Whos the biggest underacheiver?
- Thread starter ESP#1
- Start date
S H O W S T O P P E R !
Hall of Fame
Donald Young; he should be at least somewhere in the 50-90's, but he's still hovering in the 100's without a single title.
soyizgood
G.O.A.T.
Nalbandian. Loaded with talent, was making semis of slams by age 20, can play baseline or all-around, the gold standard for hitting two-handed backhands, and could destroy the best when on all cylinders.
He lost his focus while his physical conditioning took a dump. He just doesn't seem to care about tennis anymore or for just parts of the year (i.e. part-time player mindset). I root for the guy, but it's frustrating to see such a player underachieve year after year.... ARGH!
He lost his focus while his physical conditioning took a dump. He just doesn't seem to care about tennis anymore or for just parts of the year (i.e. part-time player mindset). I root for the guy, but it's frustrating to see such a player underachieve year after year.... ARGH!
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
Safin and Nalbandian are the usuals; so I'm gonna say Gasquet, but his career is far from over.
S H O W S T O P P E R !
Hall of Fame
Agreed. If he was just mentally stronger, Fed v Nalbandian would be the big rivalry today, not Fed v Nadal.
thalivest
Banned
Or do you mean Nalbandian vs Nadal, who is the current #1 after all.
Anyway it isnt just mental toughness, I actually think often times Nalbandian is a real fighter although he can go in partial tank mode too. Alot of his problem is he doesnt work hard enough off the court on a regular basis, he often shows up out of shape and his fitness is often suspect. If he worked harder off the court on a more regular basis he would have a better shot to fulfill his potential. Look at Serena Williams's, she is considered a massive underachiever despite all her success yet nobody would accuse her of lacking mental strength. You have to keep up the fitness level and conditioning, you have to put in the miles in the gym and in practice.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Nalbandian then Gasquet although Gasquet is far from the finished product and is still on 22.
ESP#1
Professional
Rios good one i knew i was missing a big one
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Nalbandian and Safin. I'll give it to Nalbandian as he didn't even win a slam. Yet he can beat all the top players when on.
thalivest
Banned
I voted Nalbandian but IMO Berdych and Baghdatis are much bigger wastes of talents than Gasquet. Much more than Gasquet they have the right weapons and the right type of game to work in the modern game. They can scare people with their firepower and ability to dominate a match on a good day. Gasquet cant really do this, not vs the real big guns anyway.
You'd think someone with a huge serve, huge forehand, pretty big BH, solid hands at the net, and decent movement for a big man would be a little bit higher than where he is.
thalivest
Banned
I think his loss to Nadal in the 07 Wimbledon quarters really hurt his career. I think that is where he thought he was going to have the breakthrough and to get straight setted like that by Nadal, who up to then he had dominated on non-clay surfaces, was demoralizing to him.
I think he is another player who could benefit from a real strategy coach though. He doesnt seem to have any understanding how to use his weapons, he almost seems lost on court sometimes.
Agassi should be on here, considering he didn't play the AO at all until midway through his career, and he was a constant tanker even late into his career. He also disappeared from the tour for 2-3 years or so.
Considering Agassi was one of the best returners in the game, and one of the best pure ballstrikers, I'd have to say he underachieved quite abit.
Considering Agassi was one of the best returners in the game, and one of the best pure ballstrikers, I'd have to say he underachieved quite abit.
GameSampras
Banned
Safin IMO.. More raw talent than Nalbandian I think.. That should make him the biggest underachiever in history IMO. If Safin's head, focus, mental toughness matched his Talent, Safin IMO would have have gone down as the GOAT bar none and the GS record holder
He's not an underachiever considering his circumstances. He did have a few years full of injury, and I'm pretty sure he considers tennis a job rather than a sport.
I don't see how Rios is an underachiever, considering he's not that good. I mean, he can't even beat a 50 year old McEnroe convincingly. During his best years, he got torched by a 2002 Federer, Peter Korda, and plenty of other players. He just benefited from a slight power vacuum to allow him to ascend to world #1.
