PDA

View Full Version : Whos the biggest underacheiver?


ESP#1
01-14-2009, 05:05 PM
There are alot of players who never live up to expectations, here are a few i thought about off the top of my head, you may no others so please mention

S H O W S T O P P E R !
01-14-2009, 05:06 PM
Donald Young; he should be at least somewhere in the 50-90's, but he's still hovering in the 100's without a single title.

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 05:19 PM
I meant to put young on the list, it just slipped my mind

soyizgood
01-14-2009, 05:29 PM
Nalbandian. Loaded with talent, was making semis of slams by age 20, can play baseline or all-around, the gold standard for hitting two-handed backhands, and could destroy the best when on all cylinders.

He lost his focus while his physical conditioning took a dump. He just doesn't seem to care about tennis anymore or for just parts of the year (i.e. part-time player mindset). I root for the guy, but it's frustrating to see such a player underachieve year after year.... ARGH!

DarthFed
01-14-2009, 05:42 PM
I chose Nalby as well

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 05:50 PM
Hes def one of the best players to never win a slam, i hope he can pull one off this year

RoddickAce
01-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Safin and Nalbandian are the usuals; so I'm gonna say Gasquet, but his career is far from over.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
01-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Nalbandian. Loaded with talent, was making semis of slams by age 20, can play baseline or all-around, the gold standard for hitting two-handed backhands, and could destroy the best when on all cylinders.

He lost his focus while his physical conditioning took a dump. He just doesn't seem to care about tennis anymore or for just parts of the year (i.e. part-time player mindset). I root for the guy, but it's frustrating to see such a player underachieve year after year.... ARGH!

Agreed. If he was just mentally stronger, Fed v Nalbandian would be the big rivalry today, not Fed v Nadal.

thalivest
01-14-2009, 05:57 PM
Agreed. If he was just mentally stronger, Fed v Nalbandian would be the big rivalry today, not Fed v Nadal.

Or do you mean Nalbandian vs Nadal, who is the current #1 after all. :) Anyway it isnt just mental toughness, I actually think often times Nalbandian is a real fighter although he can go in partial tank mode too. Alot of his problem is he doesnt work hard enough off the court on a regular basis, he often shows up out of shape and his fitness is often suspect. If he worked harder off the court on a more regular basis he would have a better shot to fulfill his potential. Look at Serena Williams's, she is considered a massive underachiever despite all her success yet nobody would accuse her of lacking mental strength. You have to keep up the fitness level and conditioning, you have to put in the miles in the gym and in practice.

tacou
01-14-2009, 06:15 PM
Safin/Nalby def.

Young and Richie are far too young to even be considered.

Turning Pro
01-14-2009, 06:16 PM
Nalbandian then Gasquet although Gasquet is far from the finished product and is still on 22.

Shaolin
01-14-2009, 06:38 PM
Rios, Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 06:39 PM
Rios, Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet

Rios good one i knew i was missing a big one

Shaolin
01-14-2009, 06:45 PM
Berdych is also a waste of talent.

Nadal_Freak
01-14-2009, 06:48 PM
Nalbandian and Safin. I'll give it to Nalbandian as he didn't even win a slam. Yet he can beat all the top players when on.

thalivest
01-14-2009, 06:52 PM
I voted Nalbandian but IMO Berdych and Baghdatis are much bigger wastes of talents than Gasquet. Much more than Gasquet they have the right weapons and the right type of game to work in the modern game. They can scare people with their firepower and ability to dominate a match on a good day. Gasquet cant really do this, not vs the real big guns anyway.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 06:53 PM
Berdych is also a waste of talent.


You'd think someone with a huge serve, huge forehand, pretty big BH, solid hands at the net, and decent movement for a big man would be a little bit higher than where he is.

thalivest
01-14-2009, 06:54 PM
You'd think someone with a huge serve, huge forehand, pretty big BH, solid hands at the net, and decent movement for a big man would be a little bit higher than where he is.

I think his loss to Nadal in the 07 Wimbledon quarters really hurt his career. I think that is where he thought he was going to have the breakthrough and to get straight setted like that by Nadal, who up to then he had dominated on non-clay surfaces, was demoralizing to him.

