PDA

View Full Version : Players won Grand Slams but still underachieved


mm1147
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:56 AM
Venus :shrug: it sounds ridiculus but outside wimbledon she is actually underachieved

Sharapower
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:07 AM
Maria Sharapova
:banghead::banghead:

spencercarlos
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:16 AM
Venus :shrug: it sounds ridiculus but outside wimbledon she is actually underachieved
Yeah especially at Roland Garros as we know.

slamchamp
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:17 AM
venus underachieved?? she has like 7 grand slams

kiwifan
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:30 AM
2nd best player of her generation; so she underachieved compared to...

...that other underachiever who is the best of her generation.

So what does that say about the rest of the field?

You can go back in almost every pros career and say they should have done better...other than Graf (but we won't get into the Seles stabbing thing again...)

*JR*
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:35 AM
Iva of course. :shrug:

Wannabeknowitall
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:42 AM
Novotna. When you beat your biggest nemesis and make the final of a slam (like Jana did when she beat Graf in the quarters of 1991 Australian), you would think that would be enough incentive to come back every year.

She didn't and it definitely cost her a realistic shot at the number one ranking in 1998.
I think she might have been able to sneak a slam in the three years she missed the AO or at least get to another final.

Kworb
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:54 AM
Capriati. Especially during her comeback. In 2001 she won two Slams, and only one other title. :o

Dominic
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:02 AM
Maria Sharapova
:banghead::banghead:

Totally agree

Andy.
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:03 AM
Venus Williams- The best athelete the game has ever seen IMO I would have expected her to have 10+ slams by now + having the career slam.

Martina Hingis- I really expected her to be in it for the long haul and I expected her to win 7-10 slams and definatly a few Roland Garros crowns.

Mary Pierce- She had so much talent and is a scary ball striker. If it wasnt for all her injuries and questionable mentality I think she could/should have won 4-5 slams.

and I also think Serena has underachived she could have been one of the all time greats had she really dedicated herself (I was expected her to have at least another 20 extra titles by now and maybe another 4 or 5 slams) to the game even more but I guess at the same time that could have caused burn out.

miffedmax
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:14 AM
What if Evert and Navritalova had given a crap about the Aussie Open? Their haul might have surpassed Court and Graf. That's the problem with using Slams as the sole measure of success. Their importance has waxed and waned--the French and Aussie moreso than Wimby and the U.S. Open.

mr_burns
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:39 AM
Capriati for sure: don't wanna talk about her 1990 version, but from 2001 she could have won more...especially in 2004 she had a decent shots at 2 slams...and losing to weingartner was inapropriate. furthermore she did nothing outside slams

Novotna: she deserved at least 2 more Wimbledon

Davenport: maybe she is the most obvious one...so consistent, but she does not have the killer instict you need...should have won 2 slams in 05, but also some other from 2000 on

mauresmo: don't know if she could have won really much more...but her poor record at RG is an underachievment

Clijsters: but she is coming back now

-VSR-
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:43 AM
Venus, Pierce, Davenport and Clijsters.

pwayne
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:44 AM
Svetlana Kuznetsova and Iva Majoli

IanRadi
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:49 AM
Pierce and Davenport for sure. :(

zvonarevarulz
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:55 AM
Pierce,Davenport,Novatna,Sabatini

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:50 AM
hingis

Temperenka
Jul 9th, 2009, 05:29 AM
Martina Hingis, Jen Capriati, Kim Clijsters...

and (call me crazy)... Nastya Maskina :scared:

Singleniacki
Jul 9th, 2009, 05:31 AM
Ivanovic overachieved

mr_burns
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:50 AM
Martina Hingis, Jen Capriati, Kim Clijsters...

and (call me crazy)... Nastya Maskina :scared:

I need to, cause it is more an overachievment...seriously..she does not even come close to another final

Alex03Maccy
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:53 AM
i hate to say it, but momo.

Mynarco
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:53 AM
MARTING HINGIS. She deserves or should win more slams.
Also, Clijsters.

MashaFanatic
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Martina Hingis : so much talent so few Slams whereas she was n°1 during four years : you could have expect at least 2 slams per year during her domination.

Gaby Sabatini : the n°1 underachiever. We can talk about some who are playing now like Maria or Venus, maybe, especially Maria who should have won more slams by now (at least one or two), but Gabriela is the first that comes to my mind with this thread. 10 years in the top 10, and one Slam, damned. And what a great game, great talent and a great hand. If Gaby have had the fighting rage of Serena or Maria, what a career she would have made. And Steffi would have less slams. Anyway, in women tennis, nobody beats the ultimate underachiever (if you make an equation "the most talented player whould win more slams") : Mecir.

