Biggest Underachievers by Slam

noeledmonds

noeledmonds

Professional
Which male players have underachieved most at each Grand Slam?

AO
- I think Rios here. Rios only reached 1 GS final, and somehow managed to lost to Korda? Rios should have won several AOs really. Rios remains the only open era ATP world number 1 to have never won a GS.

FO
- Surely Vilas here. Vilas has more clay court titles than any other male open era player, yet he has only one FO title to his name. Vilas also has the 2nd longest winning streak on clay. Vilas was unlucky that 2 of his 4 FO finals were against Borg.

SW19
- This is a tough one for me. I think that Lendl, Rafter and Philippoussis all should have won a title here. Roddick would also be a conteder I guess. Becker was surely worth more than 3 titles too, given his first title was at just 17, and he reached 7 Wibledon finals in all.

USO
- There are many contenders here as well. Lendl won just 3 USO titles, despite reaching a record 8 consecutive finals. Agassi won just 2 titles in 6 finals. Then there is Borg, who managed to lose 4 finals here and win no titles. This was while he was dominating at the FO and SW19.
 
you could add ivanisevic to wimbledon.....is SW19 the cooler thing to call it now? i never really heard it like that until like a year ago....SW19 is the postcode for wimbledon right? or is there more history to it?

ivanisevic at wimbledon....runner up to agassi in 1992, sampras in 1994 and 1998....

perhaps add sampras to the us open....1992 loss to edberg where after seeing the match i felt he didnt put all the effort he could have, and the 2000 and 2001 finals, but in those he was pretty tired before the match even started

2000 was a tough match with hewitt, although it was in straight sets, and 2001 was a remarkable run which included his defeats of rafter, agassi, and safin in consecutive rounds....then was a fresh hewitt who absolutely demolished kafelnikov in the semis, not to mention like 10 years age difference
 
Ohh yes Sampras definately underachieved at the us open a tourney he won a mere four times........have you been drinking?
 
Roland Garros - Martina Hingis, she really should have completed her collection by now.. Iva Majoli Final she should have won, Stefi Graf Final she should have won..
 
cantstopme said:
psamp.....you might want to add WINNER by goran's name in 2001. Hard to underachieve at a tournament you've won!
Click to expand...

i know ivanisevic won in 2001, but like noeledmonds added becker to the list of underachievers for wimbledon, even after he won 3 times, ivanisevic i think underachieved as well

cantstopme said:
Ohh yes Sampras definately underachieved at the us open a tourney he won a mere four times........have you been drinking?
Click to expand...

the term used here is "underachieved"....which means they could have done better

i think sampras underachieved at the us open in 1992, where he could have beaten edberg

he has said that, that loss really made him "hate" losing....imo i just feel he did not try as hard as he could have, to win that match

but its just my opinion...
 
actually i think federer has underachieved ....;)

he should have won wimbledon in 2001 (beat sampras but lose to henman?.....kidding :)), and the AO in 2005, the french open in 2005 and 2006
 
psamp14 said:
you could add ivanisevic to wimbledon.....is SW19 the cooler thing to call it now? i never really heard it like that until like a year ago....SW19 is the postcode for wimbledon right? or is there more history to it?

ivanisevic at wimbledon....runner up to agassi in 1992, sampras in 1994 and 1998....

perhaps add sampras to the us open....1992 loss to edberg where after seeing the match i felt he didnt put all the effort he could have, and the 2000 and 2001 finals, but in those he was pretty tired before the match even started

2000 was a tough match with hewitt, although it was in straight sets, and 2001 was a remarkable run which included his defeats of rafter, agassi, and safin in consecutive rounds....then was a fresh hewitt who absolutely demolished kafelnikov in the semis, not to mention like 10 years age difference
Click to expand...

Maybe Goran, I see what you are saying, but really there is no shame in losing to Sampras twice at Wimbledon. He was favourite to beat Agassi at Wimbledon I guess, but in hindsight thats not so bad either.

Sampras at the USO is an intersting one. Sampras lost in 2001 to Hewitt and in 2000 to Safin (both finals). He had hard draws both those years. He really should have beaten Edberg. Still 5 USO is not so bad and I just think that players like Lendl and Agassi deserved a little more than their 3 and 2 titles.

I just call Wimbledon SW19 because it is shorter (and it gives me a superior feeling because some people don't understand it). It is from the London mailing address yes.
 