I think he is another player who could benefit from a real strategy coach though. He doesnt seem to have any understanding how to use his weapons, he almost seems lost on court sometimes.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 06:56 PM
Agassi should be on here, considering he didn't play the AO at all until midway through his career, and he was a constant tanker even late into his career. He also disappeared from the tour for 2-3 years or so.


Considering Agassi was one of the best returners in the game, and one of the best pure ballstrikers, I'd have to say he underachieved quite abit.

GameSampras
01-14-2009, 06:56 PM
Safin IMO.. More raw talent than Nalbandian I think.. That should make him the biggest underachiever in history IMO. If Safin's head, focus, mental toughness matched his Talent, Safin IMO would have have gone down as the GOAT bar none and the GS record holder

Beasty54
01-14-2009, 06:57 PM
Rios definatly.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 06:58 PM
Safin IMO.. More raw talent than Nalbandian I think.. That should make the biggest underachiever in history IMO



He's not an underachiever considering his circumstances. He did have a few years full of injury, and I'm pretty sure he considers tennis a job rather than a sport.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 07:00 PM
Rios definatly.


I don't see how Rios is an underachiever, considering he's not that good. I mean, he can't even beat a 50 year old McEnroe convincingly. During his best years, he got torched by a 2002 Federer, Peter Korda, and plenty of other players. He just benefited from a slight power vacuum to allow him to ascend to world #1.

GameSampras
01-14-2009, 07:04 PM
He's not an underachiever considering his circumstances. He did have a few years full of injury, and I'm pretty sure he considers tennis a job rather than a sport.

Well yea Injuries as well.. Of course its apart of the game.. But only 2 slams? Pete had his share of injuries as well. So did Andre and countless others. I think we all could agree that Safin had the talent to be a right up there competing with Sampras and Fed in terms of slams. If you go back and watch Fed-Safin AO 2005, you really could see the talent Safin had. IMO maybe be even more talented than Roger if only be a slim margin. He certainly has the bigger shots as was shown at AO 2005. He just overpowered a prime Fed. Not to mention the 00 US OPEN against Pete. These matches really showed what Safin was capable of once in a blue moon. He was playing like the GOAT against Fed and Pete

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 07:06 PM
Well yea Injuries as well.. Of course its apart of the game.. But only 2 slams? I think we all could agree that Safin had the talent to be a right up there competing with Sampras and Fed in terms of slams.


I don't know about that. Even if Safin did fully commit himself to tennis, there is no way he can play consistently the way he does. The man hits 90 mph backhands with ease for crying out loud.

Beasty54
01-14-2009, 07:07 PM
I don't see how Rios is an underachiever, considering he's not that good. I mean, he can't even beat a 50 year old McEnroe convincingly. During his best years, he got torched by a 2002 Federer, Peter Korda, and plenty of other players. He just benefited from a slight power vacuum to allow him to ascend to world #1.

I actually didnt get into tennis until after he was already done, but hearing how silky smooth he was and how he made it to number one and never one a slam I considered him underachieving by alot.

GameSampras
01-14-2009, 07:11 PM
Maybe underrated for Rios? Hes widely regarded as one of the worst #1 players of all time. He had a good game though.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 07:15 PM
I actually didnt get into tennis until after he was already done, but hearing how silky smooth he was and how he made it to number one and never one a slam I considered him underachieving by alot.



Silky smooth means nothing. He benefited greatly from defeating opponents who were either in their slumps (Agassi, who just recently came back) or second tier guys (like Henman). Rios wasn't that talented, otherwise he would have won a slam. Heck, Safin won 2 slams partying and dating every hot woman on the face of the planet.



Even the second tier level players dominated him at times. Chang was 6-1 against Rios, and his only loss came way late into Chang's career in 2000. Chang recorded a few impressive victories like a 7-5, 6-1, 6-4 beatdown in the Australian Open QF. Kafelnikov, regarded as one of the weakest world #1's was 6-2 against Rios. So in truth, Rios wasn't that good at all. He probably overachieved TBH.

