The dude has massive groundstrokes, big serve, strong off both wings, and good movement for his size.
Yet mental strength cannot be found?
Dimitrov would be right up there....unless f**king Sharapova counts as an alternate Grand Slam? To be fair would you trade 10 Majors to bump uglies with her? Could start a new thread on that!!
Which part of his game is better? Only forehand comes to mind and that's it.I will say that IMO Berdych both has a better game and is more talented than someone like Cilic, but unfortunately he never zoned in a slam to the extent that Marin did last year. In that sense, I guess he is an underachiever compared to a guy like Cilic.
Which part of his game is better? Only forehand comes to mind and that's it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a player who's had his longevity on tour (13 years), who hasn't missed a slam since competing in his first (so no major injuries), who for a 5 year period has been a regular feature in the top 10 and yet only has 1 Slam Final to his name and 1 M1000 title.
There's no doubt he's arguably arrived on the scene at an unfortunate time however to only have 10 titles to his name for a player of his caliber is low. A worthy comparison is David Ferrer, both basically started their Slam career at the same time and whilst he also only has the 1 Slam Final and 1 M1000 Title, he at least has 27 titles overall.
I know the argument will be made that Ferrer probably plays a much more hectic schedule and of those 27 Titles, 14 of the are 250's....even still, he's getting the most out of his time as a professional tennis player and to go back to OP's question, the same perhaps can't be said for Berdych.
As for poster who threw Dimitriov into the debate....whilst many have expected more from him, it's not exactly a fair comparison to Berdych due to Dimitriov being 6 years his Junior.
I will say that IMO Berdych both has a better game and is more talented than someone like Cilic, but unfortunately he never zoned in a slam to the extent that Marin did last year. In that sense, I guess he is an underachiever compared to a guy like Cilic.
Tsonga is another one who is in the same league as Berdych, he has one more Masters title but overall somewhat less consistency. Ferrer, Tsonga, and Berdych (and previously Soderling before he got mono) were/are kind of all on the same level. Extremely good tier 2 players who have been crushed time and time again by the top 4 players.
IMO Cilic made Berdych look underpowered and almost amateurish at Wimbledon and the U.S Open last year.
So even if he is more talented, his peak level of play isn't really higher IMO. I don't think it is a surprise even Cilic beat him to a slam even if Berydch is more consistent as a top player.
Honestly I don't think he is an underachiever. I think guys like Gasquet, Monfils, Baghdatis and many others are bigger underachievers. He isn't an overachiever like David Ferrer for instance. He gets a lot out of his abilities though, which is mostly a one dimensional ball basher, without much variety, suspect movement, and no real net game or defensive skills. What else does he bring to the table besides clean hitting and power from the baseline? Even his serve isn't a big weapon.
Here's your answer. The ultimate underachiever - at least among top 10 players - is somewhere here among these guys. The best players not to win a slam, and the number of at-least QFs they reached in slams.
Ferrer 16, 1 F
Tsonga 12, 1 F
Berdych 12, 1 F
Martin 10, 2 F
Nalbandian 10, 1 F
Henman 10
Davydenko 10
Leconte 9, 1 F
Grosjean 9
Pioline 8, 2 F
Haas 8
Mecir 7, 2 F
Rios 6,1 F, no 1
I think Tsonga is more a threat to the big 4 than Berdych. He has more an all court/all around game, and he isn't hopeless vs anyone like Berdych is to Nadal and Djoker.. I am more surprised he never got a slam than Berdych not getting one.
Yeah, Berdych had a very bad run at the slams last year. I actually watched him lose to Cilic live last year at the USO and that was frankly pathetic, he was playing very poorly although Cilic did play really well too. Pretty disappointing this year too to be honest after what seemed like a good start to the year. Berdych used to be hyper aggressive but kind of toned it down in order to construct points better, and that's when he broke through in 2010. I remember Djokovic said after losing to him at Wimbledon that year that Berdych seemed like a totally different player, how he always had that huge power but made tons of easy errors as well in the past, and how he had really reigned in his game and become a more controlled player. Cilic still plays that wild flailing style that Berdych used to do in his teens, and sometimes when you are connecting with your shots and seeing the ball like a basketball that type of game works. It did at the US Open last year for Marin.
