[Nikola Jokic]

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.

 

[guitarra]

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.

 

[Nikola Jokic]

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.

 

[guitarra]

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...

 

[Time Violation]

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.

 

[just1ce]

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

 

[Nikola Jokic]

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.

 

[ZaZoo)]

1. Tsonga
2. Davydenko
3. Nalbandian

 

[Ilg]

Karol Kucera
Andrei Medvedev
Thomas Enqvist
Kent Carlsson
Robin Soderling
Michael Stich

3 of these 6 players.

 

[Martin12]

Gasquet could also be considered here. He won 15 ATP 250 titles, but nothing higher.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

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)

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

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.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

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.

 

[BodyServe]

Gasquet could also be considered here. He won 15 ATP 250 titles, but nothing higher.

Once he became a pusher in around 2007-2008 he could no longer be considered an underachiever.

 

[Martin12]

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.

 

[skywalkerbg]

1. Monfils
2. Nalbandian
3. Rios/Mecir

 

[JediFed]

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.

 

[Nikola Jokic]

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.

 

[theseth1119]

For me it's Rogie, he could've won even quite a bit more, but it is what it is!!

 

[florentine]

In addition to his injuries, Haas also had to take care of his parents, especially his father, in a coma after a very serious road accident in mid 2002, which also did not facilitate his career when she had to assert herself.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20020702/News/605230672/SH