PDA

View Full Version : Is Stosur still an underachiever?


Navratil
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:21 PM
She won a Grand-Slam-title in singles plus 2 in doubles and 2 in mixed doubles. She's been as high as # 4 in the rankings and was # 1 in doubles.

She's a solid Top Ten player for quite a while in singles.

Reached at least the final in doubles of all Grand-Slams, 3 in Wimbledon plus 2 Championships titles. 2 Grand-Slam finals in singles plus 2 semis.

But considering her enormes potential: Should she have done better?

She's (only) 28! What can she achieve the next years? Do you see any chances for her to get to the # 1 spot?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47990000/jpg/_47990506_stosur_gi.jpg

Sammo
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:23 PM
Not sure about number 1 but I definitely think she'll win at least 1 RG.

TigerTim
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:23 PM
no,

dany.p
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:27 PM
One Roland Garos and more wta titles, and her career would be complete.

Michalka
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:45 PM
not really..i mean she's already a slam winner and she did well to achieve all what she has achieved so far without a backhand

of course i believe she can win a RG title and end her career as a 2 slam winner

Serenus Christ
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:47 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

crazillo
Sep 5th, 2012, 01:51 PM
I think where Sam clearly has underachieved is at the regular WTA Tour. Including the US Open, she has only won THREE titles in total, and not a single one on what we consider her best surface (red clay). She is in her third consecutive year in the top 10, so I would have expected more titles for sure.

If she could win around 10 titles, including some big ones, I think her career would be complete. She has already proven me wrong though, because I always thought her best shot at a GS would be Roland Garros...

Steven.
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:03 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

even as a patriotic aussie I agree she overachieved. There's so much limitations to her game even the serve and fh but I'm proud of what she's done :D

dencod16
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:07 PM
With her game she has achieved to what she can offer.

Doully
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:09 PM
She's a huge underachiever on clay IMO. After Charleston '10, I really thought she would be able storm a couple of clay seasons.

'11 USO was compensation for the RG final in '10 for me.

Sombrerero loco
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:27 PM
yeah, should have won a RG at least(maybe this one she lost to schiavone in the final)

joeh37
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:40 PM
A singles overachiever if ever there was one. Whilst she has been a good player for a very long time and is fairly consistent. I think her slam ranks high on the fluke-o-meter. Her game isn't that entertaining and when you think that she was the best doubles player this is very surprising. At the end of her career she will look back and will definitely not expect more.

Lord Choc Ice
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:52 PM
Yes. She's a bit like a Russian - mental midget with a very effective (though very boring) game.

Mynarco
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:03 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

this.

WowWow
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:10 PM
I don't think she's good enough to underachieve :shrug:

Serenita
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:11 PM
No she is not an underachiever. With all the framing she does its a miracle she won a GS.

Mr.Sharapova
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:15 PM
I think she underachieved on clay but not overall. Someone with a backhand like hers should consider herself lucky to have won a slam beating Serena in the final and another final at the French.

Excelscior
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:23 PM
I think where Sam clearly has underachieved is at the regular WTA Tour. Including the US Open, she has only won THREE titles in total, and not a single one on what we consider her best surface (red clay). She is in her third consecutive year in the top 10, so I would have expected more titles for sure.

If she could win around 10 titles, including some big ones, I think her career would be complete. She has already proven me wrong though, because I always thought her best shot at a GS would be Roland Garros...

The problem with Sam winning RG, is the same as Sam winning anywhere else. She'd still have to avoid the combination of Masha, Vika, Kvitova, Venus (albeit she's older and who knows how much longer she'll be playing), and any other tall, flat hitting player, minus Laura Robson. Plus she's still have to deal with her nerves (which she's seemed to get better at).

This year (if I remember correctly), she lost to the diminutive Sara Errani at Roland Garros.

Not sure if she'll ever win one, after that type of loss. But we'll see? :scratch:

Overall, I'm not sure Sam is an underachiever. She would only be if she was hyped up a lot, but she really isn't. Now, if you're speaking about her career titles, relative to her age and recent rankings, then maybe she is. :shrug:

Patrick345
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:28 PM
I don´t know, I´ll ask Wertheim. I value his insight on the topic. Today he wrote Stosur and Azarenka had very similar careers, because both have won one major. :facepalm:

BlueTrees
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:35 PM
Anyone who's beaten Serena Williams in a Grand Slam final yet only has 3 titles is an underachiever in my books :shrug: She played extremely well against Azarenka yesterday...

