Who do you think is THE current underachiever in the men's game? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who do you think is THE current underachiever in the men's game?

FlameOn
04-04-2013, 09:42 AM
Stanislas Wawrinka in my opinion. Huge game with results that seldom (almost never in fact) match it.

Newcomer
04-04-2013, 09:45 AM
Berdych, Wawrinka, Nalbandian, Stepanek

Timot
04-04-2013, 10:02 AM
Murray, Wawrinka, Blake, Nalbandian.

ossie
04-04-2013, 10:06 AM
peak murray

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 10:09 AM
Berdych, Wawrinka, Nalbandian, Stepanek

The last two are old, not sure what do you expect they achieve at this point :) Berdych and Wawrinka just seem to be what they are, they are not going to pull a rabbit out of hat at this point.

Currently I'd say Tomic and Dimitrov, as they seem to be capable of more than they are doing at the moment.

Newcomer
04-04-2013, 10:23 AM
The last two are old, not sure what do you expect they achieve at this point :) Berdych and Wawrinka just seem to be what they are, they are not going to pull a rabbit out of hat at this point.

Currently I'd say Tomic and Dimitrov, as they seem to be capable of more than they are doing at the moment.

Both Stepanek and Nalba had\has potential to achieve more. Radek was in form of his life when he faced an injury plus he started to play serious level at the age of 25. For me he is a clean underachiever. Nalba is underachiever in case of his potential and "peak" level. Berdych for his constistency and top-10 status is huge underachiever. He can't win something big from 2006.
Dimitrov and Tomic are still young. As you remember Federer at the age of 20-21 wasn't so great too.

Timot
04-04-2013, 10:25 AM
The last two are old, not sure what do you expect they achieve at this point :) Berdych and Wawrinka just seem to be what they are, they are not going to pull a rabbit out of hat at this point.

Currently I'd say Tomic and Dimitrov, as they seem to be capable of more than they are doing at the moment.

He probably meant their career as a whole. Since they are both current players it still applies. I went with that logic too with both Nalby and Blake.

Ziggy B
04-04-2013, 10:29 AM
Soon as I read the thread title I thought of Stan lol. Amazing game, his willpower just deserts him. Actually think he's been mentally tougher recently though. Definetely top 10 based on his game IMO.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 10:33 AM
He probably meant their career as a whole. Since they are both current players it still applies. I went with that logic too with both Nalby and Blake.

I understood it's more focusing on the current underachievers, not historically, i.e. those who could achieve more at this point and on :)

Surcouf
04-04-2013, 10:35 AM
Davydenko?

Had a big and fast game, was very good on hardcourt and clay, but never made even a slam final. He was also a complete headcase against Federer. I certainly thought he was a much better player than someone like Stepanek. Nalbandian could have done more, but his fitness was never good.

Gasquet also could have had a greet career. But he just missed it.

fedalrock
04-04-2013, 10:37 AM
Gasquet and Wawrinka. Gasquet has an amazing backhand an average forehand and still hasn't made the quarters of a Slam for almost 6 years.:facepalm: His mental strength deserts him EVERYTIME.
Wawrinka showed his class when he is on at AO vs Nole this year and almost blew Nole off the court with his backhand. Pity he can't maintain this:sad:

Abel
04-04-2013, 10:41 AM
The majority of the top 20 (and ex-top 20 for older players) are underachievers :shrug:

Not sure I can single out one player.

Topspindoctor
04-04-2013, 10:43 AM
I also think Wawrinka. If he didn't spend most of his time inventing news and exotic ways to bend down for Nose and actually played tennis, he wouldn't have had such a muggy career.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 10:51 AM
Also Dolgopolov; with his game he should be doing more than making loads of UEs all the time.

BroTree456
04-04-2013, 10:59 AM
i think murray is a huge underachiever. its crazy to think he only won just 1 slam with his talent

Topspindoctor
04-04-2013, 11:01 AM
i think murray is a huge underachiever. its crazy to think he only won just 1 slam with his talent

Every title that mug won is a title too many. Mandy an underachiever :lol::spit: good joke there. What's next. Federer's RG is deserved?

Chris Kuerten
04-04-2013, 11:06 AM
Nalbandian and Dolgopolov, with both the problem is their fitness. Although Nalbandian's is because he's a lazy fuck and Dolgo's because of factors outside of his control.

