Who do you think is the biggest underachiever in tennis of the past decade?

[Great Hands]

Who do you think is the biggest underachiever in tennis of the past decade?

I was thinking about this because Luxilon Borg's recent thread was about how Andy could have achieved more.

But for the biggest underachiever of recent times, for me it has to be Stan Wawrinka.

Apart from a brief spell in the top 10 in 2008, he spent 5 or so years only being in the top 20-30, around the ages 23-28 - prime years for a tennis player.

In 2013, when he's 28, he hooks up with Magnus Norman and makes a few changes - his FH, some tactical changes, his mental approach etc - and he almost immediately becomes an elite player. Since then, he's won two slams, being the only player other than Novak to win multiple slams, and the only player to beat Novak multiple times at slams, in the past 2 years. He's thrashed Fed and Murray at slams, taken Novak to 5 sets at slams 4 times. When he's playing well, he's arguably the best player in the world (Mats Wilander thinks so).

So my question is: what the freak was he doing during most of his 20s?

Just think if he'd hooked up with Magnus Norman when he was, say, 22, or made the changes some other way. The guy could have had many more years as a slam contender, winning his fair share I'm sure - because although he's inconsistent, as I say, when he's on he can beat anybody. He could have at least, say, 6 slams by now, he could be an all time great.

What a waste of his talent until he was in his late 20s.

One quote from Kevin Mitchell in the Guardian provides one possible clue to his underachieving: 'Stan the Man was always the most sociable of athletes, once as devoted to downing a few beers with journalists'. Hmmm. This suggests he didn't have his priorities right then.

I mean, at least Andy was in the top 4, getting to SFs and Fs, losing only to Fedalovic. Stan wasn't even in the top 10, and at times in the lower reaches of the top 30! This is far worse underachievement than Andy, given what we now know Stan is capable of.

So - who do you think is the biggest underachiever of the past decade?

 

[shawnbm]

You hit it--Stanislas, although the great Delpo has as well due to injury. Now, put all that aside because the biggest of them all was daveed!! Lol

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Today just now, Rubio, the republican candidate was giving an eloquent victory speech. If you did not check the facts, you would have thought he won Iowa. He did not. In fact, he did not even finish second.

It is the same phenomenon if you call Stan an underachiever. If Stan did not win the two GS and if he just exited at SF or F in those two, you would not even be talking about him being an underachiever. Stan actually did well beyond what is expected of him by himself (his motto was to "lose better") or anyone else (including his fans and probably even his ex-wife). I would not call that underachieving.

 

[Front242]

Nalbandian and Rios for me. Ok, so Rios retired in 2004 and doesn't make the cut for last decade but still a total underachiever.

 

[Kieran]

Stan has under-achieved at MS level, but he's taken his chances at slam level. Bloke like him, I think 2 slams is fairly great. Murray has under-achieved, no question. Going back over a decade, Nalbandian has - talent-wise - but mental fortitude and discipline is a talent too, and it's more important than fancy shots in the clutch, so really, Nalbandian's under-achievement has to been seen in a context where it wasn't unexpected.

The Lost Generation, Generation Grigor, whose patron saint is Gulbis, haven't achieved at all. Anything. Nothing. Rien. Nada. So there's a whole stinky pool of useless to point the finger at...

 

[isabelle]

Delpo for me but he was injured so many times that you can excuse him for that. He's underachiever because he never won any MS or Masters or CD

 

[Great Hands]

Stan has under-achieved at MS level, but he's taken his chances at slam level. Bloke like him, I think 2 slams is fairly great. Murray has under-achieved, no question. Going back over a decade, Nalbandian has - talent-wise - but mental fortitude and discipline is a talent too, and it's more important than fancy shots in the clutch, so really, Nalbandian's under-achievement has to been seen in a context where it wasn't unexpected.

The Lost Generation, Generation Grigor, whose patron saint is Gulbis, haven't achieved at all. Anything. Nothing. Rien. Nada. So there's a whole stinky pool of useless to point the finger at...

