Unfulfilled talents [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Unfulfilled talents

Haasfan
07-06-2004, 06:53 PM
My first choice would be Hicham Arazi, amazingly talented, plays about two or three good matches a year, and every time he does blows the guy off the court.

Any other ppl who really wasted all that talent and never really achieved a lot?

Neely
07-06-2004, 06:56 PM
lol, welcome back to Haasfan's all-time favorite topics and discussions :haha: :haha:

;) :yeah:

Action Jackson
07-06-2004, 07:02 PM
Haasfan is a waste of talent.

TennisLurker
07-06-2004, 07:13 PM
lol, welcome back to Haasfan's all-time favorite topics and discussions :haha: :haha:

;) :yeah:

I think Haasfan is obsessed with this topic.

MissPovaFan
07-06-2004, 07:35 PM
hmmmm unfulfilled talents - well it depends whether we are talking grand slams or simply generally - I'll take the grand slams theme...

Tim Henman
Xavier Malisse
Mark Philippoussis
Thomas Enqvist

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-06-2004, 07:37 PM
I think Haasfan is obsessed with this topic.

Has Haasfan fulfilled their talent, that's the big question.

Haasfan
07-06-2004, 07:53 PM
hey guys, guys. I mean yeh, id admit this is a topic im very interested in, because it makes a break from a lot of the sleazy threads that basically all are about which player is the most attractive.

Besides, i never got a real answer other times I asked about this topic. Either way I think its got more to do with tennis than what player I think got the biggest slonge or who I would like to go to bed with.

RonE
07-06-2004, 07:57 PM
I think for me, Marcello Rios definitely takes the cake. After he played such unbelievable tennis to become #1 (for a short time), he just seemed to fade away from the game. I thought at the time that he was going to be a very serious contender for the non-grass slams.

CarnivalCarnage
07-06-2004, 07:58 PM
What do you mean you never got a real answer? You've gotten two answers in this thread, and a vast majority elsewhere. Are you really just out for er'body to tell you it's Tommy?

MissPovaFan
07-06-2004, 07:59 PM
I think for me, Marcello Rios definitely takes the cake. After he played such unbelievable tennis to become #1 (for a short time), he just seemed to fade away from the game. I thought at the time that he was going to be a very serious contender for the non-grass slams.

How old is Marcelo now? Is he still playing?

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-06-2004, 08:00 PM
I didn't think I would agree with you Carnival, but you are right in this case.

I read all those old threads and it seems this question is from the ask the same question enough, you might get the answer you like school.

RonE
07-06-2004, 08:06 PM
How old is Marcelo now? Is he still playing?

According to ATPtennis.com he'll be 29 in December, and he has only played a couple of challenger events this year losing early in both of them. The last time he played in a slam was in RG in 2003 when he retired (surprise, surprise) against Ancic in the 1st round.

maratski
07-06-2004, 08:08 PM
Federer, he could have won 5 slams by now with his talent!

Seriously, Marcelo and Hicham.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-06-2004, 08:10 PM
Jiri Novak

RonE
07-06-2004, 08:11 PM
Marat Safin also qualifies in my book- if he could just get his head straight and play the way he did against Roddick and Agassi at the AO, he could be a serious threat to Federer's dominance.

Shadow
07-06-2004, 08:27 PM
definetly, Marat Safin is the biggest.

Also Rios and Arazi, as already has been said.

rue
07-06-2004, 10:07 PM
Safin is the guy who comes to mind. He just needs to figure out a way of balancing his emotions while on court and try not to blow up and yet still produce good results. I hope that in time he will be able to do so. He has got so much talent.

Fedex
07-06-2004, 10:42 PM
Marat has obviously not fufilled his potiental. :( Me hopes someday, he'll get it together. ;) Arazi, incredibly soft hands, he's like a magician, that Raquet he wields like a wand. Also, i know Haas has been injured for a year, but even so he's incredibly talented, has one of the best all court games, he just needs to gain the confidence to beat the top players again, and you'll be seeing him win alot of titles (and big ones). Gaudio would come to mind, however, i think his RG win will give him a great deal of confidence and he'll (i hope) win alot more titles now. Carlos has not fufilled his potiental either as a player with his skills.

nevenez
05-07-2011, 02:30 PM
Gasquet
Berdych
Gulbis

Baghdatis#1
05-07-2011, 11:16 PM
Gasquet, Monfils, Baghdatis, Gulbis, Cilic, Nalbandian, and Young from active players :p

Johnny_Bravo
05-07-2011, 11:31 PM
Talent is overrated. Hard work's what it comes down to if u wanna succeed

