Which ATGs achieved their full potential and who was not?

[NGM]

I think Lendl, Sampras, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Agassi, Gonzales did reach their full potential. Connors might overdid it. Federer and Nadal are not done yet but with the way things are going, there is little doubt that they are reaching it too.

Bjorn Borg, McEnroe did not. They could do much better.

I don't know about Djokovic. His collapse is quite shocking and I don't know that's because his body has reached its limits or the problem lies deeply on his mind.

 

[Rafa24]

Djokovic going vegan I think had something to do with his collapse. And pepe. And his wife. And getting the elusive RG he wanted so bad. All those things added up to an epic free fall.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic isn't done and I don't even like the guy. Think people need to worry about Murray more.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Not sure if Agassi reached his full potential. Even if Djokovic retired now I'd say he has pretty much fulfiled his potential.

 

[duaneeo]

Had Djokovic achieved his full potential, he would have won multiple slam titles in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

 

[Alba Barragan]

I wouldn't say McEnroe underachieved at all, he did as good as he could and managed to get quite a few achievements. I mean, maybe he didn't won as many GS as some people expected, but he won a total of 156 titles, that's a crazy number!

Djokovic shouldn't fall into that category either. Right now he's not having his best results, but he has managed to get into the conversation of the top 5 players of all time and that alone makes his entire career be worth it, despite all the **** he does now.

Now if we talk about Borg, he's the ultimate underachiever, at least in my opinion. He was superb, a complete player: defense, footwork, fitness, serve, volleys, mental toughness, charisma, you name it. He had everything to be in the GOAT conversation. We can only imagine what he would've achieved hadn't he retired so young...

 

[Rafa24]

Tomic hasn't yet. He will soon.

 

[Rafa24]

In all seriousness. Nadal, Fed and Djoker pretty much have achieved full potential.

Players who aren't all time greats who I think could have been better if they tried harder would be someone like Monfils. His athleticism is off the charts and he can serve good.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Had Djokovic achieved his full potential, he would have won multiple slam titles in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Missed opportunity for sure. But it wasn't for lack of effort. 2013 should have been better out of all them.

 

[Mazz Retic]

I wouldn't say McEnroe underachieved at all, he did as good as he could and managed to get quite a few achievements. I mean, maybe he didn't won as many GS as some people expected, but he won a total of 156 titles, that's a crazy number!

Djokovic shouldn't fall into that category either. Right now he's not having his best results, but he has managed to get into the conversation of the top 5 players of all time and that alone makes his entire career be worth it, despite all the **** he does now.

Now if we talk about Borg, he's the ultimate underachiever, at least in my opinion. He was superb, a complete player: defense, footwork, fitness, serve, volleys, mental toughness, charisma, you name it. He had everything to be in the GOAT conversation. We can only imagine what he would've achieved hadn't he retired so young...

I tend to agree with mac. Mac was also different because his game was based around timing and reflexes and once he lost some of it he couldn't be the same player again.

 

[Bender]

I think Rafa wasted a lot of his talent in his early years.

Still managed to sweep clay every year, but who knows what might have been had he played a bit more offensive tennis like he does now on HCs and grass in his earlier years? Not like he hasn't the tools to do it.

 

[Waspsting]

I think Lendl, Sampras, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Agassi, Gonzales did reach their full potential. Connors might overdid it. Federer and Nadal are not done yet but with the way things are going, there is little doubt that they are reaching it too.

Agassi most definitely did not. At his physical peak, his mind was elsewhere and/or fragile and at his mental peak, the physical part had run over the hill. He had the potential to be the dominant force of his generation

Sampras, I'd say, overachieved. He started off as a dangerous young player with a big game... he could have become Stich or Krajicek... it was the single minded, almost obsessed focus that took him where he was

Bjorn Borg, McEnroe did not. They could do much better.

McEnroe certainly

With Borg... I'm inclined to agree, because of the early retirement, but his is an odd case.

He overachieved at Wimbledon. Great player though he undoubtedly was, he had no business winning 5 in a row and 41 matches in a row. The number of times he came out on top in 50-50 situations there - early rounds, late rounds doesn't matter - was stunning. A large part of that can be put down to his cool as a cucumber temperament, but as with all things, luck was not a non-factor.

And he underachieved on hard courts and the US open to compensate... go figure. You'd have backed him - by far the best clay courter in the world - to win one of the three US Opens played on green clay - but he didn't. Onto the hard courts and he gets 3/4 finals but falls short


---

Of others who I consider ATGs, Boris Becker underachieved and Mats Wilander overachieved

 

[70sHollywood]

Yes - Tilden, Cochet, Perry, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Federer, Nadal

No - Lacoste, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Hoad, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic