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

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Interesting: Roddick playing 1994-2003.

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

Roddick was 18 in 2001.

Not sure if you're serious.

[rofl_copter3]

Marat Safin... oh wait he wasn't an option....

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Roddick was 18 in 2001.

Not sure if you're serious.

If Goran serves well, there's no way Roddick gets near him. When you know your opponent's strengths and can overcome them, they become weaknesses. Ask a certain Mr. Rusedski.

[NadalAgassi]

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If Goran serves well, there's no way Roddick gets near him. When you know your opponent's strengths and can overcome them, they become weaknesses. Ask a certain Mr. Rusedski.

hoodjem was talking about Roddick vs. Rios. Not sure what his point is because he's 2-0 against Rios.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

hoodjem was talking about Roddick vs. Rios. Not sure what his point is because he's 2-0 against Rios.

You just dont get it. Rios is considered a huge waste of talent. Roddick is not. Roddick is not even viewed as a huge talent, but a guy with a huge serve, great work ethic, great determination, and lots of consistency over a long time. So nobody will talk about Roddick as an underachiever the way they do Rios. That isnt a slight on Roddick. Nobody wants to be known as a waste of talent. Fortunately for Roddick he isnt, Rios is shamed by people as a guy who threw away his talent (even considering the bad luck he had with injuries), not an honorable label.

[kiki]

Gene Mayer.The guy was sooo talented...

[abmk]

among the four poll options, I'd definitely say stich ....

if asked in general, I'd say nalbandian, mecir, rios .... probably in that order ......

[chrischris]

Goran.

And nowadays Berdych.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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

jeez, and plenty of other players have reached CC master finals and reached QFs at the FO ...... doesn't mean they all were that good on clay ....

[kiki]

Tony Roche.The highest ratio talent/Nº of majors in tennis history.

[Tagg]

stich left because he didn't enjoy it and didn't have the single minded focus

i pick goran out of that lot

krajicek was unfortunate with injuries and form

[robow7]

Of the four, I picked Stich, probably the most complete game of the bunch. I always wondered what his career would have been like had he not been German at the same time as Becker.

[morten]

Stich is almost as talented as Fed, he just lacked drive...

[Kalin]

I wrote in Richard Krajicek because of the injuries and because Stich actually won quite some tournaments in addition to Wimbledon including a doubles GS with Johnny-Mac again at Wimbledon, Olympic gold doubles with Boom-Boon and some others (Davis Cup?).

I definitely agree that he should have won much more... seemed like he didn't care as much. Best service motion in history (Richard is not that far off!), incredible backhand and an overall fantastic game.... makes you wonder what could have been

[dominikk1985]

I don't know if stich was an underachiever. becker (who didn't have a warm relationship with stich) once said that stich had more talent than himself and on a good day he could not stop him.

but stich hadn't good days as often as boris.maybe a headcase?

[timnz]

Sampras himself said that he was enormously talented.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

If the poll included Roddick, i pick him.

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.

Outside of his serve and maybe you could argue a little for his forehand, what weapons did Roddick really have? He was slow, couldn't volley well, his backhand wasn't too good. He had an overpowering serve, one of the best ever.

All the others mentioned had far more in the tank than Roddick.

The choice here for me comes down to Stich and Ivanisevic. Stich had a very smooth beautiful style of play and some loved his backhand. I wasn't as big a fan of it. I saw Agassi tear it apart in their US Open final.

Goran imo had the greatest individual weapon of all of these four in his super duper serve. I thought his overall strokes were good and his movement was good. I guess I'll go with Goran. He should have won a lot of majors. He was able to win on all surfaces.

[droliver]

I go with Krajicek as the underachiever (relatively). He had arguably the biggest "A game" on tour for awhile but managed just 1 slam final. Watching him at 18-19 was like watching Milos Raonic with a ground game and volley's. He seemed destined for greatness (rather then just very goodness)

Stich, Cash, & Goran had multiple slam runs. They got unlucky not to collect a few more rings, but they were in the mix.

[NadalAgassi]

Krajicek had an impressive game, but he had two major liabilities even when he wasnt headcasing. His return of serve was not very good (although he seemed to return like GOAT whenever he played Sampras, lol), and his lateral movement was a liability.