Also, The Fog and Monfils because of a disfunctional brain.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 11:15 AM
Monfils definitely, though he was top 10 at least

emotion
04-04-2013, 11:23 AM
No way should Almagro and Wawrinka have 0 Slam SFs between them. Gasquet up there too. Malisse is more the previous generation but he's up there also.
In other words, people with great one-handers. And Malisse.

n8
04-04-2013, 11:28 AM
Gulbis.

Federer in 2
04-04-2013, 11:52 AM
Murray, Wawrinka, Benneteau...

Nathaliia
04-04-2013, 11:54 AM
nalbandian even now should be top 20, and look at his ranking

:sobbing:

haas can and david can't

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 12:00 PM
nalbandian even now should be top 20, and look at his ranking

:sobbing:

haas can and david can't

Haas seems fit as a fiddle and motivated too, David seems neither

BroTree123
04-04-2013, 12:13 PM
Federer. He would have won at least 8 more slams if he didn't play in such a tough era :smoke:

motorhead
04-04-2013, 12:16 PM
Federer and Goffin. The second should be top 10 at least, huge game and great intelligence on court combined with fantastic shot making.

TBkeeper
04-04-2013, 12:19 PM
Davydenko , Nalbandian , Blake.

motorhead
04-04-2013, 12:22 PM
Davydenko , Nalbandian , Blake.

as much as I like them these guys are past underachievers.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 12:24 PM
Federer and Goffin. The second should be top 10 at least, huge game and great intelligence on court combined with fantastic shot making.

Top 10 "at least" :confused: He's worse version of Tipsarevic at best

FlameOn
04-04-2013, 12:37 PM
I must mention Santiago Giraldo too :(.

BroTree456
04-04-2013, 12:37 PM
Every title that mug won is a title too many. Mandy an underachiever :lol::spit: good joke there. What's next. Federer's RG is deserved?

he won the title, ofc he deserved it. in ur eyes nothing federer won is deserved because ur just a blind hater.

motorhead
04-04-2013, 12:38 PM
Top 10 "at least" :confused: He's worse version of Tipsarevic at best

Tipsarevic at his age had worse results.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 12:46 PM
Tipsarevic at his age had worse results.

Janko's early career was a model of what not to do :lol: Not sure you would want to compare to that :)

Mark Lenders
04-04-2013, 02:16 PM
Davydenko takes this for me. At his peak, he's the best ball striker on the rise tennis has ever seen imo (takes the ball earlier than any other player in history), but a mix of mental weakness and absurd scheduling/priorities (which is a result of his lack of belief) led to a career that is frankly disappointing for someone with his talent and who managed to stay healthy for the bulk of his career.

ProdigyEng
04-04-2013, 02:16 PM
Andrew Murray OBE should have had at least 4 slams by now.

Nole Rules
04-04-2013, 02:18 PM
Gulbis easily. He is the biggest underachiever of all times.

Fed fordawin
04-04-2013, 02:23 PM
Gulbis will rise.

Of the current players, Davydenko, Blake and Nalbandian are the biggest underachiever.
Of the relevant players, Wawrinka and Gasquet probably are.

What does Murray OBE mean by the way?

Vassilis
04-04-2013, 02:28 PM
Baghdatis, Gasquet and Wawrinka

Hewitt =Legend
04-04-2013, 02:29 PM
Chris Guccione. But that was by choice...

ProdigyEng
04-04-2013, 03:07 PM
Gulbis will rise.

Of the current players, Davydenko, Blake and Nalbandian are the biggest underachiever.
Of the relevant players, Wawrinka and Gasquet probably are.

What does Murray OBE mean by the way?

Order of the British Empire.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 03:13 PM
Davydenko takes this for me. At his peak, he's the best ball striker on the rise tennis has ever seen imo (takes the ball earlier than any other player in history), but a mix of mental weakness and absurd scheduling/priorities (which is a result of his lack of belief) led to a career that is frankly disappointing for someone with his talent and who managed to stay healthy for the bulk of his career.

