Who was biggest underachiever of Stich, Ivanisevic, Cash, Krajicek

[NadalAgassi]

Which of these 1 slam winners was the biggest underachiever.

[Carsomyr]

Stich. He was supremely talented and could play on any surface.

[Mustard]

I think it's Goran Ivanisevic. He had the potential to win many Wimbledons and dominate indoors, and even win some big titles on clay.

Then again, Goran was so volatile that he could easily have ended up winning no majors at all.

[90's Clay]

I think Stich was the most talented of them all. I believe Sampras even said, Stich was perhaps the most talented player he ever played against. Tough to say though.. Krajicek was very talented. Goran was very talented but a head case. Goran would have won quite a few wimbledon crowns but unfortunately he was stuck in the same era with Sampras.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think it's Goran Ivanisevic. He had the potential to win many Wimbledons and dominate indoors, and even win some big titles on clay.

Then again, Goran was so volatile that he could easily have ended up winning no majors at all.

Hmm what do you mean by big titles on clay. I certainly dont think Goran Ivanisevic was capable of winning the French Open. He did have potential to win more Wimbledons but was never going to dominate Wimbledon in the Sampras era.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hmm what do you mean by big titles on clay. I certainly dont think Goran Ivanisevic was capable of winning the French Open. He did have potential to win more Wimbledons but was never going to dominate Wimbledon in the Sampras era.

Goran reached finals of Rome and Hamburg, and was a multiple quarter finalist at the French Open.

[tguru]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Stich. He was supremely talented and could play on any surface.

Re:Stich
I think you confuse talent with "flashy" or "potential". I once watched him drill his topspin backhand and it couldn't hit water if it fell out of a canoe. He came to Tennis late and it showed.

[BauerAlmeida]

Pat Cash is the one I liked more of those from what I saw.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Goran reached finals of Rome and Hamburg, and was a multiple quarter finalist at the French Open.

I dont think that is enough to show potential to win a French Open. Potential to win a Masters on clay perhaps, so if that is what you meant I could agree. I dont think he could have won a French Open looking at the FO winners that era who were all superior clay courters to him by a good margin. I dont recall, who did he lose those two finals to. I think one was to Courier.

[Sadyv]

Originally Posted by tguru

Re:Stich
I think you confuse talent with "flashy" or "potential". I once watched him drill his topspin backhand and it couldn't hit water if it fell out of a canoe. He came to Tennis late and it showed.

Flashy or potential doesn't get you to finals of the French Open, US Open, and a champion at Wimbledon.

Flashy doesn't allow you to tear Muster and Rosset apart on clay, to outplay a peak Edberg or Becker, or to have a winning head to head record over Pete Sampras.

Your anecdote is pointless, because every player in the history of the game has had days where they are in poor form.

[NadalAgassi]

Anyway I picked Stich. He was a true threat on all surfaces. Finals or Roland Garros and blew a winnable match with a weak performance, Wimbledon Champion, U.S Open runner up but had the bad luck of facing his nightmare matchup in the final, ATP World Championship winner over Sampras on fast carpet.

[Mike Bulgakov]

I would go with Stich. He had incredible talent, but had many interests outside of tennis. My understanding is that he was a late developer in tennis terms due to academic pursuits, and he never had the singular focus on tennis that one normally sees at the top of the game.

[Gizo]

Definitely Michael Stich.

He had an outstanding backhand that he could hit any type of shot with very well (topspin, slice, drop shot, passing shot etc). In the last 20-25 years the only player I've seen with a one handed backhand return as good as his has been his compatriot Becker.

His clearly had an excellent serve with one of the smoothest service motions I've ever seen and was a strong volleyer. He also had superb athleticism and could move very well on all surfaces. His forehand could be shaky at times but he worked hard to improve it and it was excellent during his 1996 RG final run.

The backhand overhead is the hardest shot in tennis in my opinion, but for him it was a speciality.

He was very comfortable serve-volleying or staying at the baseline. Courier and Newcombe labelled him as the most technically complete player of his generation which I agree with. Sampras said he was the opponent he feared facing the most. Even his ultimate nemesis Agassi praised his talent, ability and versatility in his autobiography.

He was certainly more well rounded and had better results across all surfaces than any of those other players. Goran never reached a slam final outside Wimbledon, never reached the semis at either the Australian Open or Roland Garros and never won a big title on clay. Krajicek never reached a slam final outside Wimbledon, never reached the semis at the US Open and didn't win a super 9 title on clay (although his one career clay title at Barcelona was still a pretty big one). Cash didn't really do much of note on clay.

Stich reached slam finals on grass, hard and clay, reached the semis or better at all 4 slams and had some good tournament wins on all surfaces.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I dont think that is enough to show potential to win a French Open. Potential to win a Masters on clay perhaps, so if that is what you meant I could agree. I dont think he could have won a French Open looking at the FO winners that era who were all superior clay courters to him by a good margin. I dont recall, who did he lose those two finals to. I think one was to Courier.

He lost to Courier in the 1993 Rome final, and lost to Medvedev in the 1995 Hamburg final. His French Open quarter finals he lost to Muster in 1990, Courier in 1992 and Berasategui in 1994. He did win the Stuttgart Outdoor tournament in 1990, beating Perez-Roldan.

[Gonzo_style]

Ivanisevic i think, but Goran had to deal with Sampras on his best surface!

[TMF]

If the poll included Roddick, i pick him.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

If the poll included Roddick, i pick him.

If the poll included Rios, I'd pick him.

If you look at Roddick's game and his weapons, one might say he was an over-achiever. And yes, he played in the era of Federer.

[90's Clay]

For Roddick to stay in the top 10 that long with limited weapons, speed and footwork, you could definitely cast Roddick as a bit of an overachiever in that regard

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

If the poll included Rios, I'd pick him.

If you look at Roddick's game and his weapons, one might say he was an over-achiever. And yes, he played in the era of Federer.

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.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

If Rios and Roddick traded places, I can see Roddick would have a great career.

Interesting: Roddick playing 1994-2003.

Their H2H is 0-2 for Roddick (both in 2001).