Larrybidd
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:58 PM
Nadia Petrova is the biggest underachiever presently on tour. I can't think of anybody close.

saint2
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:59 PM
She is overachiever IMO. Its the same case with all those players who were top20-30 players before 2008, and now are "peaking" in their late 20s/early 30s.

Chim
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:03 PM
I don´t know, I´ll ask Wertheim. I value his insight on the topic. Today he wrote Stosur and Azarenka had very similar careers, because both have won one major. :facepalm:

What is wrong with this Wertheim guy?? Was he the one who predicted Sam woud be out in R1?:help:

Cajka
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:09 PM
I don't think she's good enough to underachieve :shrug:

With her game, she should've won more titles. When it comes to slam results, no. She could win one more slam, I guess.

Gdsimmons
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:20 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

So true. With a BH like that and all the shanks she does she should consider herself lucky she won a slam. A HC slam at that. Especially with her grip.

laurie
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:27 PM
Yes she is an aunderachiever.

joeh37
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:17 PM
This year (if I remember correctly), she lost to the diminutive Sara Errani at Roland Garros.



Who has proven to be among the 5 if not 3 greatest Clay players of the year.

Nadia Petrova is the biggest underachiever presently on tour. I can't think of anybody close.

So true :sad:
Maybe Dokic but how much of that is due to off court issues/injury is unclear.

Tezuka.
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:22 PM
Don't think so.

Excelscior
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:26 PM
Who has proven to be among the 5 if not 3 greatest Clay players of the year.

Not taking anything away from Errani. But some people are talking like Stosur is a lock clay goddess/future RG winner.

A 5'8" future clay goddess/RG winner, should beat a 5'3" in form clay court player this year.

bandabou
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:27 PM
Only lack of titles is shocking..for the rest, she's had a nice career imo.

justineheninfan
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:33 PM
I like her but if anything I think she is an overachiever really. A slam title and slam final when she has what, 3 career singles titles. Also managing a slam title and another slam final (which was a clear shot at 2 slams she didnt take) when she is the total bitch of atleast half of the top players of her era (Kvitova, Sharapova, Azarenka, Venus, Clijsters) and that not even including Serena. Add to that her whole game really revolves around her kick serve and her heavy topspin forehand, and not much else.

justineheninfan
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Underachieved probably in regular tour titles but that is what happens when you are a top player and are playing mostly Premier events, and you dont match up well against most of the other top players.

I will say it is a real shame she didnt come through in that 2010 RG final and win it, but she also got a dream draw to the final of the U.S Open last year, so it evens out really. Had the course of history been altered at all, her 2011 U.S Open draw is probably different, and if it is different in anyway at all she probably doesnt win it. I am sure she is happy with how things are, beating Serena to win a fast hard court slam is a huge achievement she wouldnt trade.

JustPetko
Sep 5th, 2012, 07:49 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

This.

tennisbum79
Sep 5th, 2012, 07:55 PM
She won a Grand-Slam-title in singles plus 2 in doubles and 2 in mixed doubles. She's been as high as # 4 in the rankings and was # 1 in doubles.

She's a solid Top Ten player for quite a while in singles.

Reached at least the final in doubles of all Grand-Slams, 3 in Wimbledon plus 2 Championships titles. 2 Grand-Slam finals in singles plus 2 semis.

But considering her enormes potential: Should she have done better?

She's (only) 28! What can she achieve the next years? Do you see any chances for her to get to the # 1 spot?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47990000/jpg/_47990506_stosur_gi.jpg

She spent a considerable amount to time playing double only.

edificio
Sep 5th, 2012, 08:44 PM
Yes and no.

Can't believe how few titles she has to accompany her slam. She needs more if she doesn't want to be known as a latter-day Iva Majoli (who has more titles).

Her game has limitations.

aussie_fan
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:24 PM
Usual dumb comments in this thread. :rolleyes:

To me she has met my expectations, just wasn't expecting her to win that particular slam over another. Still has a shot at winning RG over the next couple of years.

Sammo
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6949/d841e07b6338452c50b9531.gif

Manitou
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:44 PM
She is exactly where she should be: the second line.
The first line is fixed: Serena, Azarenka, Sharapova. Similar to the group of Roger, Novak, Rafa and Andy.
The second line: Stosur, Li Na, Kerber, Radwanska, Kvitova. The second line is constantly reshuffling: two years ago Caroline, Viera and Marion were in it, now they dropped to the third line, while Aga and Anjelique moved up.
That's pretty much it. Sometimes, with some dose of luck, a girl from line 2 can steal something big from the master table: see Miami and Wimbledon by Aga, last year US Open by Sam.