GameSampras
01-14-2009, 07:17 PM
You guys think 8 slams for Andre is underachieving? Granted much like Nadal-Fed in this era, Andre and Pete took a few slams away from each other. Andre could have ended up in the neighborhood or 12-13 slams if it wasnt for Pete. Who knows maybe more if he didnt go MIA while he was supposed to be in his prime. I would assume Pete would have gotten another AO or two had it not been for Andre. Much as Roger would have broke the record along time ago had it not been for Nadal. Along with a couple RG's. Maybe they were more victim of circumstances.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 07:23 PM
You guys think 8 slams for Andre is underachieving? Granted much like Nadal-Fed in this era, Andre and Pete took a few slams away from each other. Andre could have ended up in the neighborhood or 12-13 slams if it wasnt for Pete. Who knows maybe more if he didnt go MIA while he was supposed to be in his prime. I would assume Pete would have gotten another AO or two had it not been for Andre. Much as Roger would have broke the record along time ago had it not been for Nadal. Along with a couple RG's. Maybe they were more victim of circumstances.



8 slams for someone as talented as Andre Agassi is definitely underachieving. Considering he was in tank mode for half of his career, and the other half of his career he was outside of his physical prime, I'd say he could have done better had he taken tennis abit more seriously. Especially if he decided to play the Australian Open before 95.


Also, he should have 3 FO titles to his name, considering he pulled epic choke jobs to give those titles away.

icyhot
01-14-2009, 08:22 PM
I definitely have to say Nalbandian. I mean he beat Federer with some great tennis at the Tennis Masters Cup in 2005. He's good enough, but he's not mentally strong enough.

Noveson
01-14-2009, 09:10 PM
Safin didn't even make this poll? That is ridiculous. What about Verdasco also?

tintin
01-14-2009, 09:21 PM
Rios and Nalbandian
Gasquet should be on that list.Leconte as well

saram
01-14-2009, 10:46 PM
They were mentioned here--but not in the poll: Safin/Rios. Two people that flopped with hella talent.

saram
01-14-2009, 10:47 PM
And If my boy in my avatar doesn't win a slam--with his strokes and game--I'll throw Verdasco in there as well. Smooth strokes, good speed, great serve.....don't think he has ever made a semi in a slam...

abmk
01-14-2009, 11:02 PM
nalbandian

srinrajesh
01-14-2009, 11:24 PM
Nalbandian is definitely right up there - he is yet to win a grand slam for all his talent.
He seems so good at times that its frustating to see him lose early in grand slams and even when he reaches the later stages he doesnt seem to play his best. The fact that he had reached the wimbledon final at 20 may have made him overconfident and he may felt the grand slam win was just around the corner. He was able to reach no.3 ranking and reached SF at all 4 grand slams but couldnt go further.
Safin is another player who has underachieved despte reaching no.1 ranking and winning 2 grand slams. This is probably due to his lack of focus on tennis and injury problems.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 04:11 AM
8 slams for someone as talented as Andre Agassi is definitely underachieving. Considering he was in tank mode for half of his career, and the other half of his career he was outside of his physical prime, I'd say he could have done better had he taken tennis abit more seriously. Especially if he decided to play the Australian Open before 95.


Also, he should have 3 FO titles to his name, considering he pulled epic choke jobs to give those titles away.
I think if he had played better in his 20s, he would have had less in the tank for great results late in his career, so all in all his end achievements wouldn't be that different. The turning point was Courier winning the FO in 1991, man that should never have happened, Agassi was the better player by far!

egn
01-15-2009, 05:05 AM
You guys think 8 slams for Andre is underachieving? Granted much like Nadal-Fed in this era, Andre and Pete took a few slams away from each other. Andre could have ended up in the neighborhood or 12-13 slams if it wasnt for Pete. Who knows maybe more if he didnt go MIA while he was supposed to be in his prime. I would assume Pete would have gotten another AO or two had it not been for Andre. Much as Roger would have broke the record along time ago had it not been for Nadal. Along with a couple RG's. Maybe they were more victim of circumstances.

