Biggest underachiever, that isn't big-3!

Who is your underachieving guy?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Tsonga was a solid top 5 player in his day. He's not in the same category as Monfils.
Also much stronger mentally, as evidenced by all his come-from-behind wins.
Monfils' highest rank was 6, Tsonga's was 5.
 

NastyWinners

Professional
My vote is Berdych, maybe he underachieved due to Federer, Nadal, Novak and Murray being so consistent. However, someone with his power and timing should have had at least a few more slam final appearances and even snuck out a title or two.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
It's gotta be Murray. Who else has been that consistently better than 99% of the field but kept running into the same 3 dudes late in the big tourneys.
 

Bike Man

New User
In today's big-man's game, Kei comes in a bit undersized. Also, he's had more than his share of injuries. I was talking to one his coaches last weekend and he mentioned that one of the things Kei has done is drop his string tension quite a bit. I'm currently struggling with an elbow issue; I think I try the same with my racquets. But back to the question, I wouldn't consider Kei an underachiever; with his size (5'10"), I'd say quite the opposite.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Wawrinka.

Since 2013 he's made it to at least a slam quarterfinal 13 times...going to the semifinal 9 times, and the final 4 times (3 wins). So where the hell was this game pre-2013/pre-age 28, when he only made it to a slam QF twice? And, tennis is both BO5 and BO3. Three different slams won, but just one Masters won?
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Davydenko probably. He had the game to beat anyone, but when he wasn't busy match fixing he would always run into peak Federer. Or doping Puerta that one time.

Nalbandian and Roddick as well I suppose.

Generation useless have not underachieved at all. They can't do anything even with all the top guys way past it.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
Tsonga. Made 08 Aussie Final, beat Fed on grass down 0-2 to make 11 Wimby semifinal. The guy underachieved horribly.

Firstly, back to back Wimbledons 11-12 had chances against Murray & Novak. Played way down and made stupid mistakes.

USO open against Cilic in 15, Wimbledon 16 choke against eventual champ Murray and 14 USO straight set to Murray just a mudslide.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Good point! And that memorable 2008's AO run of his was simply terrific! The way henplayed, you could project it onto the future and imagine him becoming another great serve and volley expert like McEnroe or Edberg! He had crazy touch back then! Sadly, that changed! Baghdatis is the other example, who also comes to mind!
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
My vote is Berdych, maybe he underachieved due to Federer, Nadal, Novak and Murray being so consistent. However, someone with his power and timing should have had at least a few more slam final appearances and even snuck out a title or two.
Only major I could see Berdych EVER winning is the 2002 Australian Open.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
In my opinion (and in that of many others) he could have squeezed a lot more. So there.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

With his level of play he's lucky he won the 3 he did in the era he played in. He wasn't beating the Big 3 when they were peaking.
 

Dimitris

New User
Tsonga. Except his backhand his game is very solid. (Forehand, serve, volleys) and made only one slam final. Next I'd say Dimitrov. Never even came close to what people initially expected.
 

papertank

Hall of Fame
Murray for sure. In every category other than slams he usually ranks ahead of the likes of Edberg, Becker, Wilander.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
Monfils of course, talent, power, speed, he had it all to be no1, never won a master...

Tsonga is a similar case.

Dimitrov also has a great game, zero results.

Del Potro and Murray should have won more slams, definitely.
 

guitarra

Professional
My vote is for Del Potro, he lost 3-4 entire years due to injuries and in another 2 was still struggling. If not for that he would easily add a couple of slams to his count.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Tsonga. Except his backhand his game is very solid. (Forehand, serve, volleys) and made only one slam final. Next I'd say Dimitrov. Never even came close to what people initially expected.
Dimitorv was too hyped because his game was resembling Federer's.

Without that resemblance, I don't think many people would consider him an underachiever.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In my opinion (and in that of many others, see the poll figures) he could have squeezed a lot more. So there.
I agree that Murray could have won more slams, but keep in mind that he could have lost the slams he has already won too.

Lots of close calls at the 2012 USO. Although he did have a relatively difficult draw there.

Close call against Verdasco at 2013 Wimb.

Close call against Tsonga at 2016 Wimb.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I agree that Murray could have won more slams, but keep in mind that he could have lost the slams he has already won too.

Lots of close calls at the 2012 USO. Although he did have a relatively difficult draw there.

Close call against Verdasco at 2013 Wimb.

Close call against Tsonga at 2016 Wimb.
You can say that of many players on their way to winning Slams. Many have come through tough draws or been in danger of going out at some point but they came through and that's what makes the difference between a champion and a wannabee. :cool:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You can say that of many players on their way to winning Slams. Many have come through tough draws or been in danger of going out at some point but they came through and that's what makes the difference between a champion and a wannabee. :cool:
All very true, I'm just saying that Murray isn't really a lock against the field the same way the Big 3 are.
 
Top