But to answer the question, my ava speaks for itself i believe

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-07-2011, 11:46 PM
i would say nadal's cheat grunt is the alltime wasted talent

he could really improve it to cheat more

of course his time wasting cheating tactics show what hes capable of

talentless bum had the nerve to pay his condolences to a fallen great golfer

unlike you mr.nadal, he wasn't a cheating piece of shit

Gagsquet
05-07-2011, 11:46 PM
Talent is overrated. Hard work's what it comes down to if u wanna succeed

But to answer the question, my ava speaks for itself i believe


Richard was never predestine to be a top 3 player. It's sad for him he defeated a uninvolved Federer in Monte Carlo and he reached two mug masters series finals in a weak era. Overrated performances which cost him a lot. He is only a potential top 10 player and I'm sure he will come back in top 10 soon. But sadly, even if he crack again the top 10, people will still called him an unfulfilled talent. So unfair.

yuri27
05-07-2011, 11:52 PM
Nalbandian and especially Gasquet.
When you have one of the best groundstoke of all time (his one-handed BH of course), you're not supposed to only win ATPs 250.....

Johnny_Bravo
05-07-2011, 11:54 PM
Richard was never predestine to be a top 3 player. It's sad for him he defeated a uninvolved Federer in Monte Carlo and he reached two mug masters series finals in a weak era. Overrated performances who cost him a lot. He is only a potential top 10 player and I'm sure he will come back in top 10 soon. But sadly, even if he crack again the top 10, people will still called him an unfulfilled talent. So unfair.

he was destined as much as fed. the difference is that fed worked his ass off and use his talent properly. Gasq worked as much as i am tonight for my next exam :lol:

He will always be an unfulfilled talent if u ask me

yuri27
05-07-2011, 11:58 PM
Richard was never predestine to be a top 3 player. It's sad for him he defeated a uninvolved Federer in Monte Carlo and he reached two mug masters series finals in a weak era. Overrated performances which cost him a lot. He is only a potential top 10 player and I'm sure he will come back in top 10 soon. But sadly, even if he crack again the top 10, people will still called him an unfulfilled talent. So unfair.

That's bullshite.
Federer played well but Gasquet was awesome in that match,especially for a 18 year old player.He really took it to Fed with some truly awesome tennis.
And he was probably even better against the best clay courter of all time in 1/2 final that same year.
I think very few people would have imagined just after that tournament that the best title he would win in the following 6 years would be an ATP 250,especially considering all the hype he was getting even before MC 05.
And it's not like it was a one-off tournament (see Wimbledon 2007 or Toronto 2006).

I actually think he was predestined to be a top 5 player at least but due to lazyness(how the hell can it be explained that after 8 years on the tour,he still has a junior level fitness?) and lack of competitive spirit, that never happened.......for now anyway.

Fat Camel
05-07-2011, 11:59 PM
I would say Malisse.
But he was a headcase and had an awful injury.

GugaF1
05-08-2011, 12:05 AM
Nalbandian and especially Gasquet.
When you have one of the best groundstoke of all time (his one-handed BH of course), you're not supposed to only win ATPs 250.....

The problem for Gasquet is that as much as his BH has of brilliance his FH has of "unbrilliance"

yuri27
05-08-2011, 12:07 AM
The problem for Gasquet is that as much as his BH has of brilliance his FH has of "unbrilliance"

His rally FH sucks yeah....but surprisingly his attacking FH is pretty good actually and can be a killing shot when he goes for it.
On the other hand, i think his serve is underrated,especially on grass.

Gagsquet
05-08-2011, 12:08 AM
His early performances were terrible for him. A fucking tournament ( MC 2005 ) ,so incredible as it could be, can't draw the career of a player. He never played amazingly apart this tournament. He is just a top 10 material.

yuri27
05-08-2011, 12:09 AM
His early performances were terrible for him. A fucking tournament ( MC 2005 ) ,so incredible as it could be, can't draw the career of a player. He never played amazingly apart this tournament. He is just a top 10 material.

Stop talking crap,please.

Gagsquet
05-08-2011, 12:17 AM
Roddick in Wimbledon ok
Djokovic in Masters 2007 at a pinch

When Gasquet was awesome (top 3 material) apart these matches ?

Very brillant player but unfortunately not a legendary player.

yuri27
05-08-2011, 12:24 AM
Roddick in Wimbledon ok
Djokovic in Masters 2007 at a pinch

When Gasquet was awesome (top 3 material) apart these matches ?

Very brillant player but unfortunately not a legendary player.