The WTA ranking has no meaning. It should be reformed to reflect the reality better.

Jose.
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:50 PM
Underachiever :lol: She's done quite good for someone with a backhand like that...

Sammo
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:52 PM
She is exactly where she should be: the second line.
The first line is fixed: Serena, Azarenka, Sharapova. Similar to the group of Roger, Novak, Rafa and Andy.
The second line: Stosur, Li Na, Kerber, Radwanska, Kvitova. The second line is constantly reshuffling: two years ago Caroline, Viera and Marion were in it, now they dropped to the third line, while Aga and Anjelique moved up.
That's pretty much it. Sometimes, with some dose of luck, a girl from line 2 can steal something big from the master table: see Miami and Wimbledon by Aga, last year US Open by Sam.

The WTA ranking has no meaning. It should be reformed to reflect the reality better.

Kvitova should be on the first line and Azarenka in the 2nd, Sam only belongs to the 2nd line because of her lack of consistency, but she isn't less talented at all than Azarenka or Sharapova. The hell am I saying she's way more talented than both of them, and so is Petra.

Excelscior
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:55 PM
She is exactly where she should be: the second line.
The first line is fixed: Serena, Azarenka, Sharapova. Similar to the group of Roger, Novak, Rafa and Andy.
The second line: Stosur, Li Na, Kerber, Radwanska, Kvitova. The second line is constantly reshuffling: two years ago Caroline, Viera and Marion were in it, now they dropped to the third line, while Aga and Anjelique moved up.
That's pretty much it. Sometimes, with some dose of luck, a girl from line 2 can steal something big from the master table: see Miami and Wimbledon by Aga, last year US Open by Sam.

The WTA ranking has no meaning. It should be reformed to reflect the reality better.

The first line is fixed? :eek: You must mean this year?

What were those first line players doing/winning the past two years? :eek:

All those players were second line 1-3 seasons ago in varying degrees. :lol:

How can you compare Kvitova to Radwanska, Li Na and Stosur, when she's been top 4 2 years in a row, and after her great year last year?

How many titles did Serena, Masha and Vika win last year? :tape:

Not a flame. I'm trying to figure out your logic. How does Vika compare to Masha. And how does Masha compare to Serena. And how does Kvitova not compare to Vika (when you compare career GS Titles, Career titles, ranking, etc.).

And you can't say, you're talking only THIS YEAR, cause I'm assuming your comparing Stosur's career in it's totality, up to now.

Manitou
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:55 AM
The first line is fixed? :eek: You must mean this year?

What were those first line players doing/winning the past two years? :eek:

All those players were second line 1-3 seasons ago in varying degrees. :lol:

How can you compare Kvitova to Radwanska, Li Na and Stosur, when she's been top 4 2 years in a row, and after her great year last year?

How many titles did Serena, Masha and Vika win last year? :tape:

Not a flame. I'm trying to figure out your logic. How does Vika compare to Masha. And how does Masha compare to Serena. And how does Kvitova not compare to Vika (when you compare career GS Titles, Career titles, ranking, etc.).

And you can't say, you're talking only THIS YEAR, cause I'm assuming your comparing Stosur's career in it's totality, up to now.

I was talking about what is happening right now. The WTA tennis was in a complete chaos last two years, and I now I am glad to see it's becoming more and more consistent. And I am not talking about ranking and number of wins, but about the current real fire power. The in-form Maria or Vika will ALWAYS beat anybody from the second group, while the matchup between them both is a 50-50 bet. The same with the second group: assuming everybody is in form then the games among them are not determined. They are pretty much comparable. More or less, you know...
Serena is of course above them all. She is in her own league, but to simplify I put her together with Maria and Masha.

Excelscior
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:09 AM
I was talking about what is happening right now. The WTA tennis was in a complete chaos last two years, and I now I am glad to see it's becoming more and more consistent. And I am not talking about ranking and number of wins, but about the current real fire power. The in-form Maria or Vika will ALWAYS beat anybody from the second group, while the matchup between them both is a 50-50 bet. The same with the second group: assuming everybody is in form then the games among them are not determined. They are pretty much comparable. More or less, you know...
Serena is of course above them all. She is in her own league, but to simplify I put her together with Maria and Masha.

This is where your delusional and show your ignorance. :haha: :haha:

I rest my case.

And you're all over the place. First you say this year, then you say an inform Vika and Masha, always beats the second tier.