No way, Denko achieved a lot - few years in top 5/6, 3 masters, 1 WTF. Half of his losses against Fed were straight sets, 1-5 against Roddick, 1-7 even against Blake, 0-4 against Hewitt etc. Just not good enough to do much more than that.

emotion
04-04-2013, 03:24 PM
While all the answers are quite good, watching Huta Galung right now, I suppose the real answer is someone like him who never even became well known. Mergea, Przysiężny also come to mind.

Hypnotize
04-04-2013, 03:26 PM
Federer and Goffin. The second should be top 10 at least, huge game and great intelligence on court combined with fantastic shot making.
By what stretch of the imagination is Goffin's game, "huge"? He's a counter-puncher who relies on his opponent's pace. He can time the ball well and has good anticipation but "huge" is the last word I would use to describe his game.

The biggest underachiever is Haas. In his youth, he had the game to win slams but he lacked fitness and always struggled with injuries. If he had shown the commitment then that he has now, he would have achieved a lot more.

Sombrerero loco
04-04-2013, 03:30 PM
kontinen by far. never been a top 200 with top 50 material. injuries are killing him

Mark Lenders
04-04-2013, 03:31 PM
No way, Denko achieved a lot - few years in top 5/6, 3 masters, 1 WTF. Half of his losses against Fed were straight sets, 1-5 against Roddick, 1-7 even against Blake, 0-4 against Hewitt etc. Just not good enough to do much more than that.

This is a logical fallacy. You're basically telling me what he did actually do in order to prove that he couldn't do better. Well then, I suppose no one is an underachiever or overachiever according to that logic...

Davydenko's problems were probably the worst scheduling ever seen, invariably burning himself out for big events, playing almost every week to gather prize money (his words) - just checked old ATP rankings and he played 32 events in 2006 for example :facepalm: - and an incredible lack of self belief. He's probably the biggest choker every to be ranked in the world top 3. That also explains the H2Hs you mention by the way, it's common for mentally weak players to let bad matchups/negative head-to-heads get to their heads.

Don't see how anyone can deny his ballstriking talent though, he can take even Nadal's topspin forehands on the rise beautifully, which basically no one else can do without some serial shanking. He's a great talent just not a great competitor (which is usually what leads to player being underachievers - while the opposite is also true with great competitors often being preceived as overachievers).

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 03:41 PM
This is a logical fallacy. You're basically telling me what he did actually do in order to prove that he couldn't do better. Well then, I suppose no one is an underachiever or overachiever according to that logic...

Not really, I'm saying that he achieved a lot, and that going over that would most likely mean punching above his weight. I'm not buying that schedule/money explanation, if he wanted money why not going where the biggest money is - slams?

Ok, he's a elite ballstriker, what else does he do on that level? When he's not painting the lines, then he's usually in big trouble.

Davydenko's problems were probably the worst scheduling ever seen, invariably burning himself out for big events, playing almost every week to gather prize money (his words) - just checked old ATP rankings and he played 32 events in 2006 for example :facepalm: - and an incredible lack of self belief. He's probably the biggest choker every to be ranked in the world top 3.

32 events, avoiding big ones... are you trying to say he vultured his way to the top? :p

Mark Lenders
04-04-2013, 03:52 PM
Not really, I'm saying that he achieved a lot, and that going over that would most likely mean punching above his weight. I'm not buying that schedule/money explanation, if he wanted money why not going where the biggest money is - slams?

Ok, he's a elite ballstriker, what else does he do on that level? When he's not painting the lines, then he's usually in big trouble.

He never believed he could win a Slam. I remember after losing a Slam SF to Federer he said in the post match interview he has happy he had collected more points to quality for the TMC when he was like the third or fourth best player in the world. I'm sure most people who followed his career close would confirm that lack of self belief was always his main obstacle.

His footwork was also worldclass, one of the best on tour. Still is, although he lost footspeed in recent years of course. He also was one of the best returners of serve on tour. Davydenko is a huge underachiever, Federer was a bad matchup for him since in his prime he took time away from baseliners better than anyone but Davydenko had his chances to beat him at Slams, just wasted every single one of them, the most notorious chokes being sets 3 and 4 of AO 2006, the AO 2010 implosion and losing FO 2007 in straights after serving for each of the three sets.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 04:13 PM
It's not just Federer, as I've mentioned he was losing a lot to a number of players, even Gasquet is 4-2 against him. I don't think you can pin everything on belief, how did he win 3 masters and a WTF if he didn't believe? Those are pretty big titles, more than Tsonga and Berdych have combined. Denko's game works the best in 3 sets, in slams he's just going to run out gas rather sooner than later.

