Mens Tennis Forums banner

What was Ancic's potential compared to his age peers - Soderling, Berdych and Tsonga?

Mario Ancic vs his age peers - Soderling, Tsonga and Berdych - in terms of potential

6K views 101 replies 29 participants last post by  Mark Lenders 
#1 · (Edited)
What with Ancic forced to retire so young, it's easy to forget that Mario is basically from the same generation as Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling - these 4 were all born in the 1.5 year time period from March 84 (Ancic) to September 85 (Berdych). They also have similar game styles in a way - they are all different of course, but all based on a big serve and huge power off the ground, all are attacking big hitters.

His three age peers ended up all reaching a Slam final (Soderling two) and win a Masters so far - and they are also the most immediate threats to the very elite today (well not Soderling for obvious reasons) - and they're not done yet. Obviously Ancic's career doesn't stack up, nor could it considering it was basically over when he turned 22 due to illness and injuries.

What I'm asking is how his talent/potential measures up to that of those three. Did he have the potential to go further than them and achieve more? I personally believe he did; he had an excellent serve, was powerful and solid off both wings, moved quite well around the court and had spectacular volleys - he was quite a fighter/mentally tough as well. With the other three you can find some glaring weaknesses that keep/kept them from going further (Soderling - movement and volleys Tsonga - BH and ROS Berdych - serve and net game to some extent), but not with Ancic. His game was quite deadly, especially on grass - but he was excellent on all surfaces.

He had a pretty good career before his jet ski accident in 2006, only losing to peak Federer in the two Slams before that accident - definitely did much better in his early years than Tsonga, Soderling or Berdych. For those who never watched Mario play, here is a pretty good match during his last hurrah at Wimbledon 2008:

 
See less See more
#2 ·
Ancic had insane talent, it is pretty sad and unfortunate that injuries screwed the vast majority of his career. anyone who watched those few and far in between matches were Mario was at his best can't argue otherwise!
he definitely would have done something big if not plagued by health issues. it's really quite sad to think about, I was a big fan :sad:

nice serve, strong groundstrokes. sigh.
 
#16 ·
Surprisingly, I fully agree with you this time. He does not have an obvious weakness to be exploited like those three do, he has a more all around game for sure. Also, I feel that Soderling and Berdych's inability to follow their massive shots into the net has proved detrimental to them, it is probably why Tsonga, despite having an horrendous ROS and BH and being less steady than them in general, is pretty much on the same level as they are so far - he can finish points easier than them.

Net rushing/serve & volley is kind of dead these days, but following massive shots into the net and putting loopy returns away is still an incredibly valuable skill.
 
#5 · (Edited)
I have a very hard time seeing Ancic doing what Soderling/Berdych can do on clay and other slow surfaces.

Ancic's baseline game wasn't as good as Soderling/Berdych and with the trend that everything goes slower he hadn't been favored.


I actually think he's most similar to Tsonga in the sense he got excellent volleyskills and not so reluctant to attack the net.

Soderling and Berdych also attack the net but for them it's more a necessary evil and even if they have functional volley technique it isn't a major weapon.


So I think just like Tsonga he could make some nice upsets on grass/hc and definitely compete QF-> stage in many slams and SF-> stage in many MS1000s. Probably grab quite a few 250s/500s. Had ended up with a solid career and 10M+ prize money

EDIT: just realized Ancic only made 4M in prize money. Just shows how devastating it is to have an early end of the career. All the other 3 have made 10M+ now
 
#15 ·
I'm surprised at how poorly some remember Mario.

I have a very hard time seeing Ancic doing what Soderling/Berdych can do on clay and other slow surfaces.

Ancic's baseline game wasn't as good as Soderling/Berdych and with the trend that everything goes slower he hadn't been favored.
He actually reached QF at RG in his last semi-full year on tour (2006) only losing to Federer. IMO, he could actually do better than those two on slow surfaces, he had one thing those two sorely lack: the ability to grind out matches. The best example of this (but not the only one) is on one of his last comebacks when he beat Murray in the third set tiebreak in Indian Wells in one of the ugliest matches you'll ever watch. It's the kind of match Soderling and Berdych lose 90% of the time (especially against very good players) - when their weapons aren't working, they struggle greatly to just stay the course and grind out the win.

This.
He didn't have the firepower these 3 have.Soderling,Berdych,Tsonga are much more attacking players with stronger groundstrokes and stronger serve overall.Only Ancic advantage would be his net game.So no,no way he would've been better than any of these 3.
Eh I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that his BH is at least better than Tsonga's (and probably Soderling's too). I agree with your broader point that he probably has the least power off the ground among those 4 - although if we're being fair here, Soderling and Berdych increased in power when they peaked which Mario never did. He more than compensated for it by moving better than them and being able to follow his big shots into the net (a weakness that has held back Soderling and Berdych in big matches against the top players).

And no way are their serves better than Ancic's. They might have a bit more power, but Ancic's serve is more reliable and varied. Only Tsonga is his equal (maybe slightly better) in that department, someone like Berdych would kill to have such a reliably strong serve as Ancic, would probably have spared some embarrassing defeats. Look at the highlights of that match with Ferrer I put in the OP: Ferrer was already one of the best returners on tour and yet he barely got a look at Mario's serve (although, of course, his serve wouldn't be so deadly on other surfaces).

He had a fun game, but did lack power. He did do alot better early on than the other 3 mentioned, but actually seemed to get more inconsistent as time passed. He should have been able to win a masters the Ferrer-way, and reach at least the semi's at Wimby 1 or 2 times, but alas..
Could this have had anything to do with his history of injuries and mono since 2006? And he did reach a semi at Wimbledon, could have reached more if he hadn't bumped into prime Federer in 2006 and 2008 in the QFs.
 
#9 ·
Ancic showed a lot of promise as a teenager, but as the years passed, he began to prolong the swing on all of his shots, over-exaggerating every stroke, including his service motion, which began to look bizarre. At the time of his highest ranking in 2006, I began to think Ancic was destined to being a steady top 15, lower-tier top 10 kind of player but considering how well Ferrer has done, he may have managed to sneak a Masters Series. At no stage in his career did he look as promising as Soderling.
 
#10 ·
Ancic showed a lot of promise as a teenager, but as the years passed, he began to prolong the swing on all of his shots, over-exaggerating every stroke, including his service motion, which began to look bizarre. At the time of his highest ranking in 2006, I began to think Ancic was destined to being a steady top 15, lower-tier top 10 kind of player but considering how well Ferrer has done, he may have managed to sneak a Masters Series. At no stage in his career did he look as promising as Soderling.
This.
He didn't have the firepower these 3 have.Soderling,Berdych,Tsonga are much more attacking players with stronger groundstrokes and stronger serve overall.Only Ancic advantage would be his net game.So no,no way he would've been better than any of these 3.
 
#12 ·
I don't think the slowing down of the surfaces would have benefited him, but with the courts the way there were when he started playing he would have had a career like those 3 (slam final, Masters 1000, etc). I think he would still do well with the surfaces as they're now.
 
#13 ·
He had a fun game, but did lack power. He did do alot better early on than the other 3 mentioned, but actually seemed to get more inconsistent as time passed. He should have been able to win a masters the Ferrer-way, and reach at least the semi's at Wimby 1 or 2 times, but alas..
 
#17 ·
He would've been in the top 20, maybe lower top 10 for a bit. Soderling, Berdych and Tsonga are all better than him though. More power and they're just better players. Don't get me started on the Big 4, he would have nothing that could challenge any of them.
 
#19 ·
Insightful analysis as always from you :lol: You do know he beat Murray three times, right? Yes, I know Murray wasn't the same player he is today in 2008 (although it was the year he broke into the top 5 and made his first Slam final) but Ancic was hardly as good as he could have been considering it was his return year from mono. He probably did have something to hurt him.

Also, prior to the beginning of his succession of injury and ilness Ancic was significantly ahead of the other three. This does not mean of course that he'd continue being better in the future, but the way you dismiss him it seems like it was obvious all along he was the worst of the 4, when in fact if you asked tennis fans/pundits in 2004-2006 almost all of them would have picked Mario and with good reason.
 