What prevented Vika from being number one last year, if it wasn't for Petra kicking her ass 4X in a row?

In case I'm forgetting, Petra has more fire power and talent than both Vika and Masha, and everyone knows it (and I'm only bringing that up for "your in form argument", not that I want to debate this or thinks it's important now). Calm down Mashabators. This is not a career retrospective.

Up until Azarenka winning the Australian Open this year, everyone called Vika, Underpowered Renka, etc. People still do. :lol: At least Sharapova has some power, for what she lacks in versatility or game plan.

Vika lost 4 in a row to Petra. And before Masha started beating Petra this year on clay and slow hardcout, she lost to Petra on grass, and a faster hard court at Tokyo (albeit with injury). Yeah, she beat Petra this year, but everyone thinks this is a down or transitional year for Petra anyway. She'll be back, and better.

And you can certainly make the argument that Sam has more game then both Vika and Sharapova, she just doesn't have the size, backhand, or type of game that works against them, but it does against the Serena's and Ni La's of the world.

And Masha can beat Na anytime she feels like it (no I'm not arguing if not had a better career than Masha)? is this what you're saying?

You are hilarious. Oh Well.

Excelscior
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:19 AM
@Manitou

PS: And Inform Na, will trash Azarenka for your information.

Too much firepower and defense (especially since Azarenka lacks a serve).

One of the reasons why Vika was able to win so much this year, was cause she didn't have to face Kvitova or Na in many of her quarter, semi and finals.

That's the way it goes, and I have no problem with that. But that's also one of the reasons why Azarenka was able to go so far and look so good this year (since your mentioning how great she is and Peak/inform game). :lol:

Congrats and good for her. She's had a nice year.

Morrissey
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:33 AM
Yes Samantha is an underachiever her record in WTA tour finals is pathetic 3-11 that shows a lack of mental toughness in the big matches. Another example, is the French Open Samantha was supposed to beat Sara Errani she had a 5-0 record against her YET LOST! Samantha choked against Errani she had a huge opportunity to reach her second French Open final. Third, in the Australian Open LOSING IN THE FIRST ROUND! Samantha can't handle pressure due to expectations she has all the talent in the world but not the mind of a champion.

Stonerpova
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:38 AM
Does she still only have 3 singles titles?

Yes? Yes.

djbueno
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:13 AM
Only lack of titles is shocking..for the rest, she's had a nice career imo.

This

Navratil
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:53 AM
One Roland Garos and more wta titles, and her career would be complete.

Yep - that's amazing: She only won 3 WTA-titles!!! Any Top 5 player with less titles?? :help:

Yoncé
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:55 AM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

This.

Simply epitomises overachiever. With an overrated and basic game, in every aspect.

Navratil
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:57 AM
...

The WTA ranking has no meaning. It should be reformed to reflect the reality better.

Agree. Since they canceled the bonus points - no meaning.

They should count the best 10 tournaments and add the bonus points with a lot weight!

Serena is by far the best player for more than a year now - entered every (!) tournament as a heavy favorite for the bookmakers but is only ranked 4th! :sad:

oh yeah i guess
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:11 AM
3 WTA titles in total is very low but I think she's achieved as much as she could have. Not an underachiever by any means in my opinion, perhaps has overachieved a little. I used to think she wasn't close to slam winning material but she's got one which was well deserved.


PS: And Inform Na, will trash Azarenka for your information.

Too much firepower and defense (especially since Azarenka lacks a serve).

One of the reasons why Vika was able to win so much this year, was cause she didn't have to face Kvitova or Na in many of her quarter, semi and finals.

That's the way it goes, and I have no problem with that. But that's also one of the reasons why Azarenka was able to go so far and look so good this year (since your mentioning how great she is and Peak/inform game). :lol:

Congrats and good for her. She's had a nice year.

Vika has beaten Na in their last three meetings and it's hardly Vika's fault that Kvitova has been incapable of reaching the stage to get to play her this year. :lol:

Navratil
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
When Sam's game is on she's one of the very very best!

I've never seen a women playing like that before, only Serena and Venus maybe.

justineheninfan
Sep 6th, 2012, 05:29 PM
It would be nice to see her add atleast several more singles titles and a Roland Garros title. If she somehow does that her career would be more than complete IMO.

Sammo
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:44 PM
This.

Simply epitomises overachiever. With an overrated and basic game, in every aspect.

