PDA

View Full Version : Biggest Underachievers?


Serendipitous
04-10-2009, 09:32 AM
I used the search function and didn't find a similar thread, so....


Who do you think are the biggest underachievers in today's game?


Paul-Henri Mathieu, in my opinion.

jamesblakefan#1
04-10-2009, 09:38 AM
Everybody's gonna say Safin, but you cant be an underachiever if you've actually achieved something.

Underachiever, in the pure sense, would have to be Berdych, with Gasquet a close second. Gasquet actually has some big GS wins, Berdych has none to my knowledge, so yeah, I'd go with Berdych.

CocaCola
04-10-2009, 09:41 AM
Gilles Muller for me.

deltox
04-10-2009, 10:02 AM
i gotta go with Safin here.

deltox
04-10-2009, 10:04 AM
you cant be an underachiever if you've actually achieved something.



achieving something doesnt remove underachiever from the definition.


underachiever is one who does not achieve their FULL potential.

maximo
04-10-2009, 10:06 AM
Gasquet for sure.

musicalmedic81
04-10-2009, 10:09 AM
I gotta say James Blake. Dudes got raw talent and strokes that could have won him a grand slam, but very weak mentally and has no plan B. Had he allowed some outside perspective from another coach at some point who could have helped him develop a plan B when Plan A isnt working, I think he could have been so much better and could have possibly picked up atleast 1 US open.

fps
04-10-2009, 10:23 AM
achieving something doesnt remove underachiever from the definition.


underachiever is one who does not achieve their FULL potential.

i agree, but re safin:
safin achieved everything he could. the mental side is not something that can be *fixed* magically, and is just as important as the physical side at the very top of the tour.

underachiever? maybe berdych, but that kind of streaky player is always a game away from disaster.

i expected more of gasquet but physically and tactically he's not taken his game to the next level. gulbis is still young but i expected more by now. not sure why.

biggest underachiever is probably Coria, seeing as he's just turned 27 and yet doesn't seem to be on tour anymore.

jamesblakefan#1
04-10-2009, 10:28 AM
achieving something doesnt remove underachiever from the definition.


underachiever is one who does not achieve their FULL potential.

I was just kinda making the point that to call someone who's won 2 slams and been world #1 an underachiever is expecting too much, IMO. Not every player is gonna be GOAT.

rubberduckies
04-10-2009, 10:28 AM
Nalbandian. He has actual talent, which is different from imagined talent of guys like Gasquet.

deltox
04-10-2009, 10:29 AM
I was just kinda making the point that to call someone who's won 2 slams and been world #1 an underachiever is expecting too much, IMO. Not every player is gonna be GOAT.

but safin actually had the physical ability to start with, he didnt have to form or build anything from scracth, all he had to do was focus and maintain.

jamesblakefan#1
04-10-2009, 10:33 AM
I still don't see it. What were your expectations from Safin? He wasn't gonna win 13 GS's like Federer. Maybe he could've won a couple more, but to call him an underachiever compared to guys who are just as talented and have no grand slams is a mistake.

GS
04-10-2009, 10:37 AM
Yeah, Nalbandian could of achieved more, and Safin, too (with his head on). The other head case is, of course, Rios.

egn
04-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Everybody's gonna say Safin, but you cant be an underachiever if you've actually achieved something.

Underachiever, in the pure sense, would have to be Berdych, with Gasquet a close second. Gasquet actually has some big GS wins, Berdych has none to my knowledge, so yeah, I'd go with Berdych.

Safin should have won more than 2 slams.

Even agassi can be called an underachiever at points, becuase a lot can make the case that Agassi should have won 10+. But Safin is a huge underachiever Safin had the game that could kill the best and he failed to ever use it. Safin should have won 6 slams easily and could have probably won a lot more. I vote Safin.

I still don't see it. What were your expectations from Safin? He wasn't gonna win 13 GS's like Federer. Maybe he could've won a couple more, but to call him an underachiever compared to guys who are just as talented and have no grand slams is a mistake.

I expected Safin to have 8 he got 2 that is 1/4th I would call that underachieving.


I expected only 1 French Open out of RIos..he never got it, not a huge loss. Safin I expected great things from. I thought in 2001 Safin was going to be far greater than Fed. In 2005 when he struck gold at Australia I even then expected a turn around..never saw it.

NotSoSuper
04-10-2009, 10:49 AM
Safin, Baghdatis, Gasquet, Nalbandian.

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 10:56 AM
I'd say in a talent to success ratio, it's Safin.

jamesblakefan#1
04-10-2009, 11:00 AM
Safin should have won more than 2 slams.

Even agassi can be called an underachiever at points, becuase a lot can make the case that Agassi should have won 10+. But Safin is a huge underachiever Safin had the game that could kill the best and he failed to ever use it. Safin should have won 6 slams easily and could have probably won a lot more. I vote Safin.



I expected Safin to have 8 he got 2 that is 1/4th I would call that underachieving.


I expected only 1 French Open out of RIos..he never got it, not a huge loss. Safin I expected great things from. I thought in 2001 Safin was going to be far greater than Fed. In 2005 when he struck gold at Australia I even then expected a turn around..never saw it.

So you expected Safin to win as many GS as Lendl, Connors, and Agassi, and more than McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker? I think your expectations were too high if you had Safin being top 5 all-time in GS wins. It takes a lot to win a GS, and safin has shown that he has far from what it takes mentally to win that many slams.

egn
04-10-2009, 11:05 AM
So you expected Safin to win as many GS as Lendl, Connors, and Agassi, and more than McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker? I think your expectations were too high if you had Safin being top 5 all-time in GS wins. It takes a lot to win a GS, and safin has shown that he has far from what it takes mentally to win that many slams.