GameSampras
Banned
Well yea Injuries as well.. Of course its apart of the game.. But only 2 slams? Pete had his share of injuries as well. So did Andre and countless others. I think we all could agree that Safin had the talent to be a right up there competing with Sampras and Fed in terms of slams. If you go back and watch Fed-Safin AO 2005, you really could see the talent Safin had. IMO maybe be even more talented than Roger if only be a slim margin. He certainly has the bigger shots as was shown at AO 2005. He just overpowered a prime Fed. Not to mention the 00 US OPEN against Pete. These matches really showed what Safin was capable of once in a blue moon. He was playing like the GOAT against Fed and Pete
Last edited:
I don't know about that. Even if Safin did fully commit himself to tennis, there is no way he can play consistently the way he does. The man hits 90 mph backhands with ease for crying out loud.
I actually didnt get into tennis until after he was already done, but hearing how silky smooth he was and how he made it to number one and never one a slam I considered him underachieving by alot.
GameSampras
Banned
Maybe underrated for Rios? Hes widely regarded as one of the worst #1 players of all time. He had a good game though.
Silky smooth means nothing. He benefited greatly from defeating opponents who were either in their slumps (Agassi, who just recently came back) or second tier guys (like Henman). Rios wasn't that talented, otherwise he would have won a slam. Heck, Safin won 2 slams partying and dating every hot woman on the face of the planet.
Even the second tier level players dominated him at times. Chang was 6-1 against Rios, and his only loss came way late into Chang's career in 2000. Chang recorded a few impressive victories like a 7-5, 6-1, 6-4 beatdown in the Australian Open QF. Kafelnikov, regarded as one of the weakest world #1's was 6-2 against Rios. So in truth, Rios wasn't that good at all. He probably overachieved TBH.
Last edited:
GameSampras
Banned
You guys think 8 slams for Andre is underachieving? Granted much like Nadal-Fed in this era, Andre and Pete took a few slams away from each other. Andre could have ended up in the neighborhood or 12-13 slams if it wasnt for Pete. Who knows maybe more if he didnt go MIA while he was supposed to be in his prime. I would assume Pete would have gotten another AO or two had it not been for Andre. Much as Roger would have broke the record along time ago had it not been for Nadal. Along with a couple RG's. Maybe they were more victim of circumstances.
8 slams for someone as talented as Andre Agassi is definitely underachieving. Considering he was in tank mode for half of his career, and the other half of his career he was outside of his physical prime, I'd say he could have done better had he taken tennis abit more seriously. Especially if he decided to play the Australian Open before 95.
Also, he should have 3 FO titles to his name, considering he pulled epic choke jobs to give those titles away.
S
srinrajesh
Guest
Nalbandian is definitely right up there - he is yet to win a grand slam for all his talent.
He seems so good at times that its frustating to see him lose early in grand slams and even when he reaches the later stages he doesnt seem to play his best. The fact that he had reached the wimbledon final at 20 may have made him overconfident and he may felt the grand slam win was just around the corner. He was able to reach no.3 ranking and reached SF at all 4 grand slams but couldnt go further.
Safin is another player who has underachieved despte reaching no.1 ranking and winning 2 grand slams. This is probably due to his lack of focus on tennis and injury problems.
He seems so good at times that its frustating to see him lose early in grand slams and even when he reaches the later stages he doesnt seem to play his best. The fact that he had reached the wimbledon final at 20 may have made him overconfident and he may felt the grand slam win was just around the corner. He was able to reach no.3 ranking and reached SF at all 4 grand slams but couldnt go further.
Safin is another player who has underachieved despte reaching no.1 ranking and winning 2 grand slams. This is probably due to his lack of focus on tennis and injury problems.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I think if he had played better in his 20s, he would have had less in the tank for great results late in his career, so all in all his end achievements wouldn't be that different. The turning point was Courier winning the FO in 1991, man that should never have happened, Agassi was the better player by far!
egn
Hall of Fame
For Andre though it is, you look at the raw talent he had and from they years 89-95 the fact that he only won 3 slams in those years makes everyone wonder. If you can win 5 slams in the end of your career and could only muster 3 either you were injuried or did not care. Sure in the end the only slam he was winning was Australia, but from 89-95 he was a threat on clay and hard courts. He made two French Open finals and came up short both times. He could have easily won one of those he had beaten both opponents on clay (well actually Gomez yes would have to check on Courier) He also was too cocky, he underestimated his opponenets and cared more about his image. Agassi should have 12-15 slams. Also he never "felt like" playing the Austrlian Open. Injuries did hurt, but he still should have focused more at the start. So he was an underachiever, but I would not cal him the biggest.