You, Serena Williams and her 'underrated' aka average 2nd serve are just pressed, from a player who calls her opponents 'lucky framers' (and then is embarrased a few times against that certain player :oh:) is not very surprising to have such fans.

manu32
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:07 PM
Muscles

young_gunner913
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:08 PM
She's overachieved but good for her. There's nothing wrong with that. :shrug:

Melly Flew Us
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:18 PM
Biggest overachiever the game has seen tbh.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luq0e92xax1qe192so1_500.gif

i agree.

except i don't have a funny gif to emphasise my point.

tennis-insomniac
Sep 6th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Sam beat Serena in the Grand Slam final is just something so remarkable and delicious that I think it shows how great a player she can be. But having said that, her consistency is pretty low, she can do better imo, she might need some push though. And LOTS of improvement needed, in order to beat players like , Azarenka and Sharapova, whom she never beat. This year she came close to beat both though, maybe the next time she can succeed that.

Carsten
Sep 6th, 2012, 11:39 PM
she never really was :lol:

Navratil
Sep 7th, 2012, 12:25 PM
Sam beat Serena in the Grand Slam final is just something so remarkable and delicious that I think it shows how great a player she can be. But having said that, her consistency is pretty low, she can do better imo, she might need some push though. And LOTS of improvement needed, in order to beat players like , Azarenka and Sharapova, whom she never beat. This year she came close to beat both though, maybe the next time she can succeed that.

Playing Serena in a slam final was the best thing could happen to her. She's been the heavy favorite against Schiavone in her first slam final after beating Serena (and Henin) en route and she was too nervous. But she didn't have that pressure against Serena and played one of her best matches ever!

She definitly has a mental problem but so had Mauresmo and she won 2 slams and got the # 1 ranking!

rnwerner
Sep 7th, 2012, 12:41 PM
Yes.
Only 3 titles is ridiculous.

1 Grand Slam title reflects her level of play and her incosistency pretty good.

But she needs 3-4 tournament wins in 2012/2013.

Joelina
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:31 PM
Serena´s fans are the only one who think that she is overachiever :lol: funny how much they are still pressed about that USO final

she is underachiever, hopefully she will win at least one slam before she will retire

A-Bond
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:47 PM
Dear, she's an overachiever!!! It's amazing she won a slam given that she's an incredible headcase and less talented than, let's say, Petrova. For her to have a slam it absolutely amazing. I'd like to see her winning a few WTA-Titles since these Total 3 Tournament Victories look absolutely ridiculous for a Top player.

Morrissey
May 17th, 2013, 09:49 PM
Stosur is a huge underachiever only three WTA Titles as other posters have pointed out. The problem for Stosur I think is technical and mental. The backhand is terrible she doesn't hit it with enough pace and has to compensate by slicing it. The mind is also very fragile as well Stosur might drop out of the top 10 for sure if she doesn't do well in Paris.

Thiudans
May 17th, 2013, 09:54 PM
You could consider it anyway: that she, given her lack of mental strength (and consistently effective backhand), has achieved exactly what you'd expect of her.

tennisbum79
May 17th, 2013, 10:01 PM
I don't think she is an underachiever...
My view is she was "accidentally" thrusted into the role of a single player because she was so successful on the double tour.

She is a reluctant single competitor, her personality cries out for having someone else with her.


She has 3 single tiles, one of which is USO single. and that is not bad. But having just 2 other single titles with to go with it is peculiar.


IN WTA, 28 years of age is not "ONLY", it is advanced age.

Sammo
May 17th, 2013, 10:01 PM
You could consider it anyway: that she, given her lack of mental strength (and consistently effective backhand), has achieved exactly what you'd expect of her.

Underachieving or overachieving is based on talent. Also based on her mentality before she started working with David Taylor she'd be lucky to have a MM title honestly, that man is amazing. But talent-wise I believe she's an underachiever, IMO she would need a Roland Garros and at least 6 other titles in order not to be.

Thiudans
May 17th, 2013, 10:05 PM
Underachieving or overachieving is based on talent. Also based on her mentality before she started working with David Taylor she'd be lucky to have a MM title honestly, that man is amazing.

I wouldn't say it's as strict as that. Sometimes, you just have to look at things realistically, as they are. Stosur is talented, but she just doesn't have what it takes to consistently win big matches. Therefore, her achievements are appropriate.

Tennisation
May 17th, 2013, 10:07 PM
If anything, she's an overachiever. Serena :smash:

Sammo
May 17th, 2013, 10:08 PM
I wouldn't say it's as strict as that. Sometimes, you just have to look at things realistically, as they are. Stosur is talented, but she just doesn't have what it takes to consistently win big matches. Therefore, her achievements are appropriate.