I think Berdych toning down his power is a bad idea. He needs to be hitting with flat full out power in order to beat the top player or even someone like Cilic in the zone. I understand wanting to be more consistent, but it is more important for him to push to try and win a slam at this point in his career than being consistent. He cant beat the very top guys by doing anything but going full out, as he doesn't have the movement, point construction, feel, or grinding or fitness to back up if he isn't overpowering the opponent.
Last year he probably missed his best last chances, particularly at the Australian and U.S Opens. The Australian Open semi with Stan was really really close.
Surely the biggest underachiever is Murray?
His game is much better than Berdych or Ferrer. And yes he has 2 slams but he also has, 6 slam runner ups, 9 additional semifinals, 7 additional quarterfinals.
Out of 24 slam quarterfinals, he's won 2. Not great!
I like Murray but if he can't/couldn't beat the big 3 players consistently then how can he be considered as part of the big 4? It doesn't make sense. He should have way more slams if he is a good achiever.He didn't underachieve too much IMO, given the circumstances, because he has played many of those Major finals and semifinals against three of the best players ever. Those three are top 10 all time great players IMO. There wasn't too much Murray could have done for the vast majority of those big matches he lost. Murray wasn't expected to win many (or even any) of those big slam matches he lost. That isn't underachieving to me.
I like Murray but if he can't/couldn't beat the big 3 players consistently then how can he be considered as part of the big 4? It doesn't make sense. He should have way more slams if he is a good achiever.
I think Tsonga is more a threat to the big 4 than Berdych. He has more an all court/all around game, and he isn't hopeless vs anyone like Berdych is to Nadal and Djoker.. I am more surprised he never got a slam than Berdych not getting one.
I don't think so.
Big 4 must be jealous with Birdy's achievements:
Safin
My vote is stil for nalbandianThe dude has massive groundstrokes, big serve, strong off both wings, and good movement for his size.
Yet mental strength cannot be found?
Safin won slams.
Granted, he didn't need to go through Bull, but yeah.
Gonzalez went through "Bull". So have most the players from Federer's generation you hail as "weak".Safin won slams.
Granted, he didn't need to go through Bull, but yeah.
Tsonga is another one who is in the same league as Berdych, he has one more Masters title but overall somewhat less consistency. Ferrer, Tsonga, and Berdych (and previously Soderling before he got mono) were/are kind of all on the same level. Extremely good tier 2 players who have been crushed time and time again by the top 4 players.
Poll goddamnit! If you're going to ask a closed question, give us the opportunity to answer "yes" or "no"!The dude has massive groundstrokes, big serve, strong off both wings, and good movement for his size.
Yet mental strength cannot be found?
If you think like that,then you probably haven't seen any match that they have played on a slam,including last year USO.His forehand is much better (both bigger and a lot more reliable), backhand is comparable, Cilic serves a bit better and probably moves better (in raw speed, although I think Berdych has better footwork) but overall makes far more errors than Berdych does. Berdych frankly just constructs points a lot better than Cilic does. His technique is just a lot less repeatable than Berdych's, and I would also say that Berdych definitely has more powerful groundstrokes than he does when Tomas ramps it up.
Surely the biggest underachiever is Murray?
His game is much better than Berdych or Ferrer. And yes he has 2 slams but he also has, 6 slam runner ups, 9 additional semifinals, 7 additional quarterfinals.
Out of 24 slam quarterfinals, he's won 2. Not great!
Sampras should have easily won 20+ Majors though, so the answer is clearly Sampras.
Sampras should have won 25 slams, no doubt, meaning he should have performed 179% better.
Safin should have won 19 slams (all of feder's), meaning he should have performed a whopping 950% better (Peak-Safin-coefficient)
Stunning.
I understand your viewpoint and find it valid but have to disagree. Sampras should have performed 179% better, no doubt, but Safin overachieved — he overachieved as a result of his Russian-Spanish tennis heritage.
Tragic.
Federer is more or less maximising his talent, but Sampras was most definitely worth way more than 20 Slams. 20 is the the bare minimum tally in the unluckiest scenario.
Unfortunately what ended up happening is that he couldn't win more than 14 Slams in an era with only one other part time great battling him during the bulk of his time of success. This is why Sampras simply has to be the answer and I know some well respected (by some) Sampras fans who would agree.