Who should have made more out of the talent they had.....Arazi or Rios? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who should have made more out of the talent they had.....Arazi or Rios?

aura of moya
07-23-2002, 10:38 AM
Hey guys,

This sort of just came into my head.

Both guys have extreme creativity and talent, but would be disappointed with how much they've both achieved.
Who should have done more?

Other nomination would be cool as well.

Thanks

Simon V

tazban1
07-23-2002, 01:05 PM
I think Rios is definitely more talented so if they both maxed out their potential, I think Rios would have done a lot more.

But as for who underachieved more, it's hard to say. Even though Rios hasn't done as much as he should have, 18 singles titles and a stint at #1 is nothing to sneeze at. I'd have to say that Hicham underachieved more in proportion to his talent. I mean really, ONE TITLE!?! I never expected Rios to be a great champion so I'd say that he got closer to his true potential than Hicham.


As for other underachievers, in no particular order:

Kafelnikov - I know most guys would dream of the career he's had, but with his talent he should have done more

Marat Safin - see above

Goran Ivanisevic - again, see above

Magnus Larson - tons of top 10 wins, but lacked conditioning due to the fact that he didn't really train. If he actually had some kind of practice regimen he might have actually won a slam.

Richard Krajicek - if it weren't for injuries, I think he'd have several slams by now

Xavier Malisse - certainly should have done more at this point in his career, though he seems to be turning it around

I'm sure there are a lot more I'm not thinking of.

aura of moya
07-23-2002, 01:27 PM
Hey Tazban,

I must say, it's easy to forget Marcelo has one 18 titles........wow. That actually surprises me a little, but I can understand that he has enough talent to do it.
He must have won heaps while at his peak..........getting to Number 1.
I think that if he had've won the Australian Open in 98 against Korda, we might be talking about him in a whole differ light.

18 titles would be so much better if it was 16 titles and 2 Grand Slams.......unfortunately......injuries took him out, similar to Carlos, at his peak.

Simon V

Daniel
07-23-2002, 02:41 PM
Rios :)

Pea
07-23-2002, 06:54 PM
BOTH! But Rios had more success than Arazi.......Hicham should've been winning lots of titles and Marcelo should've been winning grand slams.

Jessi
07-24-2002, 01:34 AM
Kafelnikov - I know most guys would dream of the career he's had, but with his talent he should have done more

Marat Safin - see above

Marat is still only 22..

although i agree with you that with Marat's talent he should have won more.

Darkheart
07-24-2002, 03:00 AM
Arazi

Dissident
07-24-2002, 03:12 AM
Rios is more complete a player. Arazi is tricky and stuff, but he has limitations even playing his best. Marcelo´s game is almost flawless when he´s on. If only some players could take their heads off while they play...
:(

Ace Tracker
07-24-2002, 03:42 AM
the best I've ever seen from Rios was when he defeated Agassi at the then Lipton Championships in Key Biscayne...at that year (1998 I believe...?), Rios had an impressive string of victories and titles that eaned him high praises from John macEnroe and Agassi himself...Rios was also heavily favoured to win Roland Garros, but faltered unexpectedly on the big stage after having collected trophies in the warmup Master Series events...problem is that Rios is notorious for not putting too much effort if things are not going his way...he's been accused of tanking matches a few times, but his lack of stamina seems more like boredom sometimes to me...Even with a sometimes raucous Chilean crowd chanting for him, Rios does not seem to thrive or get energized by the fans incentive, and even if he sometimes acknowledges and thanks the crowd afterwards, his somber attitude oncourt showns otherwise...but anyway, watching Marcelo Rios "A" game is a privilege that I hope we'll keep on having for many years yet...

Ace Tracker
07-24-2002, 03:55 AM
Arazi, and to a certain extent Fabrice Santoro, has one of the best "hands" in tennis today, capable of hitting with all sorts of spins, angles and paces...and that sometimes proves damaging to their overall results...Arazi is fundamentally a shotmaker...some of his points are so beautiful that one cannot conceive this guy not having had a better career...problem is that sometimes he goes for the most beautiful and difficult shot in detriment of a simple and "unglamorous" winner...this has proved costly for him several times, even though it provides uncountable fodder for TV's "shots of the day" reports...

Raven
07-24-2002, 06:02 AM
I'd say Arazi....Rios got to number 1 and has won numerous titles, but Arazi (who I consider one of the most talented) never really played "consistently" well over a long stretch.

Overall, Rios has been the better player, but I think Arazi hasnt made the most of his talent...but still, a very fine career regardless ;)

Nimi
07-24-2002, 10:09 AM
Well, Rios' career couldnt be compared to Arazi's, he has achived MUCH more. But if were talking who has the graeter talent, i would have to say Rios, cuz he also had the talent to keep on playing well over a stretch of matches (im confused & tired)

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 10:54 AM
Its too early to throw Marat in here, though there really is almost no excuse for him not having won at least three slams by now, buy I digress...

Mark P, if he never wins a slam, IMO will go down as a massive underachiever. Even with the injuries.

Kafelnikov was a good one - he should IMO get into the hall of fame (one of only a few guys to have won 25 doubles and 25 singles titles, a stint at number one, consistent top tenner over a decade in singles and doubles, multiple slam winner in dubs and singles, etc etc), but could have done better potentially.


Just a thought, but has anyone noticed that a lot of the really really talented players who never seem to quite max out their potential are among the most intelligent?
Rios for example, may be an ass, but he strikes me as being extremely bright. Both he and Kafel seem bored half the time they are on court, like it just isn't stimulating enough for them.