4 years ago she was trying to get back to her previous peak which was top 30 and she didn't even have a title. No one would have said she was GS champion material, I mean I became a fan back in Wimbledon 2008 because I thought she was amazingly talented and that she should do much better and I thought that even if it was improbable she was capable of winning a Slam, but what David Taylor did to her is incredible. He also turned Alicia Molik into a top player.

Morrissey
May 17th, 2013, 10:19 PM
I don't think she is an underachiever...
My view is she was "accidentally" thrusted into the role of a single player because she was so successful on the double tour.

She is a reluctant single competitor, her personality cries out for having someone else with her.


She has 3 single tiles, one of which is USO single. and that is not bad. But having just 2 other single titles with to go with it is peculiar.


IN WTA, 28 years of age is not "ONLY", it is advanced age.

I think you are being extremely unfair to Stosur she's reached the French Open semifinals or better three times in Women singles MORE than Serena Williams I must point out.

Stosur has reached two grand slam singles finals she's a really talented player.

In terms of talent Samantha Stosur SHOULD be in the top 5. Stosur serve is huge she also has a massive forehand and she's a very good athlete.

The US OPEN title was no fluke it was Stosur's second grand slam final she reached and this is an important point. I also want to point out Stosur is one of the few women to KNOCK OFF Serena Williams TWICE in a grand slam event. Stosur beat Serena easily in the 2011 US OPEN final she DESTROYED HER. When Stosur's game is on, her mind is tough, she is extremely dangerous as she has proven in the past.

The problem for Stosur is the mental side she lacks self confidence and I believe she's too damn nice. Sam needs to be nastier and meaner she needs to believe

Ferg
May 17th, 2013, 10:24 PM
Anybody who thinks shes an overachiever based on one result (coughSerenafanscough), you are crazy. She should have about 3 Roland Garros titles by now. She is STILL an underachiever, even taking aside beating Serena in a slam final.

Joelina
May 17th, 2013, 10:26 PM
Anybody who thinks shes an overachiever based on one result (coughSerenafanscough), you are crazy. She should have about 3 Roland Garros titles by now. She is STILL an underachiever, even taking aside beating Serena in a slam final.

yeah this

Morrissey
May 17th, 2013, 10:32 PM
Anybody who thinks shes an overachiever based on one result (coughSerenafanscough), you are crazy. She should have about 3 Roland Garros titles by now. She is STILL an underachiever, even taking aside beating Serena in a slam final.

I definitely think Sam should have won the French Open by now. Very disappointed in Sam's lackluster performance against Sara Errani. The door was open for Sam to reach her second French Open final but she choked as usual.

Sam is so talented, but putting it all together has always been the problem for her.

Morrissey
May 17th, 2013, 10:34 PM
If anything, she's an overachiever. Serena :smash:
No Stosur is an underachiever she should have 2 to 4 grand slams by now. The French Open is a slam Sam should have won by now she's an awesome clay court player.
Stosur clocked Serena 6-2 6-3 and blasted her off the court in the US OPEN final. Sam showed her incredible talent when she's on she's one of the few women who can BEAT Serena.

Sammo
May 17th, 2013, 10:39 PM
2011 US Open final wasn't peak Serena but 2010 Roland Garros Sam would totally beat peak Serena in clay.

dencod16
May 17th, 2013, 10:46 PM
If you can't beat Azarenka on clay, how are you an underachiever.

Sammo
May 17th, 2013, 10:50 PM
If you can't beat Azarenka on clay, how are you an underachiever.

Cause she should be beating Azarenka 6-1 6-2 on clay, that's why she's an underachiever.

rnwerner
May 17th, 2013, 11:00 PM
YES, she is.

dencod16
May 17th, 2013, 11:02 PM
Cause she should be beating Azarenka 6-1 6-2 on clay, that's why she's an underachiever.

True.... hahaha.... But Stosur is a bit overrated though winning only 3 titles is the part that she underachieved not slams...

Cajka
May 17th, 2013, 11:06 PM
2011 US Open final wasn't peak Serena but 2010 Roland Garros Sam would totally beat peak Serena in clay.

She played against Serena that year on RG, she won the match, but it wasn't easy. And it was not close to peak Serena on clay. Serena hasn't played her best tennis on clay for years, that's why people often underrate her peak game on clay. Let's not forget that she was capable of challenging the best claycourter in last decade.