Safin though biggest all time. If he stopped being such a mental wreck he could have won 5 or 6 slams. He did something nobody was able to do, beat Federer on a slam other than French Open in his prime. Safin can still beat the top when his head is in the game. Safin just could not keep his head focused on the game and was a mental wreck.
thalivest
Banned
That was the first of 6 straight wins Courier had over Agassi which would stretch to almost 5 years before Agassi got his next win. First off Courier in the early 90s was actually the better and more successful player of the two during that time period. Anything else would be simply a lie, no matter which player you prefer. As well obviously Courier was a bad matchup for Agassi.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
The reason why I said that is because there was a rain delay in that final. Before the rain delay Agassi was completely dominating Courier (like he had before at FO, Agassi served him a breadstick and a bagel at RG 1990). Everything changed after the rain delay and Agassi started playing like crap. I always thought that match was the turning point in their head to head, it gave Courier massive confidence and he gathered a lot of momentum from it but Courier was nowhere near Agassi in the talent department and his career was very short (much shorter than Agassi's obviously, he only had big wins from 91 to 93). You liked Courier's style? To me he was a baseline brute with no volleying skills or touch at all and unlike Agassi he was never really a threat for Sampras. If Agassi had won that final at RG, my feeling is that Agassi would have done big the next 2 years and that would have been more logical than Courier doing it. PS I was in the stadium during that final, worst day of my life watching Agassi wasting his wonderful skills with a mixture of (probably) overconfidence, inadequate preparation and nerves
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
Well, if you can't appreciate the talent of Rios, then that is your problem. He should have done a lot more with it. Many top players have called him one of the greatest talents ever. Off course, you know better than them.
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
Well, this is a good example of how statistics can be manipulated. You take the two lopsided head to heads and forget about all the favorable h2h's Rios had against many top players.
GameSampras
Banned
Gosh winning 8 slams and winning every slam there was on every surface in an era where the diversity of play was unreal as opposed to today, I would say thats a pretty damn good accomplishment for Andre. Sure he could have had more than 8 slams, but his resume is pretty darn solid. How many equaled what Andre did at the slams winning the Grand Slam? Laver? And I believe there was one other player. So two players in HISTORY could only duplicate the multi surface success Andre achieved And Andre was one of the few BASELINERS that could win wimbeldon when Grass was dominated by the serve-volleyers. Defeating Goran in 92.
The majority of players present and future will never accomplish what Andre did at the slams. Maybe NONE ever will. Maybe Andre was the last to do so
The majority of players present and future will never accomplish what Andre did at the slams. Maybe NONE ever will. Maybe Andre was the last to do so
Last edited:
thejoe
Hall of Fame
You know, I agree with you, but I think I do consider Andre an underachiever. Mainly, as he is truly one of the greatest of all time, but his slam count seems to put people off lumping him in with Rod, Pete and Roger. If he hadn't gone AWOL for a few years, he would have a couple more.
navratilovafan
Banned
Agassi shouldnt be lumped with those guys anyway. They were all dominant players. Agassi was never a dominant player.
I took two lop sided H2Hs against one of the weakest world #1s ever who had magic dream draws (Sampras in the SF of the French Open? LOL) and then a relatively weak 1 GS champion.
Rios did not have favorable H2Hs with anyone that I know of. He was 3-2 against Henman, 0-2 against a pre-prime Federer, 2-3 against a pre-prime Hewitt, 1-3 against Safin, 2-1 against Agassi (2 wins during Agassi's slump), 0-2 against Sampras, etc.
I mean, I guess he was 3-0 against a burnt out Jim Courier and 5-2 against Carlos Moya, but that's not saying much.
He is a huge overachiever in the sense that he was not talented enough to win a GS on sheer talent alone. Period. Agassi and Safin did it, as well as Federer in 2003. He got completely destroyed by a well past prime Petr Korda in the only final he ever made.
Last edited:
He wasn't that talented. If he WAS one of the greatest talents ever, he would have been able to win on pure talent at least once. Safin did it twice, against two of the greatest players in the history of the modern era. Safin did it while drinking booze, sleeping with women, and partying after matches. There's no excuse for Rios if he was really that talented (which he's not).
His shot making abilities are far overrated, as well as his abilities to redirect balls. Djokovic is clearly more talented than him, as well as a plethora of players today (Nalbandian, Berdych, Gulbis, etc.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