I am not saying you have to be dumb to be a consistently great player, but it is interesting in my opinion as it appears to be a pattern among *some* of the underachievers.

TheBoiledEgg
07-24-2002, 11:18 AM
Marcelo Rios should have won the Aus Open, but he flopped really badly on the biggest stage.
at his best he is wonderful to watch, artistry is amazing.

Hicham has always been patchy, brill results followed by a big letdown, his rank is gonna suffer now from not getting bonus pts from beating the top 10 players like he used to (no bonus pts now so it really affects guys like him).

Becca....... Rios and Kafelnikov might seem bored on court but they also give the best press conferences.

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 11:23 AM
TBE - that is kind of what I was getting at...

Rios and Kafel both give good press conferences cause they are very bright...

Ace Tracker
07-24-2002, 12:34 PM
Rebecca, part of the problem, especially in Rios and Arazi's cases, may be that these players are so talented that each and every shot represents innumerous possibilities...these are players that can slice, dice, topspin, lob, dropshot and so on, but sometimes this variety makes your game plan confused and your selection of shots too streaky...

Chloe le Bopper
07-24-2002, 12:49 PM
GOod point Ace Tracker :)

SOme women have had the same problem - Mauresmo currently.

tennischick
07-24-2002, 01:48 PM
Rios made it to #1 in the world, and has been hobbled by injury ever since. what exactly has Arazi ever achieved? other than aking my pulse race? :lick: i'd say Hicham is the bigger underachiever of the two.

i'd like to see Kafelinikov win a TMS trophy before he retires. any one will do.

Wayne Ferrerira is talented enuf to have done more then he did but he too has been compromised by injury.

Carlos Moya had better get back into the top ten or his name will be added to this list of underachievers.

who has accomplished the most given his talent? Gianluca Pozzi...:hearts:

tazban1
07-25-2002, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Ace Tracker
Rebecca, part of the problem, especially in Rios and Arazi's cases, may be that these players are so talented that each and every shot represents innumerous possibilities...these are players that can slice, dice, topspin, lob, dropshot and so on, but sometimes this variety makes your game plan confused and your selection of shots too streaky...

This reminds me of one year a long time ago when Kafelnikov was playing the U.S. open and either Barry or Cliff said a similar thing. He was saying how he wished Kafelnikov would get a coach to teach him how to win because Yevgeny was hitting wrong shots when they should have been obvious and easy winners. Of course, it doesn't help that all these players are head cases.

tazban1
07-25-2002, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Jessi


Marat is still only 22..

although i agree with you that with Marat's talent he should have won more.

Yeah, I actually hesitated when I put him on there, but there's no doubt that he underachieved up to this point so I put him there anyway. I think he should have won at least three slams by now and number 1 for a lot longer than he has. I realize that players need time to work their games out, but I think Marat's game has been there for a long time. It's just a matter of him committing to it more. That's what frustrates me so much about Marat. He's so hugely talented and it seems like every shot is a weapon for him, it's just a matter of him deciding to win, and then he doesn't.

Malisse is only 22 as well, but he's had zero titles in both singles and doubles so, even though he may be a bit too young, I think he's a definite underachiever. I never expected him to be great, but he should have done a lot more than that.

tazban1
07-25-2002, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Rebecca
Mark P, if he never wins a slam, IMO will go down as a massive underachiever. Even with the injuries.......

Just a thought, but has anyone noticed that a lot of the really really talented players who never seem to quite max out their potential are among the most intelligent? ......

I am not saying you have to be dumb to be a consistently great player, but it is interesting in my opinion as it appears to be a pattern among *some* of the underachievers.

Mark P is a good one. I didn't even think of him. For some reason, as talented as he is/was, I always had a feeling that he'd never win a slam. Even when he was playing his best and blowing away his competitors, there was always that sense.

As for the intelligent underachievers thing, I have no stats to prove this, but I think the extremely intelligent are more prone to mental instability. I remember someone talking about gifted children on TV, and she said that they are often depressed or something, especially when they aren't being stimulated enough. I don't know if any of these players are gifted in that sense, but I think even people who are "merely" above average types or near gifted can be more susceptible to those types of problems. I think there are four types of underachievers, 1. "bad luck" underachievers = people who just get injured a lot or something so it isn't really there fault, 2. "don't care" underachievers = players who just need to grow up or work harder, and 3. "head case" underachievers = people who just choke or form weird mental blocks or let emotion derail them and, 4. any combo of the above. I think the "too intelligent" theory probably applies a lot to the "head case" underachiever.

The other theory being that tennis is largely an instinct sport, so maybe players who are naturally more intelligent have a problem with overthinking things.

Though, in Safin/Philippoussis/Malisse's cases, I think it's more a lack of intelligence/immaturity that's held them back. Maybe it's unfair, but Philippousses has always seemed to be on the dim side to me and Safin just needs to know when to take things seriously and prioritize.

Chloe le Bopper
07-25-2002, 04:23 PM
Tazba - nice analysis - I wasn't suggesting that Mark was one of the over intelligent ones, those thoughts just ran together :o

I don't think he is dumb by any means, but no I certaintly wouldn't group him with Kafel.

Though someone like Mark is mroe a type 4 - bad luck and head case. Though he seems to have cleared his head lately, so who knows.

The point about the more intelligent being depressed - well its no coincidence that a lot of geniuses go insane eventually.

That is an interesting topic on its own - maybe I'll start it up in NT.

AtPGiRL
07-26-2002, 02:26 AM
I just LOVE watching Arazi play! Too bad he hasn't had better results! He makes the most unbelievable shots! :p