Sammo
May 17th, 2013, 11:09 PM
She played against Serena that year on RG, she won the match, but it wasn't easy. And it was not close to peak Serena on clay. Serena hasn't played her best tennis on clay for years, that's why people often underrate her peak game on clay. Let's not forget that she was capable of challenging the best claycourter in last decade.

She was routining her until she decided to choke at 6-2 5-3

madmax
May 17th, 2013, 11:12 PM
She was routining her until she decided to choke at 6-2 5-3

this...she was choking hard in that RG match as well. US Open for some reason has become her best slam recently (as hilarious as it sounds looking at her game style)

tennisbum79
May 17th, 2013, 11:12 PM
Stosur has reached two grand slam singles finals she's a really talented player. In terms of talent Samantha Stosur SHOULD be in the top 5. Stosur serve is huge she also has a massive forehand and she's a very good athlete.

I hear this all the time about Stosur.
Let us be serious for a moment, you can't say these thing in abstract, so let's check the numbers.
What is a talent good for it only shows up once in blue moon?
Yes she was good in 2010, 2011, yet, she still has only grand total 3 titles in her name. and it was these 2 years that she was thought to have the best serve.



The US OPEN title was no fluke it was Stosur's second grand slam final she reached and this is an important point. I also want to point out Stosur is one of the few women to KNOCK OFF Serena Williams TWICE in a grand slam event. Stosur beat Serena easily in the 2011 US OPEN final she DESTROYED HER. When Stosur's game is on, her mind is tough, she is extremely dangerous as she has proven in the past.
Her game is rarely on

The problem for Stosur is the mental side she lacks self confidence and I believe she's too damn nice. Sam needs to be nastier and meaner she needs to believe

She 28, in tennis, that is the tail end of one's career. She is not changing.
THis is the precise reason why I say she is an accidental single player. In double, she has a partner who can encourage her.

There are plenty of athletes in several sports whose career never went beyond the playground despite their extraordinary talents & potentials.
So repeating she is talent is not enough to have a successful career.

Stosur number are stellar in doubles, which is where she feels at home., and that is what will get her into TOF

Cajka
May 17th, 2013, 11:20 PM
She was routining her until she decided to choke at 6-2 5-3

So, if peak Sam chokes against non-peak Serena, why do you think it would be better against peak Serena? Don't get me wrong, I think that Sam is one of the best claycourters, she has a game to win RG, but she can't be compared to peak Serena on any surface. Peak Serena is too tough mentally for Sam to beat her.

Sammo
May 17th, 2013, 11:30 PM
Peak Serena is too tough mentally for Sam to beat her.

2002 RG was peak Serena and she lost the first set against 142 ranked Zvonareva in the 4th round and barely made it past Capriati in the semis :shrug:

Cajka
May 17th, 2013, 11:49 PM
2002 RG was peak Serena and she lost the first set against 142 ranked Zvonareva in the 4th round and barely made it past Capriati in the semis :shrug:

Capriati was never an easy match up for Serena, neither was Vera. Vera was a qualifier and she reached the 4th round IIRC. Not any qualifier is capable of doing that, Vera proved that going that far and challenging Serena wasn't a fluke. And it was her breakthrough year. Wasn't she barely a top 500 player at the start of the year and she managed to become a top 50 player by the end of the year? Anyway, Serena won that event, while Sam, at her peak, lost in the final. I'm pointing out that the difference in their mentalities is huge. Although Sam matches up quite well against Serena.

Sloejelly
May 18th, 2013, 03:13 AM
I think she could have a decent shot at a RG title. This year hopefully. :cheer:

I think she's done spot on in terms of ranking. I don't think she ever had the potential to be #1, but #4 and her current top 10 position sounds right to me. She has underachieved in terms of titles. But that GS against Serena was epic. Absolutely epic. Not a foot wrong. If she can get her head in that zone again, I totally believe she could take RG, maybe another US. (Not Wimbles, not Oz :()

Her mental issues and backhand are both improving. I'm not writing her off.

SoClose
May 18th, 2013, 05:00 AM
2011 US Open final wasn't peak Serena but 2010 Roland Garros Sam would totally beat peak Serena in clay.

:help: in your dreams only.:spit:
Peak Serena easily wipes the floor with Peak Stosur on caly.Did you forget their match in Charlesron last year? :wavey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4djfwX-zUY

dencod16
May 18th, 2013, 05:36 AM
She played against Serena that year on RG, she won the match, but it wasn't easy. And it was not close to peak Serena on clay. Serena hasn't played her best tennis on clay for years, that's why people often underrate her peak game on clay. Let's not forget that she was capable of challenging the best claycourter in last decade.

