PDA

View Full Version : Capriati and Davenport: underachievers or overachievers?


rimon
Oct 28th, 2011, 07:48 AM
Both players won 3 slams, but Lindsay won almost quadruple as manyh titles, 55 to 14. Would you call them underachivers or overachievers? I personally think that both are underachievers. Capriati should have definitely won more career titles, and at least 2 more slams IMO. Davenport should have won about 3-4 more slams, IMO. What do you think?

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:38 AM
Davenport underachiever...definetely. 55 titles and just 3 majors?! :help:
Sure she had to contend with the WS, but there were some openings that she failed to take advantage of imo.

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:41 AM
Davenport should've won at least 5 slams.

metamorpha
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Davenport has beautiful game... but underachiever in slams, if only she was mentally stronger in big occasions. She really had a big chance to add more titles in Wimby and USO 2004, AO and Wimby 2005!

Capriati, she was definitely talented and strong willed on court, could have been a lot more successful if she didn't put herself into a lot of distractions.

LCS
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:48 AM
Davenport underachived big time in the slam department.

Capriati lost her window of opportunity after being away for the most part of the 90s. Once she got back she was up against the Williams and the Belgians. She still got 3 slams so that was good.

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:53 AM
At least 5 majors indeed...such a non big-match player.

Miss Amor
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:54 AM
Capriati overachieved.

The Kaz
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:02 AM
Davenport should of had double the slam and Capriati should of only won 1.

On a side note..Hingis underachieved aswell she should have won around 9-10 slams IMO

The Kaz
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:03 AM
At least 5 majors indeed...such a non big-match player.

Lindsay was at her best at Tier IIs lol.

Matt01
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Capriati underachieved by a bit (should have at least reached a USO final and won more tournaments) and Davenport underachieved by a lot (should have won about 3-4 more Slams).

rimon
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:43 AM
Davenport underachiever...definetely. 55 titles and just 3 majors?! :help:
Sure she had to contend with the WS, but there were some openings that she failed to take advantage of imo.

She should have won the 2004 USO, 2005 AO and W, and to a degree also the 1999 USO.

rimon
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Btw, does anyone know how to fix the poll? The last option should be "Davenport overachiever", not just "achiever".

John.
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:48 AM
Lindsay underachieved in the slams, but then she had the WS to contend with.

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:50 AM
She should have won the 2004 USO, 2005 AO and W, and to a degree also the 1999 USO.

' 99 USO?! Really?! :lol: you had to go there, huh?!
Even back then, the h2h between Linds and Serena was terrible for Linds. Somebody had to take Serena out for Linds..and obviously that didn't happen.

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Lindsay had the '05 AO but collapsed :(. She was tired from some long matches but still, she was up a set and 3-3 40-0 I think :awww:.

Uncharted
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:18 AM
Both achieved being #1. Both multiple grand-slam winners. And one even dated Chandler Bing, what more could you ask!

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:25 AM
Lindsay underachieved in the slams, but then she had the WS to contend with.

Her best surfaces just happened to be Williams-dominated.

rimon
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:28 AM
' 99 USO?! Really?! :lol: you had to go there, huh?!
Even back then, the h2h between Linds and Serena was terrible for Linds. Somebody had to take Serena out for Linds..and obviously that didn't happen.

Well, Lindsay had won 2 slams and was the reigning Wimbledon champion. She thrashed an inexperienced Serena in the second set, and IMO, should have won the match.

Kworb
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:32 AM
Capriati overachiever. Didn't deserve to win any Slams. Davenport underachiever. She should have double digit Slams.

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:35 AM
Well, Lindsay had won 2 slams and was the reigning Wimbledon champion. She thrashed an inexperienced Serena in the second set, and IMO, should have won the match.

Yeah, she trashed Serena in set two..but Serena won set one...so it was all even ( and that set 2 was obviously a tank-job by Serena, after she got behind). Experience only gets you so far.Serena always was the best fighter and mentally tougher of the two...plus: the serve!

-Sonic-
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:42 AM
Why no options for "achieved what she should have" or similar?

John.
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:45 AM
Her best surfaces just happened to be Williams-dominated.