For Andre though it is, you look at the raw talent he had and from they years 89-95 the fact that he only won 3 slams in those years makes everyone wonder. If you can win 5 slams in the end of your career and could only muster 3 either you were injuried or did not care. Sure in the end the only slam he was winning was Australia, but from 89-95 he was a threat on clay and hard courts. He made two French Open finals and came up short both times. He could have easily won one of those he had beaten both opponents on clay (well actually Gomez yes would have to check on Courier) He also was too cocky, he underestimated his opponenets and cared more about his image. Agassi should have 12-15 slams. Also he never "felt like" playing the Austrlian Open. Injuries did hurt, but he still should have focused more at the start. So he was an underachiever, but I would not cal him the biggest.


Safin though biggest all time. If he stopped being such a mental wreck he could have won 5 or 6 slams. He did something nobody was able to do, beat Federer on a slam other than French Open in his prime. Safin can still beat the top when his head is in the game. Safin just could not keep his head focused on the game and was a mental wreck.

abmk
01-15-2009, 05:28 AM
Hang on, this thread is about the biggest underachiever and agassi doesn't even come close !

I find it a bit surprising to see some people pick safin over nalbandian in this case. Safin is clearly more talented, but he has 2 Slams to zero for Nalbandian ..

thalivest
01-15-2009, 05:31 AM
I think if he had played better in his 20s, he would have had less in the tank for great results late in his career, so all in all his end achievements wouldn't be that different. The turning point was Courier winning the FO in 1991, man that should never have happened, Agassi was the better player by far!

That was the first of 6 straight wins Courier had over Agassi which would stretch to almost 5 years before Agassi got his next win. First off Courier in the early 90s was actually the better and more successful player of the two during that time period. Anything else would be simply a lie, no matter which player you prefer. As well obviously Courier was a bad matchup for Agassi.

jbleiman
01-15-2009, 07:13 AM
i just voted for bjorn....phau that is....the reason being...i only saw him once...i believe it was against nadal....he looked terrific...but haven't seen/heard from him since or before ...for that matter

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 07:28 AM
That was the first of 6 straight wins Courier had over Agassi which would stretch to almost 5 years before Agassi got his next win. First off Courier in the early 90s was actually the better and more successful player of the two during that time period. Anything else would be simply a lie, no matter which player you prefer. As well obviously Courier was a bad matchup for Agassi.
The reason why I said that is because there was a rain delay in that final. Before the rain delay Agassi was completely dominating Courier (like he had before at FO, Agassi served him a breadstick and a bagel at RG 1990). Everything changed after the rain delay and Agassi started playing like crap. I always thought that match was the turning point in their head to head, it gave Courier massive confidence and he gathered a lot of momentum from it but Courier was nowhere near Agassi in the talent department and his career was very short (much shorter than Agassi's obviously, he only had big wins from 91 to 93). You liked Courier's style? To me he was a baseline brute with no volleying skills or touch at all and unlike Agassi he was never really a threat for Sampras. If Agassi had won that final at RG, my feeling is that Agassi would have done big the next 2 years and that would have been more logical than Courier doing it. PS I was in the stadium during that final, worst day of my life watching Agassi wasting his wonderful skills with a mixture of (probably) overconfidence, inadequate preparation and nerves :(

matchmaker
01-15-2009, 07:52 AM
I don't see how Rios is an underachiever, considering he's not that good. I mean, he can't even beat a 50 year old McEnroe convincingly. During his best years, he got torched by a 2002 Federer, Peter Korda, and plenty of other players. He just benefited from a slight power vacuum to allow him to ascend to world #1.


Well, if you can't appreciate the talent of Rios, then that is your problem. He should have done a lot more with it. Many top players have called him one of the greatest talents ever. Off course, you know better than them.

matchmaker
01-15-2009, 07:57 AM
Silky smooth means nothing. He benefited greatly from defeating opponents who were either in their slumps (Agassi, who just recently came back) or second tier guys (like Henman). Rios wasn't that talented, otherwise he would have won a slam. Heck, Safin won 2 slams partying and dating every hot woman on the face of the planet.