I think game wise, she did play well. Serena is so mentally fragile at the French Open. She should have beaten Stosur and Kuznetsova but she got tight and unraveled.

LUVMIRZA
May 18th, 2013, 06:02 AM
Cause she should be beating Azarenka 6-1 6-2 on clay, that's why she's an underachiever.

Dumbo lives in another world:facepalm:

Sammo
May 18th, 2013, 02:33 PM
Dumbo lives in another world:facepalm:

You live in a world in which Azarenka is a talented beautiful player when in real life she's just an ugly witch with a hideous technique who has only made it so far because of a narcissistic personality disorder :wavey:

Marcus1979
May 18th, 2013, 02:39 PM
I always thought Sam overachieved. She got her results during a weak period. :o

Soliloque
May 18th, 2013, 02:45 PM
You live in a world in which Azarenka is a talented beautiful player when in real life she's just an ugly witch with a hideous technique who has only made it so far because of a narcissistic personality disorder :wavey:

Also by beating your entire sig.

Sammo
May 18th, 2013, 02:47 PM
Also by beating your entire sig.

Call me when she's worthy of licking Hingis' shoes

azinna
May 18th, 2013, 02:50 PM
Stosur was underachieving. But with that US Open win, another slam final, several strong runs and extended stays in the Top 5 and Top 10, her career has worked out just about right. Some folks wish to cite her mental frailty as a reason for considering her an under-achiever -- a la Petrova. But I think Sam's frailly comes from knowledge that her backhand is quite dodgy and that her tendency to frame on her forehand is real. Both do not make for innate and resolute belief in your game during big matches.
....

Soliloque
May 18th, 2013, 02:52 PM
Call me when she's worthy of licking Hingis' shoes

Stay close to your phone in 2014-2015.

nfl46
May 18th, 2013, 02:52 PM
I say, yes!

LCS
May 18th, 2013, 02:57 PM
Has overachived hugely. Her doubles' record amazes me because in singles she can't hit a volley to save her life.

Sammo
May 18th, 2013, 03:03 PM
Has overachived hugely. Her doubles' record amazes me because in singles she can't hit a volley to save her life.

How about trying to watch a single of her doubles matches before giving your opinion? Just a suggestion :rolleyes::weirdo:

Sarindipity
May 18th, 2013, 03:05 PM
How about trying to watch a single of her doubles matches before giving your opinion? Just a suggestion :rolleyes::weirdo:

she cant hit a volley in SINGLES for her life, thatds why her doubles achievements amaze him. he did not belittle her achievements. learn to read.

Sammo
May 18th, 2013, 03:09 PM
she cant hit a volley in SINGLES for her life, thatds why her doubles achievements amaze him. he did not belittle her achievements. learn to read.

He implies her volleys suck when in reality they are pretty good, hence her doubles results. Her approach shots suck though, her volleys are good but she basically overrates her volleying capacity and thinks she's gonna be able to get away with a sucky approach shot somehow.

PinkTape
May 18th, 2013, 03:34 PM
:help: in your dreams only.:spit:
Peak Serena easily wipes the floor with Peak Stosur on caly.Did you forget their match in Charlesron last year? :wavey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4djfwX-zUY

Didn't she had a cold during that tournament that's why she couldn't beat a sluggish Venus easily?

SoClose
May 18th, 2013, 03:39 PM
Didn't she had a cold during that tournament that's why she couldn't beat a sluggish Venus easily?

Wasnt Serena injured during RG10 :rolleyes:

Marcus1979
May 18th, 2013, 03:40 PM
Venus is always a bad matchup for Sam tho. She is hardly going to beat Venus easily due to matchup styles.

LUVMIRZA
May 18th, 2013, 03:48 PM
You live in a world in which Azarenka is a talented beautiful player when in real life she's just an ugly witch with a hideous technique who has only made it so far because of a narcissistic personality disorder :wavey:

ur reply proves that u really are menally ill:spit:

Sammo
May 18th, 2013, 04:03 PM
ur reply proves that u really are menally ill:spit:

Have you actually understood what I said? Your grammar makes me doubt it.

Edit: oh sorry, sweety, I don't think you'll understand what I said above either, OK:

do u now wut i wrote? i dont now if you now wut i wrote coz ur writing is badddd

LUVMIRZA
May 18th, 2013, 04:04 PM
Have you actually understood what I said? Your grammar makes me doubt it.

try harder:lol: