Players that has reached full potential?

[TheSwede]

Hi, I just recently saw a thread about players that are talented, but hasn't really come to their full potential. Thought it would be interesting to discuss players that have actually lived up to their potental to a greater extent.

I searched but I couldn't find any threads on this topic, please give input on this thread! Here's my list anyway.

1) Rafael Nadal Spain - With his killer instinct his always the abilitiy to turn-around matches and win critical points. Never lets errors get in his head. A phenomenon never seen since the days of Bjorn Borg when it gets to combine mental strength and physical strength, which make up for some of his technical flaws.

2) Michael Chang - no real weapons, lousy serve yet a top contender on most surfaces during one of the toughest eras in tennis history.

3) Stefan Edberg Wouldn't it have been for his lousy forehand he would probably have won at least 6 more grand slams. Great focus and playing on a greater level in the big tournaments.

4) Roger Federer, revolutioning tennis like no one before him. Incredible mental strength and abilitity to rise to the occassion in big matches. If it hadn't been because of matches against Nadal where he broke down mentally he would be the no 1 of my list no doubt.

5) Pete Sampras - Extremely strong mentally and physically, just a question mark about some of his performances at Roland Garros where he actually was the main favourite a couple of times.

6) David Ferrer, good solid player with a solid baseline game that never gives up on a point and always seem to be able to focus on the next point. Great attitude! Not the potential of players like Gasquet or Tsonga but still way ahead of them when it comes to rankings.

7) Ivan Lendl - the closest you get to a tennis machine. Performed greatly for an incredible span of time but could get a bit shaky at some big matches, especially at Wimbledon.

8) Greg Rusedski - lousy from the back-court but a monster serve and a decent volley in an era where big servers were favoured.

9) Bjorn Borg - Quit tennis at a pretty young age but had been on the tour for a while. Would've been no 1 or 2 on this list if only Wimbledon and French achievements were accounted for but showed some disappointing performances on big hard court matches (USO). Didn't play at the Australian Open.

10) Novak Djokovic - Has seemingly got all the puzzle pieces for his game together this year. Has shown some great mental strength this year, but too short time time to tell yet. If he keeps playing at this level it will be impossible to keep him off this list.

 

[benmarks1984]

Pretty much agree with your list. Wouldnt have Borg on there though. As he quit when he was only 26. Wel never no what more he could have achieved had he kept on playing. Had he contiuned he most probably would have broken the record for majors.

 

[FedExpress 333]

Good list.

 

[TheOneHander]

I like it, very solid. I'd take out Borg though, he left the game early. Who knows what he could've done? I would substitute Karlovic instead.

 

[cmb]

Brad Gilbert, he full potential and then some

 

[fps]

Tim Henman, got to number 4 in the world, reached 6 slam semis, won 11 titles including Paris Masters, hadn't even been rated in the top ten juniors in Britain.

 

[Tennis Is Magic]

I'd put Roddick on this list. He made 5 slam finals, and won 1. If it hadn't been for Federer, he probably would've won 4, and possibly 5 or 6. Given how poor his backhand and return of serve was and his below average athleticism, I'd say he really did about as much with his career as he could. He just happened to be in his prime the same time as Federer.

 

[wilkinru]

Late years Agassi?

Maybe as the bonus one

 

[TennisFan3]

I'd remove Nadal and Sampras from the list, because both could have done better in the right circumstances. Agree with others..

 

[MichaelNadal]

I'd remove Nadal and Sampras from the list, because both could have done better in the right circumstances. Agree with others..

Everyone could do better though so not really.

 

[whoopinstick]

jim courier, unorthodox strokes but still managed to win a few slams in the same era as Chang. His work ethic was unbelievable for the few years that he was at his best. I would say he achieved a lot more than he should have with the level of talent that he had.

 

[Cup8489]

Federer should not be on the list. He should have won 12 CYGS's.

 

[SoBad]

The Rusedski and Fred should not be on the list because they are both gross overachievers.

 

[accidental]

Andy Murray, seriously.

How about Connors?

Lleyton Hewitt?

 

[Beryl]

Andy Murray, seriously.

No way. Murray is nearly on par with Djokovic and Nadal in terms of skill and athleticism. His game plan and brain let him down big time.

 

[TheSwede]

Thanks for all of your input guys.

Late years Agassi?

Maybe as the bonus one

Naa don't push it . You have a case but I can't put a guy who under-achieved during his prime decade on the list.

Andy Murray, seriously.

How about Connors?

Lleyton Hewitt?

Connors definately a contender don't know much about him though, Don't agree on Murray always underperforrming in big finals and gets in his head too easily. Hewitt was considered a supertalent when 16 but never managed to develop his own game like Nadal did. Think actually Hewitt could have had a better career given him being able to evolve his game to be more aggressive.

jim courier, unorthodox strokes but still managed to win a few slams in the same era as Chang. His work ethic was unbelievable for the few years that he was at his best. I would say he achieved a lot more than he should have with the level of talent that he had.?