#21 ·
It's tough to tell because, like pointed, the three players being mentioned have been evolving as the years passed while Mario had to stop, thus leaving a BIG question mark in relation to the topic.

I think there's a bit of a display of overrating in the opening post, Lenders, since Ancic was from the 'huge hitter from both sides' you're trying to portrait. sure, he had power and could do damage with his groundstrokes but the difference between his and the other three in that department is way more than just 'slight' (talking about power). Even if i was way younger between those years, i'd still watch a lot of tennis back then and i'm glad to have been able to see Mario in his peak, was a fun player to watch but never really thought of him as 'the next big thing' or remotely close, more like a solid top 15-20 player with some short stints in the top 10 for the rest of his career.

While it's fair to say he was probably more well rounded and consistent, with less 'clear' weaknesses, he also lacked the huge weapons the other 3 do have (Soderling and Berdych clearly had more raw, natural power back then than Ancic and out of the three Tsonga is probably the one that benefitted the most from maturing and increasing shot power as the years went on). You're also exaggerating in regards to his general speed/movement IMO, wasn't as good and his extremely long swing on his forehand (not proportional to the speed generated, Burrow spot on there) halted him to get out of difficult situations on the run with big winners, etc.
 
#24 ·
He would have been a beast on grass. A potential Wimbledon finalist at least.

I doubt he would have had much impact at the other slams but he was capable of becoming a solid regular quarter-final player and establishing himself in the top 10.

He'd become such a fighter before he was forced out of the game. Like Lenders said, that match against Murray was a good example of what he had become. When things weren't going well he could grind with the best of them.

I'd say "roughly the same" from the poll.
 
#25 ·
He had a better serve, ROS and backhand than Tsonga, a worse forehand but equal volleys. His baseline game overall probably isn't as good as the other three but his grass game would have undoubtedly been the best. He broke through a lot earlier than those guys as well so not sure if he would decline sooner.
 
#26 ·
He had a better serve, ROS and backhand than Tsonga, a worse forehand but equal volleys. His baseline game overall probably isn't as good as the other three but his grass game would have undoubtedly been the best. He broke through a lot earlier than those guys as well so not sure if he would decline sooner.
You really think so? I think Ancic has way more variety in his volleys and approaches the net far more sensibly than Tsonga. Tsonga is an excellent volleyer for today's standards, but remember Mario made a few great Wimbledon runs in his early years by serve & volleying his way through

I think Tsonga has a slightly better serve though, both have good variety and disguise and good 1st serve %, but Tsonga has more power on it I think and also a better second serve.

He would have been a beast on grass. A potential Wimbledon finalist at least.

I doubt he would have had much impact at the other slams but he was capable of becoming a solid regular quarter-final player and establishing himself in the top 10.

He'd become such a fighter before he was forced out of the game. Like Lenders said, that match against Murray was a good example of what he had become. When things weren't going well he could grind with the best of them.

I'd say "roughly the same" from the poll.
Yup, many people seem to think of Ancic and the serve & volley 20yo that was close to a Wimbledon final, he had become much more by 2006, let alone upon his comeback, he was a tremendous fighter and could grind it out even with someone like Murray.

Great post overall, I also believe grass is where he'd be a real contender. He had a lot to offer to the tour though, such a shame his career ended so tragically.
 
#29 ·
The Ancic I remember is the one that nearly got beat at Wimbledon by an 18 year old Djokovic.

Time makes fools of us. We allow ourselves to believe things were better than they really were.
It's not time that's making a fool of you, you're doing it yourself.

But yes, the same Djokovic who now holds 6 Slams and is #1 in the world and who would go on to reach the semis of Wimbledon the following year (leading Nadal before having to retire) and make several more semis and even win a title there. Clearly, needing 5 sets to beat him is very embarrassing :rolleyes:

You could have at least mentioned his defeat to Nole in USO 2005 or to Nadal at Wimbledon 2003 if you really wanted to clutch at straws in any convincing way, instead of a match he won.
 