Even the second tier level players dominated him at times. Chang was 6-1 against Rios, and his only loss came way late into Chang's career in 2000. Chang recorded a few impressive victories like a 7-5, 6-1, 6-4 beatdown in the Australian Open QF. Kafelnikov, regarded as one of the weakest world #1's was 6-2 against Rios. So in truth, Rios wasn't that good at all. He probably overachieved TBH.

Well, this is a good example of how statistics can be manipulated. You take the two lopsided head to heads and forget about all the favorable h2h's Rios had against many top players.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 08:37 AM
Gosh winning 8 slams and winning every slam there was on every surface in an era where the diversity of play was unreal as opposed to today, I would say thats a pretty damn good accomplishment for Andre. Sure he could have had more than 8 slams, but his resume is pretty darn solid. How many equaled what Andre did at the slams winning the Grand Slam? Laver? And I believe there was one other player. So two players in HISTORY could only duplicate the multi surface success Andre achieved And Andre was one of the few BASELINERS that could win wimbeldon when Grass was dominated by the serve-volleyers. Defeating Goran in 92.

The majority of players present and future will never accomplish what Andre did at the slams. Maybe NONE ever will. Maybe Andre was the last to do so

thejoe
01-15-2009, 09:15 AM
Gosh winning 8 slams and winning every slam there was on every surface in an era where the diversity of play was unreal as opposed to today, I would say thats a pretty damn good accomplishment for Andre. Sure he could have had more than 8 slams, but his resume is pretty darn solid. How many equaled what Andre did at the slams winning the Grand Slam? Laver? And I believe there was one other player. So two players in HISTORY could only duplicate the multi surface success Andre achieved And Andre was one of the few BASELINERS that could win wimbeldon when Grass was dominated by the serve-volleyers. Defeating Goran in 92.

The majority of players present and future will never accomplish what Andre did at the slams. Maybe NONE ever will. Maybe Andre was the last to do so

You know, I agree with you, but I think I do consider Andre an underachiever. Mainly, as he is truly one of the greatest of all time, but his slam count seems to put people off lumping him in with Rod, Pete and Roger. If he hadn't gone AWOL for a few years, he would have a couple more.

navratilovafan
01-15-2009, 09:22 AM
You know, I agree with you, but I think I do consider Andre an underachiever. Mainly, as he is truly one of the greatest of all time, but his slam count seems to put people off lumping him in with Rod, Pete and Roger. If he hadn't gone AWOL for a few years, he would have a couple more.

Agassi shouldnt be lumped with those guys anyway. They were all dominant players. Agassi was never a dominant player.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 09:29 AM
Well, this is a good example of how statistics can be manipulated. You take the two lopsided head to heads and forget about all the favorable h2h's Rios had against many top players.


I took two lop sided H2Hs against one of the weakest world #1s ever who had magic dream draws (Sampras in the SF of the French Open? LOL) and then a relatively weak 1 GS champion.



Rios did not have favorable H2Hs with anyone that I know of. He was 3-2 against Henman, 0-2 against a pre-prime Federer, 2-3 against a pre-prime Hewitt, 1-3 against Safin, 2-1 against Agassi (2 wins during Agassi's slump), 0-2 against Sampras, etc.



I mean, I guess he was 3-0 against a burnt out Jim Courier and 5-2 against Carlos Moya, but that's not saying much.



He is a huge overachiever in the sense that he was not talented enough to win a GS on sheer talent alone. Period. Agassi and Safin did it, as well as Federer in 2003. He got completely destroyed by a well past prime Petr Korda in the only final he ever made.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 09:31 AM
Well, if you can't appreciate the talent of Rios, then that is your problem. He should have done a lot more with it. Many top players have called him one of the greatest talents ever. Off course, you know better than them.



He wasn't that talented. If he WAS one of the greatest talents ever, he would have been able to win on pure talent at least once. Safin did it twice, against two of the greatest players in the history of the modern era. Safin did it while drinking booze, sleeping with women, and partying after matches. There's no excuse for Rios if he was really that talented (which he's not).