Agreed on Generation Grigor.

I just cannot understand, though, how you can say Murray has under-achieved but Stan hasn't. Stan at his best is better than Andy, and he has a better game for beating the top guys. Stan has had the ability to play like an elite player, but only started achieving it at 28, when he could have got there much earlier with a better attitude and a few changes. Andy could have done better too, but, as I say, he's been top 4 his whole career from age 21, Stan has been top 20-30. But his naturally powerful physique and stunning technical talent were there before, sp his udnerahcivment ids clearly bigger than Andy's.

 

[Great Hands]

Thanks for all the responses guys. Interesting reading.

I agree on Delpo. His story is a very sad one.

Another major underachiever of the last decade - Monfils. Can you imagine a mentally and physically committed and dedicated Monfils, with better shot selection? He'd be slam winner, IMO.

Dimitrov also springs to mind.

 

[Great Hands]

Today just now, Rubio, the republican candidate was giving an eloquent victory speech. If you did not check the facts, you would have thought he won Iowa. He did not. In fact, he did not even finish second.

It is the same phenomenon if you call Stan an underachiever. If Stan did not win the two GS and if he just exited at SF or F in those two, you would not even be talking about him being an underachiever. Stan actually did well beyond what is expected of him by himself (his motto was to "lose better") or anyone else (including his fans and probably even his ex-wife). I would not call that underachieving.

These are very good points.

I guess this is where underachieving is such a hard thing to quantify. I started thinking about it because Andy was being talked about as underachieving, but imagine if he, say, didn't work as hard as he does, or didn't have that competitive fire that gets him through lots of tough matches - he might not even be a slam contender and then no one would even be talking about him as an underachiever, even though he'd actually achieved less. So Andy is a 'high profile underachiever' in the sense that he's close to the top of the game and has things he could improve. But I was just thinking 'look how good Stan is - he's better than Andy at his best. And he did nothing at all at the top level for most of his 20s.' How is that not underachieving, in a far worse way than Andy?

Of course, for all we know, the most technically talented player of the past decade may be someone ranked much lower, who just doesn't train hard and is mentally weak, but if they had a strong work ethic and mental fortitude, they'd be world number one and thrashing Novak. Or the most talented tennis player ever may be working in a office somewhere and they never even picked up a racket! And thus they are the biggest underachiever, but we just don't know it.

 

[Great Hands]

Nalbandian and Rios for me. Ok, so Rios retired in 2004 and doesn't make the cut for last decade but still a total underachiever.

Yep, Rios is a contender for most talented player never to win a slam. So is Nalby.

 

[Great Hands]

Stan has under-achieved at MS level, but he's taken his chances at slam level. Bloke like him, I think 2 slams is fairly great. Murray has under-achieved, no question. Going back over a decade, Nalbandian has - talent-wise - but mental fortitude and discipline is a talent too, and it's more important than fancy shots in the clutch, so really, Nalbandian's under-achievement has to been seen in a context where it wasn't unexpected.

The Lost Generation, Generation Grigor, whose patron saint is Gulbis, haven't achieved at all. Anything. Nothing. Rien. Nada. So there's a whole stinky pool of useless to point the finger at...

Agreed on Generation Grigor. But whilst I think Murray has underachieved, I think Stan has underachieved to an even greater extent - see my posts above. He actually has a better game to beat the top guys than Andy, but he didn't start playing to his potential until 28? And before that he was ranked 20-30? As I said, at least Andy was top 4 and knocking on the door. Stan was underachieving so much he wasn't even in the conversation, despite having the talent.

 

[Riotbeard]

Stan has under-achieved at MS level, but he's taken his chances at slam level. Bloke like him, I think 2 slams is fairly great. Murray has under-achieved, no question. Going back over a decade, Nalbandian has - talent-wise - but mental fortitude and discipline is a talent too, and it's more important than fancy shots in the clutch, so really, Nalbandian's under-achievement has to been seen in a context where it wasn't unexpected.

The Lost Generation, Generation Grigor, whose patron saint is Gulbis, haven't achieved at all. Anything. Nothing. Rien. Nada. So there's a whole stinky pool of useless to point the finger at...

Agreed on Generation Grigor. But whilst I think Murray has underachieved, I think Stan has underachieved to an even greater extent - see my posts above. He actually has a better game to beat the top guys than Andy, but he didn't start playing to his potential until 28? And before that he was ranked 20-30? As I said, at least Andy was top 4 and knocking on the door. Stan was underachieving so much he wasn't even in the conversation, despite having the talent.

I think you're dead on the nose with Stan. While he has done so much late in his career, it would have been interesting to see what he could have had he been focused for the last 10 years instead of the 3. I definitely think he would have more slams than 2.

 

[Great Hands]

Stan has under-achieved at MS level, but he's taken his chances at slam level. Bloke like him, I think 2 slams is fairly great. Murray has under-achieved, no question. Going back over a decade, Nalbandian has - talent-wise - but mental fortitude and discipline is a talent too, and it's more important than fancy shots in the clutch, so really, Nalbandian's under-achievement has to been seen in a context where it wasn't unexpected.

The Lost Generation, Generation Grigor, whose patron saint is Gulbis, haven't achieved at all. Anything. Nothing. Rien. Nada. So there's a whole stinky pool of useless to point the finger at...

Agreed on Generation Grigor. But whilst I think Murray has underachieved, I think Stan has underachieved to an even greater extent - see my posts above. He actually has a better game to beat the top guys than Andy, but he didn't start playing to his potential until 28? And before that he was ranked 20-30? As I said, at least Andy was top 4 and knocking on the door. Stan was underachieving so much he wasn't even in the conversation, despite having the talent.

I think you're dead on the nose with Stan. While he has done so much late in his career, it would have been interesting to see what he could have had he been focused for the last 10 years instead of the 3. I definitely think he would have more slams than 2.

Yep, the majority of Stan's 20s is certainly a huge 'What if?', given the level he has achieved over the past couple of years.

 

[Kieran]

Well that's a good point about Stan, he took a long time to get going...

 

[shawnbm]

And I heard he was like Daveed with beer drinking and enjoying the tour, when guys like Ralph and Wodger and Novak were getting rest, hitting the gym and the practice courts. It seems to me there is more upside with Stanislas than with Murray; he can beat down anyone, including Novak. Murray? He can't against Novak and hasn't in years against Roger. I think Nadal beat him the last time they played as well. At any rate, it seems that Wawrinka is capable of so much, yet he has not delivered. He is kinds of like Safin, although the Russian's upside was even greater. The things he could have done--on court!! I think it was the off-court activities that impacted his record. LOL!~

 

[Great Hands]

And I heard he was like Daveed with beer drinking and enjoying the tour, when guys like Ralph and Wodger and Novak were getting rest, hitting the gym and the practice courts. It seems to me there is more upside with Stanislas than with Murray; he can beat down anyone, including Novak. Murray? He can't against Novak and hasn't in years against Roger. I think Nadal beat him the last time they played as well. At any rate, it seems that Wawrinka is capable of so much, yet he has not delivered. He is kinds of like Safin, although the Russian's upside was even greater. The things he could have done--on court!! I think it was the off-court activities that impacted his record. LOL!~

Yeah, I agree on Stan's upside being higher than Murray's, certainly in terms of challenging the top guys. Murray's touch and feel on the ball is greater, he has more variety etc, and he is more consistent day in and day out on the tour, but these things don't win you slams. Stan has more effortless power than Murray, he can overpower anyone on his day.

Yes, Safin had such technical talent, and power.

 

[Great Hands]

Another underachiever - although he's in the 'not his fault' category like Delpo - Soderling.

Can you imagine if Stan had committed more from his early 20s, and Delpo and Soderling had avoided injury and mono respectively?

With Roger, Rafa, Novak, Andy, Stan, Delpo, and Soderling all playing well at the same time, plus Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer, that would have been one hell of a top 10!