Good comment! Definately could've (should have?) been on the list, career was a little bit short but he really achieved a lot despite not having the raw potential of Agassi, too bad he declined so quickly due to lack of motivation(?).

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Pete could have done more. Not saying he under achieved, how could I with him wining 14 slams and all those years at number one. Seems to me like Federer did a better job of squeezing out every last drop he could out of his talent/ability.
Sampras had a lot of losses that he just should not have had.
Federer did a much better job of winning the matches he should have won.

 

[fps]

Pete could have done more. Not saying he under achieved, how could I with him wining 14 slams and all those years at number one. Seems to me like Federer did a better job of squeezing out every last drop he could out of his talent/ability.
Sampras had a lot of losses that he just should not have had.
Federer did a much better job of winning the matches he should have won.

Just because you're the best player in the world, it doesn't mean you deserve to beat everyone all the time, it's a combination of 100s of tiny things that mean you're better and if you don't execute on the day then you're not, on that day, the best!
If you lose a match it's because you deserve to!

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Just because you're the best player in the world, it doesn't mean you deserve to beat everyone all the time, it's a combination of 100s of tiny things that mean you're better and if you don't execute on the day then you're not, on that day, the best!
If you lose a match it's because you deserve to!

Correct. That's why Fed did the better job of maximizing his talent.

 

[kOaMaster]

Brad Gilbert, he full potential and then some

:-?

I'd add Agassi. I never thought of him he would be that successful, he never dominated but still managed to win all four majors and stick around at the top for many years. an "overachiever"?
(okay I admit it, I never liked Agassi)

Oh, and Santoro as well!

 

[benmarks1984]

I would defiantly add jim courier to this list. I dont agree with adding Lleyton Hewitt though. When he was at his best I think he should have achieved more than he did. 2000-2002 he was beating all the best players regularly and playing good enough to win more slams then he did in that period. Then in 2003 when he was number 1, he just focused on the davis cup, letting his ranking slip to 17!

Hes had a lot of injuries since 2006 but also there were a few years were he seemed more focused on spending time with his family then travelling around the world playing a lot of tournaments.

 

[fps]

Correct. That's why Fed did the better job of maximizing his talent.

I think these kinds of arguments that are being on the thread, not us specifically, are too simplistic once we start talking about the greatest players of all time. Playing to your own personal potential, there are so many factors that are important in being able to play consistently, to me consistency is a skill to be learned like many others, going out there and putting in a performance no matter the day or how you feel. It's a skill in itself that has to be learned, so inconsistency is not something that factors in, in my opinion, to how much of a player's potential they fulfilled, it is more a symptom of how hard they trained and how mentally strong they were.

Sampras of course had some kind of blood issue didn't he? (NOT an expert here, but there was something) Unfortunately this was part of his makeup, and whether it caused inconsistency or not it made up part of his potential as a player. imo.

 

[TheSwede]

I think these kinds of arguments that are being on the thread, not us specifically, are too simplistic once we start talking about the greatest players of all time. Playing to your own personal potential, there are so many factors that are important in being able to play consistently, to me consistency is a skill to be learned like many others, going out there and putting in a performance no matter the day or how you feel. It's a skill in itself that has to be learned, so inconsistency is not something that factors in, in my opinion, to how much of a player's potential they fulfilled, it is more a symptom of how hard they trained and how mentally strong they were.

Sampras of course had some kind of blood issue didn't he? (NOT an expert here, but there was something) Unfortunately this was part of his makeup, and whether it caused inconsistency or not it made up part of his potential as a player. imo.

You definately have some valid points, definately raise some pretty good questions, what constitutes a player's potential, coordination, mental toughness, athleticism and so on? I definately agree with you that the debate whether a player has underachieved or not is often a bit too simplistic like in this thread.

I definately still believe it has some value since there are some very obvious examples of players with very poor performances in relation to their capacity as tennis players plus it's just plain fun and interesting to discuss this.
To scientifically determine which player really has reached their full potential is indeed a more different task, and not the aim of this thread.

In summary, you're pretty much right but the threads on this forum would be a lot fewer and more boring if people on this forum started reasoning the way you do. To compare different players over different eras, and decide their "real talents" is impossible to really decide and always up for debate which is pretty much what most threads on this forum, including this is all about.

 

[fps]

You definately have some valid points, definately raise some pretty good questions, what constitutes a player's potential, coordination, mental toughness, athleticism and so on? I definately agree with you that the debate whether a player has underachieved or not is often a bit too simplistic like in this thread.

I definately still believe it has some value since there are some very obvious examples of players with very poor performances in relation to their capacity as tennis players plus it's just plain fun and interesting to discuss this.
To scientifically determine which player really has reached their full potential is indeed a more different task, and not the aim of this thread.

In summary, you're pretty much right but the threads on this forum would be a lot fewer and more boring if people on this forum started reasoning the way you do. To compare different players over different eras, and decide their "real talents" is impossible to really decide and always up for debate which is pretty much what most threads on this forum, including this is all about.

I'm very glad that the vast majority on this forum thinks differently from how I do, it would definitely suck if everyone thought like me!!