His shot making abilities are far overrated, as well as his abilities to redirect balls. Djokovic is clearly more talented than him, as well as a plethora of players today (Nalbandian, Berdych, Gulbis, etc.)

tennisgirl90
01-15-2009, 09:39 AM
Nalbandian, he must have won already a few Slams in his career. Totally a waste of talent.

matchmaker
01-15-2009, 09:43 AM
He wasn't that talented. If he WAS one of the greatest talents ever, he would have been able to win on pure talent at least once. Safin did it twice, against two of the greatest players in the history of the modern era. Safin did it while drinking booze, sleeping with women, and partying after matches. There's no excuse for Rios if he was really that talented (which he's not).

I respect your opinion, but I see things differently. I think Rios was immensely talented especially on HC (won back to back masters, virtually making a fool of Agassi, won YEC) and on clay (he won all the clay masters at some point in his carreer: Rome, Hamburg, Monte Carlo).

He could play shots no one would even consider possible. There are a few clips on youtube called fantasias and fantasias II about Rios, which pretty much show all he was capable of. At one point even the umpire says to him: "That's the best touch shot I have ever seen in my carreer".

Mind you, I don't worship Rios by any means. I admire his game but dispise his mentality.

I agree with you at least on that point: if mentality is taken into account, than Rios did not have talent.

Even Safin, even Kafelnikov, even the hot-headed Ivanisevic were able to focus just enough to win their Slams. Not so Rios.

But slam wins do not always indicate pure talent properly. To bring up another name to discuss on this thread: Michael Stich. How on earth is it possible he only won one lousy Slam. This man had everything: smooth, fluid, elegant movement, a swan swirling through the air and then landing majestically on the water of a lake it seemed. Seemingly hitting bomb serves without any noticeably effort. Slices, topspin, flat, dropshots, stop volleys, lobs,... he could do it all. He won tournaments on all 4 surfaces... But one single slam?

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 10:09 AM
I respect your opinion, but I see things differently. I think Rios was immensely talented especially on HC (won back to back masters, virtually making a fool of Agassi, won YEC) and on clay (he won all the clay masters at some point in his carreer: Rome, Hamburg, Monte Carlo).

He could play shots no one would even consider possible. There are a few clips on youtube called fantasias and fantasias II about Rios, which pretty much show all he was capable of. At one point even the umpire says to him: "That's the best touch shot I have ever seen in my carreer".

Mind you, I don't worship Rios by any means. I admire his game but dispise his mentality.

I agree with you at least on that point: if mentality is taken into account, than Rios did not have talent.

Even Safin, even Kafelnikov, even the hot-headed Ivanisevic were able to focus just enough to win their Slams. Not so Rios.

But slam wins do not always indicate pure talent properly. To bring up another name to discuss on this thread: Michael Stich. How on earth is it possible he only won one lousy Slam. This man had everything: smooth, fluid, elegant movement, a swan swirling through the air and then landing majestically on the water of a lake it seemed. Seemingly hitting bomb serves without any noticeably effort. Slices, topspin, flat, dropshots, stop volleys, lobs,... he could do it all. He won tournaments on all 4 surfaces... But one single slam?


Slam wins do indicate talent. Safin had possibly the worst work ethic ever, and still managed to win 2 slams against two of the greatest players of all time, once by putting an absolute beatdown on Sampras, the other was just a duel between him and Federer.


Again, 98 was the year Agassi was just coming back from his massive slump.That's truly not indicative of how this would play out if Agassi was at his very best.


Most of the shots Rios hit were a little bit overrated. He's not that great. He managed to beat up on second tier players in order to get to world #1 in possibly the dumbest ranking system I have ever seen to date. His talents would not hold up today against anyone inside the top 10 today, not even Roddick.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 10:31 AM
I respect your opinion, but I see things differently. I think Rios was immensely talented especially on HC (won back to back masters, virtually making a fool of Agassi, won YEC) and on clay (he won all the clay masters at some point in his carreer: Rome, Hamburg, Monte Carlo).