Last edited:
charlottefromca said:
Roland Garros - Martina Hingis, she really should have completed her collection by now.. Iva Majoli Final she should have won, Stefi Graf Final she should have won..
Click to expand...


No, she deservedly lost the FO 99 final.

Talking of Graf - Steffi should have won the FO 89, 90 and 92 finals.
In 89 she led 5-3 in the third set against Sanchez but was ill and lost.
In 90 she led Seles 6-2 in the first set tie-break and lost (Seles made only 1 point more than Graf - 74-73).
And in 92 she should have won as well. Lost only 8-10 in the third set, 66 unforced errors were her downfall.
And in 97 she was injured (had won 95 & 96). Would have won otherwise.
We could add 4 FOs to Graf's collection.
10 FOs would have been appropriate.

Condi
 
I dont think Rios Underachieved. There were just better players around. Korda was blitzing everyone at that AO he won, so it was no surprise that Rios didnt trouble him.
 
Condoleezza said:
No, she deservedly lost the FO 99 final.

Talking of Graf - Steffi should have won the FO 89, 90 and 92 finals.
In 89 she led 5-3 in the third set against Sanchez but was ill and lost.
In 90 she led Seles 6-2 in the first set tie-break and lost (Seles made only 1 point more than Graf - 74-73).
And in 92 she should have won as well. Lost only 8-10 in the third set, 66 unforced errors were her downfall.
And in 97 she was injured (had won 95 & 96). Would have won otherwise.
We could add 4 FOs to Graf's collection.
10 FOs would have been appropriate.

Condi
Click to expand...

Yes she deservedly lost the final.. but Martina DID have that match in the bag.. she unraveled mentally on the court though in front of millions of people.. hasn't really been the same since.
 
psamp14 said:
is SW19 the cooler thing to call it now? i never really heard it like that until like a year ago....SW19 is the postcode for wimbledon right? or is there more history to it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the first half of the Wimbledon postcode. I used to live in SW14, just a hop, skip, and jump away.

Back to the OP's Q:

With so many breakthrough victories by individuals, it seems that the field (OK, pre-Roger Federer's rise to priminence) in men's and women's tennis in the mid-90's through mid-00's was so spread out, that there were many "one hit wonders." Michael Stich stands out in my mind as a player who only seemed to put the magic together for one fortnight in his career, although he was solidly ranked for some time before fading out.
 
Has anyone looked at James Blake? Tennis Mag. said he was going to be the next US Open Champ, but he lost. Everyone was talking about his form and great playing as he went into the Aussie Open this year, but he didn't win. I think he could have done better in those grand-slams.
 
RIOS

At every one he ever played

and Agassi

Despite 8 SLams and 7 Finals appearances; he was ousted 22 times before even reaching the Qaurters. He was a true model if inconsistency
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it has been mentioned yet but Boris Becker. He was good but after Wimbledon at 17 a lot more was expected out of him which never happened.
 
Wimbledon: Philipoooooooooooooooooosus. That's right I'm not sure of the spelling so I won't try. This guy should have won Wimbledon as he had a far better grasscourt game than many baseliners like Hewitt. Unlucky to run into a hot Federer in a Final. Rafter's another who was beaten in a Wimbledon Final losing in 5 sets to a freakish Goran (what a match) !

IMO Kim Clusters should have won multiple Grand Slams but often chokes. :)
 
noeledmonds said:
Maybe Goran, I see what you are saying, but really there is no shame in losing to Sampras twice at Wimbledon. He was favourite to beat Agassi at Wimbledon I guess, but in hindsight thats not so bad either.
Click to expand...

None of Goran's final or even semifinal defeats at Wimbledon were "bad" losses. However overall considering how much he contended there, and how soon in his career he contended there, he should have really won more then 1belated title. Vs Sampras at Wimbledon he is 1-3, but his win is a solid 4 set win, his loss is a 3 set loss where he lost the first 2 sets in tiebreaks and tanked the third, and then you have two extremely close 5 set losses. If you want to get more specific though, while full credit to Agassi for his 92 win, nerves at crucial times were costly to Goran in that match, and in the form he was in at the time it seemed he should have won. Then the 95 Wimbledon semis vs Sampras, Goran hit more winners, almost double the aces, had 8 break points to Sampras's 3, however he just didnt play those big points anywhere near as well as Sampras, I would say he maybe should have won that match, and he would have beaten Becker in the final that year(Becker lost his serve 5 times in the last 3 sets to Sampras and was tired from his semi with Agassi, and was beaten in straights by Goran the year before). Then the 98 Wimbledon final Goran missed two very makeable backhand returns in the tiebreak on set points, he should have gone up 2 sets to 0 and would have won that final. Also Wimbledon 96 he was in great form in the hard court events earlier that year, Sampras had just lost to Krajicek, Ivanisevic has a great head to head with Krajicek despite how well Richard was playing, he choked big time and lost to Stoltenberg in the quarters, his title shot was wide open that year with Sampras out and he blew it. I can think of alot of different years Goran blew great shots to win Wimbledon, he definitely should have won more then 1.

Sampras at the USO is an intersting one. Sampras lost in 2001 to Hewitt and in 2000 to Safin (both finals). He had hard draws both those years. He really should have beaten Edberg. Still 5 USO is not so bad and I just think that players like Lendl and Agassi deserved a little more than their 3and 2 titles.
Click to expand...

Sampras in 2000 was just outplayed, whether he was tired or not, Safin was just the better player in that match. In 2001 he was too tired, but part of that was he was not as fit in his older age. I cant look at him as a 5 time U.S Open Champion and say he underachived, he pulled out a win over Agassi in 95 when Agassi dominated the hard court season totaly. He pulled off a huge upset run in 2002-beating Haas(at the time #3 and won his last couple matches with Pete on hard courts, Roddick(won his last 2 matches with Pete), and Agassi in the final. His 1990 win was a huge surprise too, beating the then-unbeatable Lendl in the quarters, and upseting the higher ranked and higher touted Agassi in the final too. In 1996 he had to win under miraceleous circumstances vs Corretja in the quarters to somehow survive.
In 2001 his run to make the final was also a huge upset run given where he was at the time-beating Rafter(having much better year), Agassi(also having much better year), and Safin(also not having that good of year but crushed Pete in final the year before). Even if he looked like he lost a match he should have won in the 92 final, was unlucky to be fresh to play Hewitt in 2001, no way could I look at him as a U.S Open underachiever based on the things I said.
 
Newcombe reached the (here it comes) SW19 final 4 times but never won it.

Henman would have beaten Ivanisevic if it wasn't for the rain delay.

Kevin Curren did all the hard work to beat McEnroe in the 85 semi and then lost to Becker in the final.

Agassi v Gomez FO final is another one that springs to mind.
 
charlottefromca said:
Yes she deservedly lost the final.. but Martina DID have that match in the bag.. she unraveled mentally on the court though in front of millions of people.. hasn't really been the same since.
Click to expand...


She didn't have the match in the bag.
You never had a match in the bag against Graf.
Especially not slam finals.

Don't forget how she won some of those finals:
At FO 1987 she trailed Navratilova 6-4 4-6 3-5 - and won.
In Wimbledon 1988 she trailed Navratilova 5-7 0-2 - and won.
At USO 1989 she trailed Navratilova 3-6 2-4 - and won.
In Wimbledon 1991 she trailed Sabatini 6-4 4-6 4-5 (Sabatini serving) - and won.
At FO 1993 she trailed M.J. Fernandez 4-6 6-2 3-4 (Fernandez serving) - and won.
In Wimbledon 1993 she trailed Novotna 7-6 1-6 1-4 (Novotna serving) - and won.
At FO 1996 she trailed Sanchez 6-3 6-7 3-5 - and won.


7 (SEVEN!) slams finals where her opponent only had to serve it out.
The FO 1999 final was the eighth ......

Condi
 
Just out of curiosity, do you go check stats every time you post, or do you somehow have all that stuff memorized?
 
I would defiantly put Tim Henman up there with the Wimbeldon underachievers. I just wish he won one....jeez, cmon now he deserved at least ONE right? It would have been a fairtale.
 
Haasquet said:
Just out of curiosity, do you go check stats every time you post, or do you somehow have all that stuff memorized?
Click to expand...

I had to check the first two sets of these 3-setter finals to be sure.
Got most of them right from memory, though.
The third set leads which Steffi's opponents squandered I know by heart ....

Condi
 
I'm having trouble thinking through this question, esp. during the Federer era. And I'm realizing many folks above aren't proposing many current names (other than maybe Hewitt and maybe Roddick).

