T
tennisgirl90
Guest
Nalbandian, he must have won already a few Slams in his career. Totally a waste of talent.
Whos the biggest underacheiver?
- Thread starter ESP#1
- Start date
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
I respect your opinion, but I see things differently. I think Rios was immensely talented especially on HC (won back to back masters, virtually making a fool of Agassi, won YEC) and on clay (he won all the clay masters at some point in his carreer: Rome, Hamburg, Monte Carlo).
He could play shots no one would even consider possible. There are a few clips on youtube called fantasias and fantasias II about Rios, which pretty much show all he was capable of. At one point even the umpire says to him: "That's the best touch shot I have ever seen in my carreer".
Mind you, I don't worship Rios by any means. I admire his game but dispise his mentality.
I agree with you at least on that point: if mentality is taken into account, than Rios did not have talent.
Even Safin, even Kafelnikov, even the hot-headed Ivanisevic were able to focus just enough to win their Slams. Not so Rios.
But slam wins do not always indicate pure talent properly. To bring up another name to discuss on this thread: Michael Stich. How on earth is it possible he only won one lousy Slam. This man had everything: smooth, fluid, elegant movement, a swan swirling through the air and then landing majestically on the water of a lake it seemed. Seemingly hitting bomb serves without any noticeably effort. Slices, topspin, flat, dropshots, stop volleys, lobs,... he could do it all. He won tournaments on all 4 surfaces... But one single slam?
Slam wins do indicate talent. Safin had possibly the worst work ethic ever, and still managed to win 2 slams against two of the greatest players of all time, once by putting an absolute beatdown on Sampras, the other was just a duel between him and Federer.
Again, 98 was the year Agassi was just coming back from his massive slump.That's truly not indicative of how this would play out if Agassi was at his very best.
Most of the shots Rios hit were a little bit overrated. He's not that great. He managed to beat up on second tier players in order to get to world #1 in possibly the dumbest ranking system I have ever seen to date. His talents would not hold up today against anyone inside the top 10 today, not even Roddick.
GameSampras
Banned
Ahh yess... You mentioned Stich.. Another unbelievably talented player. I think we could lump him in with the Underachievers as well. Great multi-surfaced player. Definitely had the talent to win more than 1 slam
Safin easily. He could not just beat, but absolutely crush the best of the best when on form. Probably one of the best ballstrikers in the history of the game, and a load of power off the ground.
Nalbandian fits the bill as well. Unfortunately, like most Argentines, he likes to party a good deal, and after he reached the semis of every slam, he went down pretty hard in the focus department. Still, he's incredible to watch when on form. An absolutely brilliant backhand, probably the best two-handed stroke in the history of the game.
Nalbandian fits the bill as well. Unfortunately, like most Argentines, he likes to party a good deal, and after he reached the semis of every slam, he went down pretty hard in the focus department. Still, he's incredible to watch when on form. An absolutely brilliant backhand, probably the best two-handed stroke in the history of the game.
abmk
Bionic Poster
oh yeah, stitch should've been there in the poll options ...
vbranis
Professional
I voted for Nalbandian, he could've been a real contender for Slams for a while now. He was in a Slam final at only 20, before Fed. Just lacked the necessary work ethic to be at the very top.
Another name I'll throw out is Nastase. He only won 2 Slams, but had infinite potential. I read his autobiography, and it's amazing how little he practiced, and how much he partied. If he had gotten his head together, who knows how much more he could've achieved.
Another name I'll throw out is Nastase. He only won 2 Slams, but had infinite potential. I read his autobiography, and it's amazing how little he practiced, and how much he partied. If he had gotten his head together, who knows how much more he could've achieved.
ESP#1
Professional
I actually think that Nalby is more talented then Safin, yes i agree Safin is a great ball striker and great serve but Nalby has way more variety and mixes things up so intelligently when playing well, not to mention hes a great ball striker also and possesses the best backhand to ever play the game imho
GameSampras
Banned
How about Courier or Kraijeck? If we go back in time to Wimbeldon 96, Kraijeck was just an animal that year. He really showed what he was capable of
l_gonzalez
Professional
What's your beef with Rios? Give credit where it's due, the man was an awesome ball-striker and oozed talent.
Bolivian Ace
Rookie
I have to say Coria
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I voted Gasquet but I could have said Nalbandian too. They are both players who had the game to achieve more than they have.
Michael Bluth
Semi-Pro
I'm surprised Haas hasn't been mentioned.
Mr. Federerpov
Rookie
It´s clearly Tommy Haas 
Because he's severely overrated on this forum. If he was so good, there's no reason why Korda (who was well past his best years) should have wiped the floor with him on a Rios' best surface.
He has lopsided H2Hs with second tier players, and he had one good year during a power vaccum in which neither Agassi or Sampras were playing well. Champions this year were Korda, Moya, Sampras, and Rafter. Outside of Sampras, the 3 other champions weren't exactly the strongest GS champions.
Last edited:
lambielspins
Banned
Many of the 90s players are overrated on this forum. The ones who are not are Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic on grass, Bruguera, Courier, Chang. Rios is way overrated and so is Kafelnikov, probably the two most overrated. Ivanisevic is overrated on non grass surfaces although given his just due on grass. Muster and Kuerten while great clay courters, especialy Kuerten, are still inflated by TW. Agassi as great as he is, is overrated by some when we are talking about historic greatness. Moya and Rafter are also overrated, well by Cenc and a few of the nuts they were, but most of the rest probably rate them reasonably.
I think Moya was a solid player. He took advantage of a draw that opened up for him, considering there weren't that many contenders for the FO that year.
I think at times Kafelnikov is slightly underrated, it just depends at times. Although he did have very weak draws to win his 2 slams, he still had to play 7 matches and win. Some players couldn't get it done (ex : Rios).
abmk
Bionic Poster
Krajicek should have been there too, though IMO he wasn't as talented as stich
courier, nah, nowhere close to being the biggest underachiever considering that he won 4 slams and had 3 very good years.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
bjk
Hall of Fame
I'm surprised James Blake hasn't been mentioned. Guy just hits as hard as he can, that's his strategy. He's been living in the top 10 for about three or four years and he's never gotten past the quarters of a slam. Like alot of American players, he didn't commit to tennis until late in his teens, so his strokes aren't as polished as somebody like Nalbandian.
Ambivalent
Hall of Fame
Has to be gasquet if we're talking in terms of potential.
DYoung if we're talking about hype
DYoung if we're talking about hype
Similar threads
- Poll