He could play shots no one would even consider possible. There are a few clips on youtube called fantasias and fantasias II about Rios, which pretty much show all he was capable of. At one point even the umpire says to him: "That's the best touch shot I have ever seen in my carreer".

Mind you, I don't worship Rios by any means. I admire his game but dispise his mentality.

I agree with you at least on that point: if mentality is taken into account, than Rios did not have talent.

Even Safin, even Kafelnikov, even the hot-headed Ivanisevic were able to focus just enough to win their Slams. Not so Rios.

But slam wins do not always indicate pure talent properly. To bring up another name to discuss on this thread: Michael Stich. How on earth is it possible he only won one lousy Slam. This man had everything: smooth, fluid, elegant movement, a swan swirling through the air and then landing majestically on the water of a lake it seemed. Seemingly hitting bomb serves without any noticeably effort. Slices, topspin, flat, dropshots, stop volleys, lobs,... he could do it all. He won tournaments on all 4 surfaces... But one single slam?

Ahh yess... You mentioned Stich.. Another unbelievably talented player. I think we could lump him in with the Underachievers as well. Great multi-surfaced player. Definitely had the talent to win more than 1 slam

NickC
01-15-2009, 10:45 AM
Safin easily. He could not just beat, but absolutely crush the best of the best when on form. Probably one of the best ballstrikers in the history of the game, and a load of power off the ground.

Nalbandian fits the bill as well. Unfortunately, like most Argentines, he likes to party a good deal, and after he reached the semis of every slam, he went down pretty hard in the focus department. Still, he's incredible to watch when on form. An absolutely brilliant backhand, probably the best two-handed stroke in the history of the game.

abmk
01-15-2009, 10:50 AM
Ahh yess... You mentioned Stich.. Another unbelievably talented player. I think we could lump him in with the Underachievers as well. Great multi-surfaced player. Definitely had the talent to win more than 1 slam

oh yeah, stitch should've been there in the poll options ...

vbranis
01-15-2009, 10:59 AM
I voted for Nalbandian, he could've been a real contender for Slams for a while now. He was in a Slam final at only 20, before Fed. Just lacked the necessary work ethic to be at the very top.

Another name I'll throw out is Nastase. He only won 2 Slams, but had infinite potential. I read his autobiography, and it's amazing how little he practiced, and how much he partied. If he had gotten his head together, who knows how much more he could've achieved.

ESP#1
01-15-2009, 11:02 AM
I actually think that Nalby is more talented then Safin, yes i agree Safin is a great ball striker and great serve but Nalby has way more variety and mixes things up so intelligently when playing well, not to mention hes a great ball striker also and possesses the best backhand to ever play the game imho

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 11:03 AM
oh yeah, stitch should've been there in the poll options ...

How about Courier or Kraijeck? If we go back in time to Wimbeldon 96, Kraijeck was just an animal that year. He really showed what he was capable of

ESP#1
01-15-2009, 11:05 AM
No one for medvedev? i remember him hitting the top of the game when he was around 17 18 years old and never one a slam

l_gonzalez
01-15-2009, 11:05 AM
Slam wins do indicate talent. Safin had possibly the worst work ethic ever, and still managed to win 2 slams against two of the greatest players of all time, once by putting an absolute beatdown on Sampras, the other was just a duel between him and Federer.


Again, 98 was the year Agassi was just coming back from his massive slump.That's truly not indicative of how this would play out if Agassi was at his very best.


Most of the shots Rios hit were a little bit overrated. He's not that great. He managed to beat up on second tier players in order to get to world #1 in possibly the dumbest ranking system I have ever seen to date. His talents would not hold up today against anyone inside the top 10 today, not even Roddick.

What's your beef with Rios? Give credit where it's due, the man was an awesome ball-striker and oozed talent.

Bolivian Ace
01-15-2009, 11:09 AM
I have to say Coria

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 11:10 AM
No one for medvedev? i remember him hitting the top of the game when he was around 17 18 years old and never one a slam
I voted Gasquet but I could have said Nalbandian too. They are both players who had the game to achieve more than they have.

Michael Bluth
01-15-2009, 12:23 PM
I'm surprised Haas hasn't been mentioned.

