No she has not underferformed at hard court slams and particularly the USO. with F, SF, SF in 2009-2011. If you take the betting odds at the start - she exceeded
or at worst equalled them. In 2009 she way surpassed expectations. 2010 - all the talk was Kim and Pova. They were expected to make the Final. All the experts said that. Noone picked Caro. And the booking odds those two had shortest odds no matter where you went. And as for 2011 where she lost in the 1st round at Cinci and Rogers Cup - you think she underperformed at USO compared to those tournaments before because she didn't beat Serena in the SF
In my book she exceeded all my expectations at USO. It's overall where she ends up compared to what the odds say and hence where she was expected to end up that is the basic definition of whether a player underferforms or not.
Of course if you want to talk about Wimbledon and RG- her slam results have not been good. But she doesn't do great on those surfaces in the other tournaments. Yeah she won Wimbledon 2009 befoe she was on the Radar and expected to do much at Wimbledon. And then she has a couple of 1st round losses at Eastbourne. I'll grant that betting odds say she should have made QF at those slams. But people would still have parrotted she underperforms at slams even if she'd reached QFs at hose slams. I'd rather her meet or exceed her expections at USO than just make QF at those slams where her odds say she should have made.
As for your other point that when team Caro said targetting slams as their priorty in 2012 - you state that was just words and they didn't do that - again I disagree. You can have your opinion but it is opinion and not fact. Just because they didn't have what you think their schedule should be to target slams doesn't prove they weren't doing that. For starters - she was mucking about with all her serves being 2nd serves on the clay court tournaments as an experiment that Piotr wanted to try. That for a start didn't seem to be taking those tournaments seriously enough and a disaster as far as I'm concerned. The whole mindset seemed to be not to worry about bad results at tournements. I am quite certain they took their eye off the ball at tournaments with the "priority is slams" view. As certain as you are with the opposite view that if they hadn't changed their schedule to what you personally think it should be - that they didn't mean what they were saying about targetting slams.
Betting odds aren't great for these purposes, but Caro was 2nd favourite for USO 2010, going out in the SF was underachieving using the oddsmakers odds. Don't know where you got Sharapova was expected to make the final from, Wozniacki started as a 57.8% favourite to beat Sharapova in R4. She was in the top 4 favourites for USO 2011, so making SF was only equaling expectations. If we are really using this as our guide then Caro has probably exceeded expectations like once ever in grand slams, and not met expectations at the overwhelming majority. Overall at hard court slams, Caro has still underachieved. She has underachieved every year in Australia using the betting odds except maybe for 2008 (I can't find odds for this far back and no-one I know seems to have them). What the "experts" are saying are the favourites on TV, doesn't always resemble the actual favourites.
Whatever they say, anyone who plays Olympics, Montreal, Cincinnati, New Haven on 2 different continents and 2 different surfaces going into historically their best grand slam is not prioritising the grand slam. Everyone is trying things to improve, the problem I have with buying into this point of view, at this point she'd already started falling down the rankings, gone through coaches, heavily struggling on the court, she needed defence mechanisms to the press. Besides she was in rapid decline at this point, they needed to be trying things on the court to halt the slide. It's easy to claim you took your eye off the ball if you lost, it's a defence for why you lost, that you were "trying things". They even do this now, saying stuff like she's trying to be more aggressive so she can succeed at the grand slams, that's just a cover up though, she isn't going into all these tournaments not caring if she loses or not like you've seen Serena do at events in the past, it was quite clear at Indian Wells what these tournaments still mean to her (look at her reaction after beating Kerber).