What about his matches against Murray at Wimbledon 2007 and Gonzalez in AO 2009?? Ok he lost both but for at least 2 sets,he played awesomely in both of them.For me,at Wimbledon,he played better against Murray than against Roddick.
There is also some other matches (Murray in Toronto 1/2 final in 2006,Federer in Halle in 2006)
Anyway,nobody even said he would become a legendary player lol but at least be a player who could win Masters 1000 and eventually grab one or two GSs if not more.......but obviously he is now very very far from doing this.

Gagsquet
05-08-2011, 12:38 AM
I disagree with the fact that he had to be as successful as Federer was (Johnny's opinion). He don't play in the same league even when you speak about the talent. But, in my opinion yuri, I think he is top 10 material and top 10 material could lead to one or two M1000 titles or even a GS title ( in good circumstances). The real Gasquet: the top 10 will bring to light soon and at this time, he won't be anymore an unfulfilled player.

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 12:46 AM
Arazi had a below .500 career record which is obviously not indicative of his talent, but he wasn't as good as some people made him out to be. He underachieved but he was overrated.

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 12:47 AM
PHM out of current players.

Nole Rules
05-08-2011, 12:58 AM
King Dave.

abraxas21
05-08-2011, 01:05 AM
federer

Ukyo
05-08-2011, 01:10 AM
Nalbandian. No contest. By far.

abraxas21
05-08-2011, 01:12 AM
serious answer: xavier malisse

most talented player not to ever get into the top 10

Adri89
05-08-2011, 01:20 AM
Arazi had a below .500 career record which is obviously not indicative of his talent, but he wasn't as good as some people made him out to be. He underachieved but he was overrated.


I don't think he was. He had such a nice game. I think he was as good as Younes, who underachieved a little too in my eyes. Only one title and never been top 20 for him is such a shame.

For active players, Gasquet is an obvious answer. The same for Malisse.
Ferrero comes in my mind sadly. Wonderful career, but he has never been the same player since 2004. He should have had a career a little as Hewitt or Roddick, but he didn't.

Ukyo
05-08-2011, 01:33 AM
serious answer: xavier malisse

most talented player not to ever get into the top 10He has magic in his hands but i think he never grew up mentally.

yuri27
05-08-2011, 01:33 AM
By categories:

-Unfulfilled talents who failed to win GSs: Nalbandian,Murray,Davydenko,Haas,Gasquet,Tsonga,Ma lisse

-Unfulfilled talents who failed to win GSs and Master Series: Gasquet,Malisse

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 02:49 AM
Malisse sort of falls in the same way I think of a few other guys. He's very talented, but he's also been consistently overrated. He's very good but he's not an elite player. I think he's better than the consistent 35-70 player he's been in his career, but consistent top 10? I don't think so.

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 03:03 AM
I don't think he was. He had such a nice game. I think he was as good as Younes, who underachieved a little too in my eyes. Only one title and never been top 20 for him is such a shame.

His shotmaking, speed and variety were amazing, but he lacked the pop to hang with the big boys on a consistent basis, along with the fact the game started changing to more of a power game in the 2000s. He could hit the ball very fast, but that was from timing, not pure power. He would get outhit more and more as his career went on. Also he would go for risks a fair bit, and it payed off sometimes, but it also didn't work a lot of the time. He's one of those great to watch types that people get mesmerized by.

But that's just my opinion, I can see why anyone would say different :)

Johnny_Bravo
05-08-2011, 07:01 AM
I disagree with the fact that he had to be as successful as Federer was (Johnny's opinion). He don't play in the same league even when you speak about the talent. But, in my opinion yuri, I think he is top 10 material and top 10 material could lead to one or two M1000 titles or even a GS title ( in good circumstances). The real Gasquet: the top 10 will bring to light soon and at this time, he won't be anymore an unfulfilled player.

some tennis experts even said that he has more natural talent than fed. and i would agree.

lack of hard work has screwed this guy up

Blackbriar
05-08-2011, 07:43 AM
some tennis experts even said that he has more natural talent than fed. and i would agree.

lack of hard work has screwed this guy up

I agree with this statement. A junior-class fitness is not enough in Nadal era. Tennismen have to be real athletes, which means hundreds of hours of physical training including lifting weights.

Richard was never good enough to compete with Federer and Nadal and win GS. But he was good enough to win one or two MS, and stay among the top 10 for years. But the condition to this was to work 90% of his free time on fitness and hard training and not playing golf.

Lazy talent is completely useless as of now, Gasquet was the last lazy talent to have any success. Look at Gulbis, his career is completely bombing now, though he has more talent than Ferrer or Soderling. But he is passing half of his time with "sex-&-drugs-&-rock-n-roll".

With Murray's fitness Gasquet would be top 10 as of now and may have won a MS too. But now, he is just an okay top 20 player.

Now he is going to lose today to an "excellent" Montanes for "this" or "that" reason, just the way he lost to Gimeno-Traver last week. Lack of hard working is the real answer though. There is no room for miracles today, the hardest workers always have the upper hand now.

FlameOn
05-08-2011, 09:16 AM
James Blake will always be an unfulfilled talent. Sadly he's too old now. :sad:

Dougie
05-08-2011, 09:30 AM
James Blake will always be an unfulfilled talent. Sadly he's too old now. :sad:

Considering that Blake has a one-dimensional ball-bashing game with very little mental capacity, I´d say he´s fulfilled his talent. Which is not a lot.

Gagsquet
05-08-2011, 11:59 AM
some tennis experts even said that he has more natural talent than fed. and i would agree.

lack of hard work has screwed this guy up

So the natural talent give such a horrible forehand....

Li Ching Yuen
05-08-2011, 12:37 PM
Gasquet's timing on the ball on the forehand side is amateurish.

Blake indeed was a tad unfulfilled.

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 12:45 PM
Gasquet is not on the talent level of Federer.

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 12:54 PM
Tursunov is a major unfulfilled talent IMO, a large part due to injuries. But the pace he can hit the ball, how he can hit winners from everywhere, his serve, and the thing that separates him from other ballbashers is his movement and the fact he can volley, even though his transition game isn't very good. But he's never been able, for one reason or another, to really grow and expand his game, or spend consistent time near or at the top of the game. To me he's a better player than almost all of the hard hitters at the top of the game today.

nevenez
05-08-2011, 12:58 PM
Another player that comes to mind is Petzschner

leng jai
05-08-2011, 01:24 PM
Tursunov is a major unfulfilled talent IMO, a large part due to injuries. But the pace he can hit the ball, how he can hit winners from everywhere, his serve, and the thing that separates him from other ballbashers is his movement and the fact he can volley, even though his transition game isn't very good. But he's never been able, for one reason or another, to really grow and expand his game, or spend consistent time near or at the top of the game. To me he's a better player than almost all of the hard hitters at the top of the game today.

Not really. Tursunov simply lacks any tennis brain at all. A lot of players could play like Tursunov and have similar results. Its not hard to look awesome at times if you go for wild winners every second shot with little to no thought.

Filo V.
05-08-2011, 02:45 PM
That's true, Dima 100% fits the definition of ballbasher in every sense. With that said, when he does reign it in, which when he is focused he will do, he can still put major pace on the ball, without going at the lines on every shot, and he's still capable of hitting winners, but with less risk. But tactical ability is definitely something that has held Tursunov back. Maybe I'm just blinded into delusion after seeing some of his spectacular shots.

superandy88
05-08-2011, 03:19 PM
Another player that comes to mind is Petzschner

Yes, he is the biggest underarchiever in tennis.

Fedal2010
05-08-2011, 03:27 PM
Yes, he is the biggest underarchiever in tennis.

Without a BH you can´t be an underachiever. Slicing around all the time isn´t s sign of some outstanding talent.

your_valentine
05-08-2011, 03:49 PM
Richard Gasquet. End of.

Sham Kay
05-08-2011, 04:03 PM
Apart from the obvious (Richie) I'd say Gilles Muller, Petzschner and Robin Haase. Saw Robin play live a couple times now, really is a spectacle to behold.. until he began imploding, both times.

tskimny
05-08-2011, 04:18 PM
Gasquet
Tsonga
Gulbis

tests
05-15-2011, 11:20 AM
gulbis definately has potential... i mean he beat fed at clay recently and pushed nadal at rome.

But when i think about players that could have achieved much more given their talent... nalbandian and safin come to mind.

I truly believe that safin could have won 7-8 grand slams. He beat sampras in 2000 than had like 3-4 years to rack up slams.

abraxas21
05-15-2011, 11:35 AM
federer


should have won 30 GS

FlameOn
05-15-2011, 11:37 AM
Apart from the obvious (Richie) I'd say Gilles Muller, Petzschner and Robin Haase. Saw Robin play live a couple times now, really is a spectacle to behold.. until he began imploding, both times.

100% agreed on Haase. The way he was owning Roddick the first two sets of their AO match this year was a sight to behold. It turned me into a supporter. I felt it was the highest level of play I'd seen for a long time :eek:. But he seems unable to keep it up. I still see him making some good runs here and there though.

LzCxH1kdxZg