Mr. Federerpov
01-15-2009, 12:47 PM
Itīs clearly Tommy Haas :)

ESP#1
01-15-2009, 07:42 PM
The two biggest underachievers battle, lets see who wins

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 08:18 PM
What's your beef with Rios? Give credit where it's due, the man was an awesome ball-striker and oozed talent.


Because he's severely overrated on this forum. If he was so good, there's no reason why Korda (who was well past his best years) should have wiped the floor with him on a Rios' best surface.


He has lopsided H2Hs with second tier players, and he had one good year during a power vaccum in which neither Agassi or Sampras were playing well. Champions this year were Korda, Moya, Sampras, and Rafter. Outside of Sampras, the 3 other champions weren't exactly the strongest GS champions.

lambielspins
01-15-2009, 08:42 PM
Many of the 90s players are overrated on this forum. The ones who are not are Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic on grass, Bruguera, Courier, Chang. Rios is way overrated and so is Kafelnikov, probably the two most overrated. Ivanisevic is overrated on non grass surfaces although given his just due on grass. Muster and Kuerten while great clay courters, especialy Kuerten, are still inflated by TW. Agassi as great as he is, is overrated by some when we are talking about historic greatness. Moya and Rafter are also overrated, well by Cenc and a few of the nuts they were, but most of the rest probably rate them reasonably.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 08:46 PM
Many of the 90s players are overrated on this forum. The ones who are not are Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic on grass, Bruguera, Courier, Chang. Rios is way overrated and so is Kafelnikov, probably the two most overrated. Ivanisevic is overrated on non grass surfaces although given his just due on grass. Muster and Kuerten while great clay courters, especialy Kuerten, are still inflated by TW. Agassi as great as he is, is overrated by some when we are talking about historic greatness. Moya is also overrated, well by Cenc and a few of the nuts he was, the rest probably rate him more reasonably.



I think Moya was a solid player. He took advantage of a draw that opened up for him, considering there weren't that many contenders for the FO that year.


I think at times Kafelnikov is slightly underrated, it just depends at times. Although he did have very weak draws to win his 2 slams, he still had to play 7 matches and win. Some players couldn't get it done (ex : Rios).

edmondsm
01-15-2009, 11:09 PM
Bjorn fu(king Phau is on the list!?!?!

abmk
01-16-2009, 12:29 AM
How about Courier or Kraijeck? If we go back in time to Wimbeldon 96, Kraijeck was just an animal that year. He really showed what he was capable of

Krajicek should have been there too, though IMO he wasn't as talented as stich

courier, nah, nowhere close to being the biggest underachiever considering that he won 4 slams and had 3 very good years.

Gorecki
01-16-2009, 03:01 AM
Because he's severely overrated on this forum. If he was so good, there's no reason why Korda (who was well past his best years) should have wiped the floor with him on a Rios' best surface.


He has lopsided H2Hs with second tier players, and he had one good year during a power vaccum in which neither Agassi or Sampras were playing well. Champions this year were Korda, Moya, Sampras, and Rafter. Outside of Sampras, the 3 other champions weren't exactly the strongest GS champions.

Nam: the reason is stated below. it's well known... and no. im not joking!

http://www.talktofrank.com/uploadedImages/Drugs/LARGE%20PHOTOS_steroids.jpg

bjk
01-16-2009, 03:31 AM
I'm surprised James Blake hasn't been mentioned. Guy just hits as hard as he can, that's his strategy. He's been living in the top 10 for about three or four years and he's never gotten past the quarters of a slam. Like alot of American players, he didn't commit to tennis until late in his teens, so his strokes aren't as polished as somebody like Nalbandian.

bjk
01-16-2009, 03:37 AM
By the way, I don't think Young belongs on this list. He has a good game for juniors, but not for the pros. He's a pusher. It's not an accident that Querrey is about 80 ahead of Young in the rankings, Querrey is 6'6 and hits hard.

Ambivalent
01-16-2009, 04:22 AM
Has to be gasquet if we're talking in terms of potential.
DYoung if we're talking about hype