Originally Posted by TMF
i don't mind Rios is on the poll. The OP should have more options, and 3 of his 4 options are from the 90s. Not a well balance poll.
Roddick would have multiple slams if it wasn't for Federer. Rios's had personal/injury problem, not much to do with opposing great player that stop him(unlike Roddick). Roddick got fitter by losing weight in 2009, but Roger was there to stop him at Wimbledon.
If Rios and Roddick traded places, I can see Roddick would have a great career.
When one refers to underachiever it is who didnt get the most out of their own abilities and talents, and who could have or should have done more as it was, not who could have done better if they didnt face so and so. In that sense Roddick is in no way an underachiever. Anyway if you remove Federer than Roddick's prime era would have been super super weak. Other than Hewitt for a year and half he would have faced nobody considering Nadal sucked on all non clay surfaces back then (and Roddick being irrelevant on red clay). Roddick doesnt win numerous slams in most eras. The guy is 1-5 vs grandpa Agassi so he would do well to win even 1 slam in the Sampras, Agassi, and Becker era too. Dont even get me started on the McEnroe/Borg/Connors or McEnroe/Lendl/Becker/Edberg eras which were way deeper.
Compared to the guys on the list Roddick arguably had a better career than all of them, despite that Stich and Ivanisevic especialy are far more talented than Roddick is. So obviously they were the bigger underachievers. That is a compliment to Roddick who did not waste his talent.