GSMnadal
04-04-2013, 04:16 PM
Gulbis, Tomic, Berdych, Monfils, Nadal

atennisfan
04-04-2013, 04:26 PM
Federer.

Had he not been such a headcase, he'd have won a lot more slams.

rocketassist
04-04-2013, 04:29 PM
Gulbis. And now he's GOATbis, that is going to change.

Everko
04-04-2013, 04:30 PM
Gulbis. And now he's GOATbis, that is going to change.

Gulbis isn't talent. He is a mindless ball hitter and likes to play crush ball, not tennis. It's funny that people think he is good.

rocketassist
04-04-2013, 04:31 PM
Gulbis isn't talent. He is a mindless ball hitter and likes to play crush ball, not tennis. It's funny that people think he is good.

Assume you didn't see him against Nadal at IW then

Everko
04-04-2013, 04:33 PM
Assume you didn't see him against Nadal at IW then

I don't watch when Nadal plays a nobody.

Topspindoctor
04-04-2013, 04:38 PM
Assume you didn't see him against Nadal at IW then

Seeing Mugbis' scarecrow forehand in action is enough to turn any tennis fan away from a match. It's as offensive as Mugrin's serve and Sharapova's screams.

TigerTim
04-04-2013, 04:40 PM
Probably Federer

HKz
04-04-2013, 05:19 PM
Current underachiever has to be Wawrinka. Serves great, one of the best forehand + backhand combos on the tour, has very good feel at the net, plays on hardcourts and clay very well and can be a huge power player. Obviously his mental ability has held him back like so many other players in the past with such a tennis package as he has.

Gulbis is a candidate but IMO Wawrinka has a much more reliable tennis package in general.

HKz
04-04-2013, 05:22 PM
Gulbis isn't talent. He is a mindless ball hitter and likes to play crush ball, not tennis. It's funny that people think he is good.

His tennis is at the very least leaps and bounds better than your ability at predictions and at creating what you claim to be "tennis analysis."

ADaddy69
04-04-2013, 05:26 PM
Verdasco and Almagro.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Everko
04-04-2013, 05:29 PM
His tennis is at the very least leaps and bounds better than your ability at predictions and at creating what you claim to be "tennis analysis."

He is ranked 55. I am for sure one of the best 55 tennis analysts. Gulbis won't get much better than 40 in his career. Nobody really likes Gulbis himself people just like him for the false belief that he is dangerous to Nadal.

HKz
04-04-2013, 05:32 PM
He never believed he could win a Slam. I remember after losing a Slam SF to Federer he said in the post match interview he has happy he had collected more points to quality for the TMC when he was like the third or fourth best player in the world. I'm sure most people who followed his career close would confirm that lack of self belief was always his main obstacle.

His footwork was also worldclass, one of the best on tour. Still is, although he lost footspeed in recent years of course. He also was one of the best returners of serve on tour. Davydenko is a huge underachiever, Federer was a bad matchup for him since in his prime he took time away from baseliners better than anyone but Davydenko had his chances to beat him at Slams, just wasted every single one of them, the most notorious chokes being sets 3 and 4 of AO 2006, the AO 2010 implosion and losing FO 2007 in straights after serving for each of the three sets.

Being a rather smaller player, he has to work a lot of the points out which places so much mental stress on a player. I mean it must be so nice to be a Federer or a Berdych where they can win so many free points off the serve and the forehand. It takes off a lot mentally.

Davydenko was definitely a bit unlucky in his career. He met Federer nearly every single time he had a good run at a slam which were almost all durnig Federer's peak years. I would have loved to see if Davydenko could challenge Nadal considering how Davydenko has had Rafa's number for a good portion of their encounters.

Moozza
04-04-2013, 05:32 PM
Ferrer.

