Slam Overachievers and Slam Underachievers (ATG or non-ATG)

[King No1e]

Players who overachieved in Slams: did way better in Slams than they did outside of Slams and generally in the rankings
The best example of this would be Wawrinka: 3 Slams, despite only 1 other big title and only getting close to a Slam 1 other time
For ATG's, I'd nominate Wilander here. His 7 Slams weren't matched by his non-Slam results and he was more inconsistent in Slam performances than his peers Lendl and Edberg.

Players who underachieved in Slams: had a better resume outside Slams/in terms of consistency but didn't win as much as often
Best example would be Murray: Same Slam count as Wawrinka but reached 11 finals and won a boatload of Big Titles
I'd consider Lendl one too, lost more finals than he won and dominated for more time than anyone up to that point, yet ended up with only 8 Slams to show for it - just one more than Wilander.

Who are some other notable examples of major underachievement or overachievement on the big stages?

 

[Nadal_Django]

ATG overachievers: Federer.
Non ATG overachievers: Hewitt, Roddick.
ATG underachievers: Murray.
Non ATG underachievers: Delpo, Thiem, Ferrer.

 

[25-TENNIS]

ATG overachievers: Federer.
Non ATG overachievers: Hewitt, Roddick.
ATG underachievers: Murray.
Non ATG underachievers: Delpo, Thiem, Ferrer.

Why is Federer an overachiever? Fed won 80+ non-GS titles.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wilander's ability to beat his generally better peers regularly on the big stage was amazing indeed. He was quite consistent in slams outside of Wimbledon though. During 1982-85, he made 3 AO finals & 3 RG finals, and while he couldn't make a USO final his losses were to Lendl, Lendl, Cash and McEnroe. Then, after a relative slump in 1986, Wilander makes 5 straight non-Wimbledon slam finals, losing 1987 RG & USO to Lendl and winning 3 slams in 1988.

 

[blablavla]

Why is Federer an overachiever? Fed won 80+ non-GS titles.

that's what happens when you:
1. hate Fed
2. have issues in counting to 3. I mean how do you want someone to count to 80, when up to 3 is a challenge?

 

[junior74]

Why is Federer an overachiever? Fed won 80+ non-GS titles.

I think what he is saying is no one was worthy of winning slams until Djokovic and Nadal started winning. But when they started winning, competition suddenly became strong, so their opponents have underachieved (except for Federer, of course).

Always balanced posts from Django.

 

[blablavla]

I think what he is saying is no one was worthy of winning slams until Djokovic and Nadal started winning. But when they started winning, competition suddenly became strong, so their opponents have underachieved (except for Federer, of course).

I wonder why ATP and ITF were organizing GS at all before 2010.
It's obvious that all those players that couldn't face prime Djokodal were not even entitled to participate in true GS

Always balanced posts from Django.

Always.

 

[tennis_pro]

Players who overachieved in Slams: did way better in Slams than they did outside of Slams and generally in the rankings
The best example of this would be Wawrinka: 3 Slams, despite only 1 other big title and only getting close to a Slam 1 other time

How is Wawrinka an overachiever? If anything, he's inconsitent but all 3 Slams were definitely fully earned and he had tons of other deep Slam runs. He's actually underachieved in the Masters considering what he's done in the Slams in 2013-2017.

A perfect example of an overachiever would be someone who has achievements beyond his actual regular level, someone like Kevin Anderson who reached 2 Slam finals and not really that much outside of these runs. Dude made most of his luck and easy draws (+ an injured Federer). On the other hand you have someone like David Ferrer who is clearly a greater/better player than Anderson and he only reached 1 Slam final.

 

[40L0VE]

I'm of the opinion the Big 3 aim to peak more for the slams and will try harder in the slams so Murray's slam count is about right. I can easily accept the big 3 trying less hard in non-slams than slams so Murray's chances of winning them increase.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Just commenting on OP: Regarding Wawrinka, I don't think he overachieved in majors. I think he has underachieved at the tournaments one teir below.

An example of his underachieving for me is that he hasn't made many more clay m1000 finals.

I don't expect Stan to have WON all those big tourneys (the spectre of Nadal is too great) but the opportunities for Stan to go deep far more often on clay have been abundant. His level is clearly good enough, he is amazingly good on clay (his best surface?), and there are so many big events.

I know the clay field is loaded, but we are talking about a phenomenal clay player. I don't know why he hasn't spent more time going all-out during clay season knowing that he won't play much grass.

The only reason I can see against Stan having way, way more clay m1000 finals is that the shortened Bo3 format doesn't necessarily suit a guy who can maintain his level for 5 hours, but is a slow starter, particularly against big servers and other opponents who don't give him rhythm.