titles at 22.

Or maybe Frauderer... a mental midget whose only weapons are serve and the mug era he played in.

Manila ESQ
04-02-2009, 03:33 PM
For me, it's Hewitt. He came after the Sampras-Aggasi era, and right before the Federer-Nadal domination. He was called the caretaker No. 1 after all.

Collective
04-02-2009, 03:35 PM
How the hell Lapentti was ranked at number 6 in the world is beyond me.

He has very good variety. And used to bang Kournikova back in late 90s. Amazing stuff.

Jimnik
04-02-2009, 04:05 PM
Chloe must have ruled MTF back in 2002.

GlennMirnyi
04-02-2009, 04:19 PM
I agree, this is why Nadal is so great. Even though he doesn't have the best game he always finds a way to win. That makes him one of the best in history.

Don't change what's in the posts you quote. It's rude and impolite.

NadalSharapova
04-02-2009, 04:27 PM
Don't change what's in the posts you quote. It's rude and impolite.

He assumed that you were not retared and that you made a typo error. He assumed wrong.

Guy Haines
04-02-2009, 04:48 PM
people use to talk about tennis back then :eek:

Yeah. Now, GM's a Parrot Factory.

jonathancrane
04-02-2009, 04:48 PM
Biggest OVERachiever?

Laver, Rosewall, Sampras. All mugs.

GlennMirnyi
04-02-2009, 06:37 PM
He assumed that you were not retared and that you made a typo error. He assumed wrong.

One does not need to assume anything concerning whether you're a retard or not, as pointed out.

Vida
04-02-2009, 07:29 PM
I would say Jim Courier. relatively talentless but a workhorse, who's results have gone south immediately he lost steam.

ORGASMATRON
04-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Brad Gilbert. End of story.

Lee
04-02-2009, 08:19 PM
Miss most of the posters on this thread. Dissident, Layla, TC (even I didn't agree with her most of the time), tazban and even ys. :lol:

Ozone
04-02-2009, 08:22 PM
Stepanek with the ladies

Oh is this thread about tennis?

kingfederer
04-02-2009, 08:43 PM
biggest overachiever is sampras, a talentless boring dull mug!

ChinoRios4Ever
04-02-2009, 08:48 PM
Massú :p

CoolMarker
04-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Magnus Norman. Never had much talent. But he showed what hard work can do

Ozone
04-02-2009, 10:15 PM
biggest overachiever is sampras, a talentless boring dull mug!
Pete was one of the most athletic, talented, hard-working, lovable players ever.

miura
04-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Pete was one of the most athletic, talented, hard-working, lovable players ever.
Kingfederer couldn't recognize talent if it hit him on the head with a frying pan.

2003
04-02-2009, 11:24 PM
Rafael Nadal.

Roger Federer has done him favours for too long, taking care of the bottom half of the draw and eliminating from grand slams players who could seriosly challenge him at semi final or finals time. Leaving only himself for rafa to face, who hes a headcase and bad matchup against.

As much as Rafa has been an omen for Fed, Rafa has profited off of Federer. I dont think he would have won as many GS titles if Fed wasn't around or as good, because Fed serves to remove the serious competition from Grand Slams, leaving only him to face Rafa.