Talking about potential....
 

If every player from the 2000s maximised his potential, how many slams would he have won.

Yes, this is supposed to be a speculative thread.

are we talking strictly players whose professional career started after 2000 or generally speaking notable players of the 2000s tennis era?

Nadal 8
Federer 12
Djokovic 8
Haas 2
Coria 1
Nalbandian 6
Safin 8
Del Potro 2
Murray 2

Somethink like that IMO. I didn't count the exact amount of slams would be taken into consideration. Or since when do you start counting.

Nalbandian and Safin come to my mind. Nalby, if he was dedicated enough could have won few slams. Safin, if it wasn't for injuries, vodka and women should have won at least 3/4 more slams.

Haas is another one. One of the most talented players I had a privilege to watch. Unfortunately he got into that stupid accident ... but the biggest problem with Tommy Haas was his nerves. Despite all of his talent, superior shot making, beautiful net play, you name it, he just wasn't able to stay composed. He was a complete mental mess. too bad, too sad.

The latter.

This is a speculative thread, if I ever saw one.

Tru dat....

I think Safin, were it not for injuries and perhaps mentality, would have taken some Majors away from Roger. I feel like Nalbandian should have won say 1 Major, and Safin about 6.

Wow, this is interesting. I maybe in the minority here in that I think Fed is both awesome but could have been mentally tougher.
I say Fed would have had 20 slams already if he had "maximized" his potential.

Federer is in a special tier of 'talent' along with the likes of Laver and McEnroe. He should have won at least 56 Slams but will have to settle for 17 or so.

Seems pretty obvious that Federer in full flight with his new found mental strength vs. the Nadal would pick up a large majority of the majors. He would probably lose every now and then just to see what it feels like.

Fantastic and well thought out thread, as usual, dangalak :cool:

When Federer lost his first match against Nadal was that due to mental weakness? Imagine if Nadal didn't have that foot condition in that contributed to the weakening of his knees and therefore prevented him from reaching his true potential. What if Murray had hired Lendl earlier in his career. Imagine if Djokovic had discovered the gluten-free diet earlier.

All meaningless, The-Champ. All of uber Fed's opponents would be blinded by his sheer brilliance and would fittingly be crushed under the weight of his excellence. :lol:

The thing is, Nadal DOES have that foot condition. If he didn't have it, that's not maximising his potential, that's magically increasing it.

It's like saying "what if Isner wasn't one of the slowest players in the game".

PLease *****, don't be insecure. If you feel this scenario would see Nadal beating Federer even easier, feel free to say so.

Not Tipsy, he is wearing those cool shades!

Your thread is speculative! It deserves an uber fh from Rafa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUCx8...eature=related

:D

Funny thing is, some commentator said that Tipsy was unique because he actually didn't choke against Federer in the AO. He just played him like another player. Federer had to actually come up with his best returns to finally break him.

That's true. He was very clutch in that match and served very well. Certainly one of Tipsy's greatest displays ever.

On topic, Tipsy is actually a guy with great potential, in he doesn't exactly lack that much. Cleaner ballstriker than any in the top 4 (yes, cleaner than Djokovic) great movement, unreal backhand, and probably the best serve I've seen in a while, controlling for height. Well, except fro Raonic and Roddick I guess. :lol:

Wonder what this guy is lacking.

yeah, right. you mean on blue clay. agree with you, lol, NOT. and enough of Raonic, I'm getting annoyed by this serve bot :). I'm Canadian but I prefer Dancevic. The problem is all of these guys are from former Yugoslavia, it's weird. Djokovic, Nestor (they say Nestorovic is his real name, I don't know), Tipsarevic, Jankovic, Ivanovic,. not sure with this 'ich' thing btw.