Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
516 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was strolling down the memory lane these days...
There's only so many times one can rewatch even the historic matches... So I turned to some sidelined stuff, that doesn't come to mind that often.

Started thinking about the talents that didn't quite reach their potential... And there were so many of them...
Incredible to think about it - and how many of them actually didn't fulfill their potential for some, often, stupid and silly reasons... and some times for some quite tragic ones.

I'd like to hear your candidates - and here's my list:
1. Marcelo Rios
2. Miloslav Mecir
3. Dustin Brown

Again - the list is much longer, and it's tough to make a selection - but these are the guys that I enjoyed watching the most - and that, in my opinion, had some very rare and exceptional talents that were not (not even close) fully realized.

Let me know what you think.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
13,403 Posts
I always thought guys who got severely injured/ sick at the early stage of their careers were the biggest underachievers: Ancic, Baker, Haas, Del Potro.
There are also some talented but lazy bums who got fat or addicted and didn't train enough: Nalbandian, Safin, Gulbis, Kyrgios.
It's a tough assessment cause one never knows what woulda/ shoulda happen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
516 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I always thought guys who got severely injured/ sick at the early stage of their careers were the biggest underachievers: Ancic, Baker, Hass, Del Potro.
There are also some talented but lazy bums who got fat or addicted and didn't train enough: Nalbandian, Safin, Gulbis, Kyrgios.
It's a tough assessment cause one never knows what woulda/ shoulda happen.
yeah :) as I said - the list is crazy long.
Kinda makes me mad when I think about the "fat or so" category... Especially Nalbandian. Kyrgios is just infuriating - but I don't want to even acknowledge him because of that "I hate tennis" crap. Tomic? He's IMO incredibly talented but such a self-destructive douche...
What about Vitas? He was #4 on my list.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
13,403 Posts
yeah :) as I said - the list is crazy long.
Kinda makes me mad when I think about the "fat or so" category... Especially Nalbandian. Kyrgios is just infuriating - but I don't want to even acknowledge him because of that "I hate tennis" crap. Tomic? He's IMO incredibly talented but such a self-destructive douche...
What about Vitas? He was #4 on my list.
Gerulaitis? Haven't watched much of him.
As for Gyros - yeah, I see he might be kinda annoying... ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,091 Posts
Well, if someone is injured, he's by all means prevented from achieving his best (or anything at all), so I wouldn't really call them underachievers, more like just unlucky and what-ifs. True underachiveres imo more like Tomic, Kyrgios, Monfils etc, who have (or had) every chance to do something yet pissed it away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Davydenko and Nalba ofc
Some may think they have masters and wtf,but...Considering their lvl in prime,it is a crime that they didn't win a single slam
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
516 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Well, if someone is injured, he's by all means prevented from achieving his best (or anything at all), so I wouldn't really call them underachievers, more like just unlucky and what-ifs. True underachiveres imo more like Tomic, Kyrgios, Monfils etc, who have (or had) every chance to do something yet pissed it away.
Didn't use the "underachievers" in the negative connotation - but in the "talent not fully realized" way.
And I don't agree on Monfils :) Or, better yet, his talents were somewhat, for the good part, realized imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
1. Nalbandian (guy never won a slam despite being only guy to beat all big 3 in the same tournament and demonstrate that he was clearly capable of multiple slams)
2. Davydenko (similar to Nalbandian but to a lesser extent, peak level easily was slam winning worthy, essentially was a Nishikori who had more capabilities, better shot making abilities, and didn’t bend over)
3. Gulbis (had the capabilities to win at least 1 slam-even Cilic won a slam, demonstrated top caliber level many times throughout his career but could never keep consistent enough, nearly bageled Nadal on clay)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
Gasquet could also be considered here. He won 15 ATP 250 titles, but nothing higher.
Not really, he could produce some flashy shots at times but his forehand was way too weak to compete with the top dogs. His court positioning was also stupid as there was no reason for him to play that far back but his mentality also held him back big time. Bent over so hard to big 3 that you would expect closer matches from the big 3 against challenger mugs than Gasquet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
Didn't use the "underachievers" in the negative connotation - but in the "talent not fully realized" way.
And I don't agree on Monfils :) Or, better yet, his talents were somewhat, for the good part, realized imo.
His talent is overrated. While he could produce some awesome shots. His matches were mostly won on his athleticism and his defensive mindset always held him back against big 3.
He never had the potential to be a multiple slam winner or be close to no.1. His record against Djokovic says it all for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,764 Posts
Not really, he could produce some flashy shots at times but his forehand was way too weak to compete with the top dogs. His court positioning was also stupid as there was no reason for him to play that far back but his mentality also held him back big time. Bent over so hard to big 3 that you would expect closer matches from the big 3 against challenger mugs than Gasquet.
Well, maybe then we just have a different definition of underachiever? For me that's someone whose results are below his potential. From your post I understand that for you it is someone whose results do not reflect the actual quality of this play? Because your statement is completely in line with my notion that Gasquet could very likely have achieved much more by investing more in improving on his weaknesses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,418 Posts
Haas has an interesting stat. Of the players from 1974-1978, he's the one with the most match wins in Grand Slams. Not Kafelnikov, not Guga, not Rafter, not Moya. He is the only such player never to reach world number 1, or win a slam.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
516 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Haas has an interesting stat. Of the players from 1974-1978, he's the one with the most match wins in Grand Slams. Not Kafelnikov, not Guga, not Rafter, not Moya. He is the only such player never to reach world number 1, or win a slam.
Yes. Tommy. I've seen him play live few times - even once after he retired.
I always had that notion in my head - "If this is the first time I see this player - and I don't know how things are - I'd believe that he's #1".
Injuries are a terrible thing - and Tommy and DelPo are one of the biggest victims of that sport's curse.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top