[Mark Lenders]

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:

[Mountaindewslave]

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

nice serve, strong groundstrokes. sigh.

[djokovicgonzalez]

Would likely have done the most of any of them. Had a more all around game than Sod or Berdych and a little less shaky than Tsonga.
Also, Ferrer used to have a bigger forehand takeback.

[duong]

it's a pity that Ancic's carreer had to stop that way, but his baseline shots were not at all as good as the other players mentioned, he was not as much adapted to "modern tennis" as them.

[MaxPower]

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

[bjurra]

Ancic was incredibly inconsistent, didnt return well and was a mediocre mover around the court. His game was attractive but not as efficient as Söderling's and Berdych's.

[FiBeR]

you forgot Simon, Monaco and Tipsarevic
(1984 and Top ten)

[BroTree123]

He's like a rich man's Dodig.

[Burrow]

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.

[Blue Heart24]

Originally Posted by Burrow

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.

[Deathless Mortal]

Could've, should've, would've. Pointless thread.

[BauerAlmeida]

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.

[Jverweij]

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..

[Coolio_Jack]

He's net coverage and volleys were insane, but i don't see him hitting through those running bots we have today like Djokovic, Murray and Nadal.

[Mark Lenders]

I'm surprised at how poorly some remember Mario.

Originally Posted by MaxPower

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.

Originally Posted by Blue Heart24

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).

Originally Posted by Jverweij

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.