Ibracadabra
04-04-2013, 05:34 PM
David ferrer.

derstatic
04-04-2013, 05:35 PM
Probably Wawrinka. Huge game but moderate results. Monfils up there aswell. So much talent and athleticism but not much to show for it. Don't quite agree on Gasquet who's been mentioned a lot, he clearly has limitations in his game that will prevent the really big results. Lacks a powerful serve, average forehand. He has done what han be expected imo, top 10-15 is what he'll do. Dont agree on Davy either. Davy has some M1000 and a wtf. Good for a guy with a weak serve and high risk game. Sure he should have done more in slams but he has achieved a lot I his career.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Everko
04-04-2013, 05:36 PM
Verdasco should be better. He has a powerful forehand and also good angles off of it. He is a good mover and his backhand is good. He needs to be in the top 15.

HKz
04-04-2013, 05:41 PM
He is ranked 55. I am for sure one of the best 55 tennis analysts. Gulbis won't get much better than 40 in his career. Nobody really likes Gulbis himself people just like him for the false belief that he is dangerous to Nadal.

General Shankgirl wants to share his ACC crown with you.

Mountaindewslave
04-04-2013, 06:00 PM
career wise in last decade besides Nalbandian is 100% Blake
Blake hit so insanely hard and good (my god this is sounding strange now :eek:) at times in the mid 2000s
frankly if you watch the best highlights of BLake, ala that US Open match against Agassi 2005, it makes today's game look fairly weak, they were just pounding the ball going for winners
granted maybe possibly even US Open 2005 court was a bit more favorable to faster play and also Blake-Agassi not being THAT defensive.
either way Blake achieved so little for so much talent.
he could hit winners out of nowhere like no one else. unfortunately now his movement is atrocious so he stands no chance to make a comeback, although he seems to think otherwise for some strange reason :o

as far as YOUNGER players,
certainly Del Potro has underachieved but that's partially due to bad luck
Dimitrov. for all his talent has underachieved even if he's still very young
Cilic.... let's not even start there....
Baghdatis, althoughe he is getting older too, and it's widely known that he underachieved due to lack of focus and a bad unhealthy lifestyle
you could honestly come up with so many talented players who are and have 'underachieved' because there are so many gifted players as the sport is so worldwide now

Marcoo
04-04-2013, 06:04 PM
Raonic in my opinion. I mean, she played well in the Davis Cup, but... I'm actually wondering how he doe versus Italy :)

Mark Lenders
04-04-2013, 06:34 PM
It's not just Federer, as I've mentioned he was losing a lot to a number of players, even Gasquet is 4-2 against him. I don't think you can pin everything on belief, how did he win 3 masters and a WTF if he didn't believe? Those are pretty big titles, more than Tsonga and Berdych have combined. Denko's game works the best in 3 sets, in slams he's just going to run out gas rather sooner than later.

Because he is a quite extraordinary talent, definitely a more talented ball strker than Tsonga and Berdych - who rely more on their physique/natural power to win. He's underrated because his talent is not as flashy as hitting a huge forehand or hitting incredible shots from miles behind the baseline, but any other player trying to take as early as Davydenko on a regular basis would be shanking every second ball.

His problem was never fitness, he was one of the fittest players on tour in his prime; his game relies so heavily on perfect timing and precision that confidence is pretty much everything. Even against Federer, he could blitz him for games at a time (see first set and a half of Australia 2010), just never when it counted. He plays a kind of game that pretty much requires great mental strength to beat the best players in big matches: second guessing himself is enough for his timing to be a bit off, which is enough for him to lose depth and penetration on his groundstrokes.

Being a rather smaller player, he has to work a lot of the points out which places so much mental stress on a player. I mean it must be so nice to be a Federer or a Berdych where they can win so many free points off the serve and the forehand. It takes off a lot mentally.

Davydenko was definitely a bit unlucky in his career. He met Federer nearly every single time he had a good run at a slam which were almost all durnig Federer's peak years. I would have loved to see if Davydenko could challenge Nadal considering how Davydenko has had Rafa's number for a good portion of their encounters.

True, his lack of natural power was definitely an issue, but still he was/is a mentally weak player, no doubt about that. IMO, an improved version of the Davydenko game - slightly more natural power, better serve, much better mental conditioning - is the perfect antidote to the retrievers/monster hitters dualism that seems to be taking over men's tennis. A bigger/stronger (physically and mentally) player takng everything on the rise, taking time away from the retrievers/big hitters....

I'm going to say no, Davydenko would not have had challenged Rafa; Federer was a bad matchup for him, but he had chances, he just wasted them all. As much as he sometimes demolished Rafa on hardcourts, I don't believe for a second he'd get it done on a big Slam match, he just never had the required belief to be a champion.