Are we defining underachievement simply on slams won? I'd like to think that nowadays getting deep enough in a slam to face Fed in a semis or final is an achievement itself. I mean, take Roddick: the guy would probably have 3-4 slams right now if Fed never existed. Hewitt would probably have a couple more. But Fed makes it so impossible for these guys to look like they've "achieved" much of anything.

I get what you're saying about Rios (and a loss to Korda). And I also get the Coria loss to Gaudio. Sometimes you just know players are far too talented to have not won a slam.

Safin, to me, seems to have so much unrealized potential, even with the two slam wins. He seems to have underachieved on every surface but grass.

Nalbandian, too, has the ability to beat anyone in any slam (including Mr. Fed), but he can't seem to string enough wins together to go all the way. Does that count as underachievement? Or is he simply performing up to his mental limits?

I don't know. This is such a tough question to discuss b/c the notions of "achievement" and, even more, "underachievement," are so subjective and murky.
 
Sampras at Roland Garros:

For a 14 grand slam champion, he was eliminated 8-10 times by the 3rd round. For a player with a great all court game and powerful serve, that's really bad. Edberg, Becker and Federer had better RG records.
 
alienhamster said:
Nalbandian, too, has the ability to beat anyone in any slam (including Mr. Fed), but he can't seem to string enough wins together to go all the way. Does that count as underachievement? Or is he simply performing up to his mental limits?
Click to expand...

When I see Nalbandian play I am impressed he does as well as he is. I am impressed his results are even good enough for as many years people consider him as somebody that should have won a slam title. I am amazed he ever did as well vs Federer as he did.

I definitely dont look at him play and think he should be beating Federer hardly ever, let alone in a grands slam, I am amazed he ever was doing so
often, and think Federer dominating him since the end of 2003 is what he should be doing vs a player like Nalbandian. I am a bit surprised he does as well vs even Roddick as he does, but then again Roddick has trouble with players whose best shots are backhands and return of serves.

Nalbandian has a weak serve, a good but not standout forehand, an excellent backhand, a sometimes excellent return of serve, no net game, good mover but would be alot better if he wasnt out of shape most of the time. Like I said he is out of shape, as a competitor he is very strong in terms of determination, being such a fighter, and lack of intimidation playing players like Fed, but is not as solid when it comes to nerves and concentration.
 
paterson said:
Sampras at Roland Garros:

For a 14 grand slam champion, he was eliminated 8-10 times by the 3rd round. For a player with a great all court game and powerful serve, that's really bad. Edberg, Becker and Federer had better RG records.
Click to expand...

agree. his best showing was only a semifinal straight set loss to kafelnikov in 1996. he had a few quarterfinal appearances too. but he really should have done better, even if the surface didn't suit his game.
 
maybe Tim henman , the man worked for so long so hard and my guess wombledon was the closest thing to his game but he didn't get to pull throough though and i don't think he will now !!
 
For me, it's Safin, Safin and Safin, followed by Rios and Goran (my fave of all time!). I love all 3 players but they just didn't/don't have it upstairs. Rios and Safin are probably top 10 all-time in terms of tennis gifts/ability. Guys like them should have 5-7 Slams by default. Goran was also a solid player and was dangerous on all surfaces. His choke volley against Agassi (among numerous other unforced errors) cost him and gave Agassi the Wimby title. Like Goran said, his 2001 Wimby title was ordained by God because there's no way he should have won it.
 
paterson said:
Sampras at Roland Garros:

For a 14 grand slam champion, he was eliminated 8-10 times by the 3rd round. For a player with a great all court game and powerful serve, that's really bad. Edberg, Becker and Federer had better RG records.
Click to expand...

Maybe that means not that great all court game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Duo stats
Replies
0
Views
650
aaziz
A
noeledmonds
Winning Percentages by Slam
Replies
2
Views
713
noeledmonds
noeledmonds
King No1e
Slam Overachievers and Slam Underachievers (ATG or non-ATG)
Replies
9
Views
889
Subway Tennis
Subway Tennis
Berrettini_Fan
  • Poll Poll
Who is the Greatest Male Player of Asian Descent?
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Bartelby
Bartelby
A
i dislike nadal not because i love him less
Replies
21
Views
2K
Sentinel
Sentinel
Back
Top