When Safin just showed up huge in 2000 his game amazed me. 8 might have been high but it was very reasonable to give him credit for 5 or 6. He has an outstanding game on hardcourts and fast surfaces, he also was good on clay at his best. I easily could have seen him winning 3 US 2 Aussie and maybe a French. I liked him a lot so I thought he could win 8. Safin even failed to achieve when he should have. He should have won 3 easily he lost to Johansson in that AO final, and in 2001 he just let an aging Sampras blow him away. Safin could have won have 5 or 6 and he still failed since most of the other "underachievers" people would have expected to win what 1 or 2 slams..you need to achieve something to underachieve.

Mdubb23
04-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Beyond the obvious, Robert Kendrick comes to mind.

Andyk028
04-10-2009, 11:19 AM
Baggy!!!!!!!!!!

darthpwner
04-10-2009, 12:10 PM
goran ivanisevic

P_Agony
04-10-2009, 12:38 PM
Safin and Gasquet. Nalbandian too.

fastdunn
04-10-2009, 01:05 PM
I gotta say James Blake. Dudes got raw talent and strokes that could have won him a grand slam, but very weak mentally and has no plan B. Had he allowed some outside perspective from another coach at some point who could have helped him develop a plan B when Plan A isnt working, I think he could have been so much better and could have possibly picked up atleast 1 US open.

Hmm, I think I know what you mean. As Brad Gilbert said, I think James Blake still plays on a platform of 90's tennis, very aggressive risk taking tennis. For example, the way he hits winner off 1st serves, like Agassi in 90's. Heck, even Agassi went much more conservative andstopped doing that, once 21st century started. As Brad Gilber also said, I think today's tennis is about defense(and much more conservative counter punching). With all that physical talents Blake has (fast wheel and powerful strokes), he could have done quite fine with more conservative brand of tennis....

papucla10
04-10-2009, 06:40 PM
I have always liked blake but he has no confidence on himself, he does not think, he should change coach someone like brand, I don't know I just think Blake could do much more with the kind of game he has.

T1000
04-10-2009, 06:42 PM
nalbandian, safin, baghdatis,

aphex
04-10-2009, 11:09 PM
gulbis......

lawrence
04-10-2009, 11:32 PM
Philippoussis anyone?

jamesblakefan#1
04-10-2009, 11:49 PM
gulbis......

Please, Gulbis? He's more overrated than underachieving at this stage of his career.

smO
04-11-2009, 12:06 AM
Nalby, Safin and Gasquet.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-11-2009, 05:55 AM
I would say Baby-Fed,Goran and Fat Dave,if i HAVE to pick one its gotta be fat Dave,the way he played in TMC 2005 and in Madrid and Paris TMS where he beat Fed and The king of Spin back to back is just amazing! His highest level is truly amazing,his lowest level is at Future-level

Serendipitous
04-11-2009, 07:39 AM
I would say Baby-Fed,Goran and Fat Dave,if i HAVE to pick one its gotta be fat Dave,the way he played in TMC 2005 and in Madrid and Paris TMS where he beat Fed and The king of Spin back to back is just amazing! His highest level is truly amazing,his lowest level is at Future-level


Ummmmmm......may I ask why you are referring to David Nalbandian as "fat"?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-11-2009, 07:43 AM
Ummmmmm......may I ask why you are referring to David Nalbandian as "fat"?


Just a fun nickname,i know he is not fat.

Serendipitous
04-11-2009, 07:45 AM
Just a fun nickname,i know he is not fat.


Okay, good.


I have heard some people say on these forums that he needs to lose some weight and that he likes to eat hamburgers.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-11-2009, 09:04 AM
Okay, good.


I have heard some people say on these forums that he needs to lose some weight and that he likes to eat hamburgers.

LOL! Well,maybe he does...but he is still very fit,i think he Rafa and Murray might be 3 of the strongest guys on tour.
His arms are really muscular but he DOESNT like to practice.

Ocean Drive
04-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Everybody's gonna say Safin, but you cant be an underachiever if you've actually achieved something.

Underachiever, in the pure sense, would have to be Berdych, with Gasquet a close second. Gasquet actually has some big GS wins, Berdych has none to my knowledge, so yeah, I'd go with Berdych.

Yes you can, he could have achieved much more, especially if he didn't get seriously injured in 05.

Ocean Drive
04-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Just a fun nickname,i know he is not fat.

he has got a huge gut, didn't you see him changing his shirt at the AO, unbelievable, looked like he was in the worst shape of his career.

ChanceEncounter
04-11-2009, 01:38 PM
Safin and Nalbandian come to mind immediately.

I also think the ultra-athletic guys like Monfils or Tsonga could achieve more, but their games are just not well designed.

dunlop kid
04-11-2009, 01:40 PM
I'd have to say Safin, Ferrero, Haas and Blake.

All are the most talented players and have been cut down by injuries.

jamesblakefan#1
04-11-2009, 05:31 PM
I'd have to say Safin, Ferrero, Haas and Blake.

All are the most talented players and have been cut down by injuries.

Blake was actually better after his injury.

I still think Safin achieved all he could due to his weak mental game. Even if he'd have been healthy, what's to say that he would have been good enough mentally to pull out 5-6 GS titles.

Tennis_Monk
04-11-2009, 05:40 PM
it has to be me.

SAFINATORZ
04-11-2009, 05:41 PM
MARCELO RIOS- Great talent, no grand slams. Hasn't done enough with his talent.

Thomas Enqvist- He should've won atleast 1 or 2 grandslams.

Tommy Haas, James Blake, Tim henman, Mark Philippoussis.

other names who should've done more- Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich.

RFtennis
04-11-2009, 05:42 PM
Mark Philliopousos.