Time Violation
04-04-2013, 07:05 PM
His problem was never fitness, he was one of the fittest players on tour in his prime; his game relies so heavily on perfect timing and precision that confidence is pretty much everything. Even against Federer, he could blitz him for games at a time (see first set and a half of Australia 2010), just never when it counted. He plays a kind of game that pretty much requires great mental strength to beat the best players in big matches: second guessing himself is enough for his timing to be a bit off, which is enough for him to lose depth and penetration on his groundstrokes.

Well, that is the problem, having to be perfect in best of 5 is a tall order, and he doesn't have much of a plan B, if his timing is off, that's it.

TBkeeper
04-04-2013, 07:12 PM
Great and Accurate posts of all of you about Davy but ... just to clear things up ... he isn't mentally weak (He won and is still winning many important points by being clutch) .. but in his game there's no place for rest ... a little below maximum concentration and everything is gone thus it seems that he is choking ... but he is actually fighting! ... have you ever tried to play like that ? it can only be done when you're MEZMERIZING talent , have Perfect timing/hand-eye-coordination and with 100% confidnce ! ... the thing is he hadn't had the belief that he'll do something big ! All of his career he played tournaments for confidence ... He played so many tournaments that his motivation (not anything else) burned out.
Davydenko is nothing short of incredible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOwyrFx44GE He even ON CLAY plays on the rise that's the most difficult thing in tennis ... cause the ball is spinning (faster after bounce) and bouncing Higher !
To end all of this: 2006 Davydenko was something ... graciously beautiful to watch ... IDK what it would've been if i saw him while winning Paris-Bercy in 2006 ... something beautiful like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUBXwBiEBcg

fluffyyelloballz
04-04-2013, 07:33 PM
Berdych, Cilic, Gasquet

Fed fordawin
04-04-2013, 10:30 PM
Order of the British Empire.

OK thanks.

Good to know France isn't the only country to gift away these honorary titles to meaningless people.

BauerAlmeida
04-04-2013, 10:39 PM
Nalbandian by far. Followed by Wawrinka and Haas.

Davydenko underachieved but not that much, he should have at least one or 2 slam finals, but the rest of his career is great, 3 M1000, a WTF, a good amount of titles, etc.

leng jai
04-04-2013, 11:53 PM
Davydenko's serve was a major weakness and he had very little variety in his game. His results are excellent for what he had to work with. Obviously he missed some chances but that happens to everybody.

It's funny that Nalbandian always gets mentioned since his career has been fantastic and he's another player who's weakness is the most important shot in tennis - the serve. When you watch his best matches and see how well he has to play off the ground it's not surprising he's never won a slam.

Haas you can count out since he's injured every body part under the sun.

You've really got to start looking at talented players who barely achieved anything in their career eg. Wawrinka, Malisse, Verdasco etc.

Honestly
04-05-2013, 12:30 AM
Peak Murray should retire for his fans.

Alex999
04-05-2013, 12:36 AM
Ferrer.
Ferrer is an overachiever by all means. sorry but If you really like tennis and not just Murray try harder. many great matches on you tube, you can learn ;).

On the other hands, I can list so many names. I don't think it really matters. let's put it this way ... if your name is not Djokovic, Federer or Nadal you suck (MTF logic)... :lol:

uxyzapenje
04-05-2013, 02:01 AM
It's between Gulbis and Bellucci.

Sham Kay
04-05-2013, 03:01 AM
Picking 3 based on potential, and still have time to become "achievers": Almagro, Baghdatis, Don Young (That bent hat was trending before the minor setback of him dropping out of the top 150)

Mark Lenders
04-05-2013, 03:05 AM
Well, that is the problem, having to be perfect in best of 5 is a tall order, and he doesn't have much of a plan B, if his timing is off, that's it.

Well yes, while impressive at its best, his game was never the sort of the game that would allow for consistency/domination, but winning one or two Slams was far from beyond reach imo. He lacked in key aspects such as mental strength and focus, which active Grand Slam winners generally have in spades.