#46 ·
Lenders,

You said the below, that Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro:

And all those 'mugs' are far better than Ferrer.
Your reasoning was that Tsonga and Berdych had reached a Slam final and Del Potro had won a Slam - therefore they were better players.

Ferrer isn't even good enough to 'fluke' a final. He can win the St Hertongenboschs of this world 1000 times, he will still be inferior to players who won Slams or played in Slam finals. Tsonga and Berdych reached their Slam finals by straight setting Nadal and Djokovic respectively, that's basically more games in one set than Ferrer wins in his entire Slam semis.
As winning a Slam is obviously better than being merely in the final and losing, you have therefore come to the conclusion that Gaston Gaudio is a better tennis player than Tsonga or Berdych.

Agreed? All I need is a yes or no answer.
 
#49 ·
Lenders,

You said the below, that Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro:



Your reasoning was that Tsonga and Berdych had reached a Slam final and Del Potro had won a Slam - therefore they were better players.



As winning a Slam is obviously better than being merely in the final and losing, you have therefore come to the conclusion that Gaston Gaudio is a better tennis player than Tsonga or Berdych.

Agreed? All I need is a yes or no answer.
Gaudio was ranked 40 something when he won Roland Garros. Although it was well deserved, it would be understandable if it's considered a fluke (altough it changes nothing really, he won it and it's all that matters), given he never made a QF again in a grand slam. None of these players has such poor results outside their slam final/title, so it's not a fluke in any way.
 
#74 ·
I'll give a few more examples of where your logic is incredibly stupid.

Reaching a Slam final is better than winning Master Series events as you yourself have said. It must therefore rank higher than the WTF too. I mean that's an 8 man tournament at the end of a long season right? At the start of the season you don't target winning the WTF over any of the Slams so reaching a Slam final is definitely better.

Could you therefore answer yes or no the to following questions:


Is Fernando Gonzalez better than Davydenko?

Is Baghdatis better than Davydenko?

Are Berdych, Tsonga and Solderling all better than Davydenko?

Is Guillermo Coria better than Davydenko?

Is Fernando Gonzalez better than Nalbandian?

Is Baghdatis better than Nalbandian?

Are Berdych, Tsonga and Solderling all better than Nalbandian?

Is Guillermo Coria better than Nalbandian?

Yes or no only please.
 
#75 ·
I'll give a few more examples of where your logic is incredibly stupid.

Reaching a Slam final is better than winning Master Series events as you yourself have said. It must therefore rank higher than the WTF too. I mean that's an 8 man tournament at the end of a long season right? At the start of the season you don't target winning the WTF over any of the Slams so reaching a Slam final is definitely better.

Could you therefore answer yes or no the to following questions:


1-Is Fernando Gonzalez better than Davydenko?

2-Is Baghdatis better than Davydenko?

3-Are Berdych, Tsonga and Solderling all better than Davydenko?

4-Is Guillermo Coria better than Davydenko?

5-Is Fernando Gonzalez better than Nalbandian?

6-Is Baghdatis better than Nalbandian?

7-Are Berdych, Tsonga and Solderling all better than Nalbandian?

8-Is Guillermo Coria better than Nalbandian?

Yes or no only please.
1-No. WTF title + 3 Masters easily trumps Gonzalez.

2-No. Same as 1.

3-No. Neither has a Slam and a single Slam final isn't enough to supersede Davydenko's far better achievements otherwise. I'm not talking about Mickey Mouse events, but WTF title and 3 Masters events won over Nadal and Djokovic.

4-No. Same as 3.

5-No. Same as 1.

6-No. Both reached a Slam final, Nalby's career far better otherwise.

7-No. Same as 3.

8-No. Both reached a Slam final, Nalbandian better otherwise.



A more interesting debate would be something like Davydenko/Nalbandian vs someone like Del Potro. Winning a Slam is the pinnacle in tennis, but those guys actually have non-Slam achievements that might warrant a discussion with multiple Masters over the best in the world and a WTF/TMC.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top