Exactly, I reckon she could have won at least one more AO, W and USO. It also makes USO 04 even more painful after getting through Venus, only to get injured in the SF :sad:

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:34 PM
Exactly, I reckon she could have won at least one more AO, W and USO. It also makes USO 04 even more painful after getting through Venus, only to get injured in the SF :sad:

Yep...the ' 04 really is the one that got away.

Londoner
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:51 PM
I was a big Lindsay fan and miss her rotten, but I think she under achieved at the Slams. The 2004 US Open had her name written all over it but she went and hurt her hip in practice - she said it was her own fault herself. That was a heartbreaker as she had won every other US Tournament and was storming through the draw. She lost the 2005 AO final because she had gone and played doubles out of friendship - admirable but it cost her the title I feel.

Agree with the poster who said Hingis also underachieved. The 2nd AO final against Capriati was on her racket, as was the 99 French. She is one of the few players who really should have the full set of Slams and cold have won the Calendar slam - I think she could have done it more than once.

justineheninfan
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:32 PM
Funny question. They are both overachiever and underachievers both in totally different ways. In terms of the actual ability they each reached as players, Lindsay was an underachiever in slam titles while Capriati was an overachiever. In terms of their potential each would logically have seemed to have early on, Capriati was the underachiever and Davenport the overachiever.

alex.2812
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:44 PM
Capriati should have won 04 US Open. I still don't understand how she lost against Dementieva even if I'm so happy Elena won this match. She should have won 04 French Open as well but she meltdowned against Myskina in the semis.

But any player has underachieved actually.

Clijsters should have many more slams as well (double digits) if she hadn't mentally collapsed against Henin because she had the game to beat her.

Serena could have 20 slams if she had kept motivation for tennis throughout the years. Same goes for Venus who could have more than 10 slams.

justineheninfan
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:50 PM
Clijsters only lost 5 times in slams to Henin. That would not bring her to double digits in slams. 3 of those were Wimbledon and French Opens where she definitely did not have the game to beat prime Henin unless prime Henin was the one to choke badly (eg- 2001 French ). Not to mention there was someone else to have beaten her in all 3 of those even if she somehow had beaten Henin. The only two times she lost to her in hard court slams Henin, Venus, and Serena were all owning her in big matches, there was the big 3, then there was Clijsters, then the rest (Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo) around that time. Clijsters around then was the Wozniacki of today, cleaning up the small tournaments, and getting bullied away by the big girls in the big ones.

bandabou
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:58 PM
Funny question. They are both overachiever and underachievers both in totally different ways. In terms of the actual ability they each reached as players, Lindsay was an underachiever in slam titles while Capriati was an overachiever. In terms of their potential each would logically have seemed to have early on, Capriati was the underachiever and Davenport the overachiever.

:lol: Funny indeed. For what Davenport actually ended up achieving, her having 'only' 3 majors is almost indefensible. Capriati fighting bit and fulfilling at least part of her promise?! Is nice.

Monzanator
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:31 PM
Considering Capriati's tennis heroics during her teens, she's underachieved, but considering her personal problems, she actually overachieved, cause pretty much no one expected her to get the shit together (and especially not to a level of GS wins in late 20s).

Davenport definitely underachieved big time, she should be into double figures on GS considering her potential :shrug:

atominside
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Lindsay should have won WIM 05 and USO 04

Novichok
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:34 PM
Both achieved what they should've achieved.

Morrissey
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:40 PM
Capriati overachieved and Davenport underachieved. If you look at Davenport's career she won 55 WTA titles yet she was 0-4 against the Williams Sisters in the slams. The year 2005 was really Lindsay's last opportunity to make up for lost time and she blew it! In the 2005 Australian Open final Lindsay held a 6-2 3-2 lead I think yet lost the match. In the third set Lindsay lost 6-0. Against Venus Lindsay had a million changes she served for the match in 2005 Wimbledon at 6-4 6-5 she had a second set tiebreaker chance, she had a 5-4 match point yet STILL LOST!

Capriati's problems were mostly personal I think that's what held her back but she was a better athlete than Lindsay that's for sure. When Jennifer got her mind and body right in the year 2000s she really overachieved to win three slams was amazing! Jennifer can hold her head high she definitely did well in the end better than Lindsay. The only disappointment I think Jennifer had is NOT winning the US OPEN.