Despite all that, one can't help but feel that he did not maximize his career; at no point in his career did he focus around peaking for Slams nor did he ever set his target to try and win one. People often accuse this era's most immediate challengers to the elite (Berdych, Tsonga) of being mentally weak, but compared to Davydenko they are giants in that regard. The most disappointing isn't even that Davydenko didn't win a Slam (not even reached a final), but rather that at no point did it feel like he could win one or that he was even targetting that goal as a career priority.

Great and Accurate posts of all of you about Davy but ... just to clear things up ... he isn't mentally weak (He won and is still winning many important points by being clutch) .. but in his game there's no place for rest ... a little below maximum concentration and everything is gone thus it seems that he is choking ... but he is actually fighting! ... have you ever tried to play like that ? it can only be done when you're MEZMERIZING talent , have Perfect timing/hand-eye-coordination and with 100% confidnce ! ... the thing is he hadn't had the belief that he'll do something big ! All of his career he played tournaments for confidence ... He played so many tournaments that his motivation (not anything else) burned out.
Davydenko is nothing short of incredible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOwyrFx44GE He even ON CLAY plays on the rise that's the most difficult thing in tennis ... cause the ball is spinning (faster after bounce) and bouncing Higher !
To end all of this: 2006 Davydenko was something ... graciously beautiful to watch ... IDK what it would've been if i saw him while winning Paris-Bercy in 2006 ... something beautiful like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUBXwBiEBcg

Agree with the rest, but when someone as good as Davydenko doesn't believe they can do something big, they're mentally weak, no two ways about it. Look at Del Potro for instance: he's nowhere near as talented a shotmaker as Davydenko, he's not as fit and he has struggled with injuries far more. Yet he has managed to win a Slam simply due to far exceeding Davydenko as far as mental strength, focus, belief are concerned, basically as a competitor overall. He actually has less reason than Davydenko to believe that he can do something big, but he does believe it and he did it.

Davydenko is incredible as a player - of all players I watched live he was probably the one I was most impressed with, he's amazing to watch - but a very poor competitor.

Nalbandian by far. Followed by Wawrinka and Haas.

Davydenko underachieved but not that much, he should have at least one or 2 slam finals, but the rest of his career is great, 3 M1000, a WTF, a good amount of titles, etc.

Haas is not an underachiever. Players who haven't achieved more due to injuries shouldn't be mentioned since it's out of their control. If we consider Haas as an underachiever, we have to make a list of every player who had their career derailed by injuries really, that's different from underacheving.

As for Davydenko, that 'good amount of titles' is the reason his career must be seen as a sort of disappointing, he scheduled like Ferrer when he had 10x the ability. At the time I actually liked that he played almost every week since I love watching him play, but in hindsight if there was an award for the worst scheduler in history Davydenko would have to be in with a shot.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
04-05-2013, 06:40 AM
Dimitrov has the gift

Schumacher
04-05-2013, 07:44 AM
Dimitrov has the gift

Yes, definitely. But something went wrong in his progress. A few years ago it seemed he could challenge the best players quite soon and even there were voices, that he is the second Federer (Peter Lundgren said something similar...), but now it seems his progress slowed down...

paseo
04-05-2013, 07:53 AM
Federer.

FlameOn
04-05-2013, 07:57 AM
Yes, definitely. But something went wrong in his progress. A few years ago it seemed he could challenge the best players quite soon and even there were voices, that he is the second Federer (Peter Lundgren said something similar...), but now it seems his progress slowed down...
Did he really make 3 or 4 DFs when serving for sets against both Djokovic and Murray recently or did I dream that? :sobbing::cuckoo:

I think it's a bit soon to call him an underachiever but I admit if things don't pick up he could be heading that way fast.

Schumacher
04-05-2013, 08:33 AM
Wawrinka....and Nalbandian. These two are/were players with a lot of potential...

Roy Emerson
04-05-2013, 01:56 PM
Haas
Nalbandian
Gulbis
Dimitrov

The Prince
04-05-2013, 01:59 PM
De Bakker.

Kyle_Johansen
04-05-2013, 05:35 PM
Dolgopolov, Cilic, and Wawrinka are my top 3.

Fedalovic
04-05-2013, 06:19 PM
Wawrinka, Gasquet and Dimitrov.

bjurra
04-05-2013, 09:12 PM
Nalbandian and Baghdatis.

I don't understand you who say Dimitrov, you must have had unrealistic expectations.