I would have said Clijsters, but the reasons are that she retired too soon.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:23 AM
The first name that comes to my mind is Davenport :sobbing:

justine schnyder
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:30 AM
Cljsters.. :shrug:
Venus? Oh come on, she had so many titles and 7 GS, 5 wimbledons..

tennnisfannn
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:33 AM
Slam wise Kim and Davenport then mauresmo.
Title wise and no.1 wise Venus. She should have a title count close to what lindsay had and more by now. She should have spent more time than 11 weeks in the top spot.

Natalicious
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:51 AM
the first that come to my mind are mauresmo & clijsters

jimbo mack
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:02 PM
mandlikova, pierce and kuznetsova. they all have multiple slams but were never number 1. now we have many players who are achieving the number one ranking with no slams to back it up with :o

CJ07
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:35 PM
Venus has definitely underachieved since 2001. Particularly the clay court season. Venus had consistently good clay court results through 2004. No clue what has happened since then.

Nickk
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:55 PM
Sounds like almost every Slam champion has underachieved:lol:

mr_burns
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:11 PM
Sounds like almost every Slam champion has underachieved:lol:

no basically no Serena, Henin and Maria from the new generation

Although you could argue a fit version of Serene would have much more slams between 04 and 07...but she is fine with 11

FERLKE
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:29 PM
underachieved: Clijsters, Mauresmo & Sabatini

overachieved: Pierce and Myskina

Kart
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:31 PM
None of the above.

nfl46
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:32 PM
Definitely Venus. She can't seem to win outside of Wimbledon, but she would have more GS if it wasn't for her sister. I think Venus will be around 13 Gram Slams right now, if it wasn't for Serena.

thrust
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Venus, Pierce, Davenport and Clijsters.

Off clay, Venus did NOT underachieve. She lost several finals to her sister, who was slightly better than her, when she was at her best. She also had injury problems and had to make several comebacks. Mary Pierce was an underachiever as was Novotna and Clijsters. Hingis was not an underachiever. She was just not big enough to compete with the bigger stronger girls when they reached their prime. Unlike Justine, she was not willing to take extreme training measures to compensate for her natural physique. Justine, though she won more Slams by taking those physical risks, perhaps, paid the price with the virus and physical burn out at 26. To call Serena an underachiever is totally absurd! Justine was an overachiever.

spencercarlos
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:31 PM
Off clay, Venus did NOT underachieve. She lost several finals to her sister, who was slightly better than her, when she was at her best. She also had injury problems and had to make several comebacks. Mary Pierce was an underachiever as was Novotna and Clijsters. Hingis was not an underachiever. She was just not big enough to compete with the bigger stronger girls when they reached their prime. Unlike Justine, she was not willing to take extreme training measures to compensate for her natural physique. Justine, though she won more Slams by taking those physical risks, perhaps, paid the price with the virus and physical burn out at 26. To call Serena an underachiever is totally absurd! Justine was an overachiever.
Justine decided to quit, its not like she burned out, at the time of her retirement she was holding 9 titles, 2 grand slams and the YEC. Everybody has had issues with fitness and cameback strong, did not Venus and Serena had 2003 plaged by injuries, and the same thing happened in 2006, and they came back, Justine decided to quit at the top, its not like she was burned out and finished like you want to imply.

:wavey:

pollison
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:37 PM
Mary Pierce...just sucha clean ball striker. Injuries really took their toll

pollison
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:37 PM
oh and Davenport should atleast won 2 slams since 2000

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:00 PM
Hingis, Both Williams sisters, Davenport

Morrissey
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Sabatini is the biggest underachiever in women's tennis history when she was a teen people expected Sabatini to challenge Evert and Navratilova but then Steffi emerged and stole her thunder. Sabatini career ended due to two losses the 1991 Wimbledon final when she served for it twice and the 1992 French Open semifinal against Seles. Sabatini had a 4-2 lead in the final set against Seles and still blew it and lost the match she was the ultimate big match choker.

The other big underachievers are Jennifer Capriati she only won 14 WTA tour titles yes Capriati managed to win 3 slams but she should of won at least 5 or 6. In 2004 Jennifer should of won the French Open and US OPEN she blew both opportunities.

Martina Hingis should of won more then 5 slams she has so much talent she choked a lot of matches at the French Open she should of won the French Open at least twice in her career. I remember the choke against Graf in 1999 she should of won that match.

Davenport a great talent but mentally weak in big finals she always lost to Venus Williams in slam finals especially the 2005 Wimbledon final she served for the match at 6-5 in the second set had a 4-2 lead in the third and a match point and still lost. Davenport should of won a lot more.

Venus Williams is an underachiever despite winning 7 slams because she's better then that. People expected Venus to win all four grand slams that's the kind of talent Venus has. Venus has won 8 or 9 clay court titles so why hasn't she won the French Open? Also Venus horrendous record at the Australian Open is terrible. Venus is mentally weak. Why hasn't Venus won the US OPEN since 2001? Venus hasn't been in the US OPEN final in 8 years that's outrageous! Venus should of won a couple more US OPENS. Also why does Venus ONLY do well at Wimbledon? Venus has the game to win the other slams but not the belief. She needs new coaches.

I disagree about Serena she's FINALLY taking tennis seriously and Serena is just very hungry right now she's sweeping the slams. A couple of years ago I would agree but I don't agree about Serena. Serena is living up to her potential now she's cleaning up at the grand slams. Serena has won 3 out of the 4 slams and she's zoomed past Seles. Serena says she wants to match Billie Jean King at 12 slams and she will definitely pass her too. Serena is so mentally tough unlike Venus. Serena doesn't care that Venus is her older sister she cares about winning. Did you see Serena's reaction when she won Wimbledon this year? She was so happy and she did not tone down her celebration just because Venus is her older sister. Venus can learn a lot from Serena forget about the family ties on the court and give it 200% and try to win.

Sha_ra_po_va
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:36 PM
Certainly Novotna should have/could have finished with more than just (!) one wimbledon to show for her troubles. Watch the '93 final against Graf, till 4-1 final set. With a tiny bit of luck, Jana had that match in the bag and that would have made a HUGE difference to her career, IMHO.

VivalaSeles
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:50 PM
Sabatini, Pierce, Mauresmo, Clijsters and Kuznetsova :)

gmak
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Clijsters, Novotna, Pierce and Davenport :(

also, Hingis

Expat
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:32 PM
venus, hingis , henin (pre retirement) overachieved. now that henin has retired early you could say she underachieved.
serena maria underachieved

Volcana
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:39 PM
Venus :shrug: it sounds ridiculus but outside wimbledon she is actually underachievedWell, two US Opens, a YEC and an Olympic gold medal is nice. Decent doubles achievements too.

And to an extent, you have to allow that she was competing against Henin, and Serena. That's 18 GS singles titles off the board. Allow, for the moment, that Serena and Henin all have won about what they should have. What should Venus have accomplished? Since Venus won her first slam, you've got two slams for Kuzzy, three for Sharapova, three for Capriati, two for Mauresmo, and one for Ivanovic. More slams for Venus have to come from those players.

And that's not counting the one's she missed because of injury.

Morrissey
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:45 PM
Venus should of won the Australian Open by now and she should of won the US OPEN more then just 2 times. Venus is definitely an underachiever.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Seles who was stabbed and, to a lesser extent, Austin whose career was finished at 20 are the only underachievers over the last 30 years.
All other slam winners have achieved as much as they should have. Being a choker / not being good enough doesn't automatically mean you have underachieved.

LeonHart
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Martina Hingis - In 2000 she lost to the eventual winner in all 4 grandslams, and she was pretty dang close in 3 of the 4. In Roland Garros and in Wimbledon, both her opponents were starting to cramp in the 3rd set. And we all know about the overhead at the US Open that could have won her the match :sad: In 2001, beat Serena and Venus back to back only to lose to Capriati...a big big disappointment. And of course 2002 having all those matchpoints.

Davenport - Definitely would have more slams if perhaps she was more mentally tough. Every time she has faced a Williams in a slam final she has lost, even when it was evident that she was the more in-form player (2005 Aus and Wimbledon).

Venus - Perhaps she could have won more grand slam titles against her sister, however I feel the fire and desire to win was more on Serena's side, resulting in her losing most of the GS finals to her little sister.

Clijsters - Kind of like Davenport, she was mentally a bit weak. You always felt like she was gonna win more than one slam, the way she dominated players outside of slams (and in slams, until the SF or Final).

Havok
Jul 9th, 2009, 05:04 PM
Capriati in regards to regular tour titles.
Pierce in regards to both Slams and tour titles.
Davenport/Hingis in regards to Slams.

Those are the four that come to mind off the top of my head.

Human Nature
Jul 9th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Without ANY doubts SELES ....to me GRAF is overachieved thanks this horrible event sorry ...she would have never won all these GS if Seles was still around ..Seles was at her peak and the true N1 in the world when she got stabbed by this crazy fan .

Archer16
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Sabatini, Novotna (ain't no lead is safe enough), Hingis, Pierce (at her rarely seen peek, unstoppable), Capriati (both decades) are obvious answers.

What if Evert and Navritalova had given a crap about the Aussie Open? Their haul might have surpassed Court and Graf. That's the problem with using Slams as the sole measure of success. Their importance has waxed and waned--the French and Aussie moreso than Wimby and the U.S. Open.
I agree, but the French was never relegated to the status of the AO had until about 20 years ago. It didn't have a full 128 player field until 1988!

Venus Williams- The best athelete the game has ever seen IMO I would have expected her to have 10+ slams by now + having the career slam.

Martina Hingis- I really expected her to be in it for the long haul and I expected her to win 7-10 slams and definatly a few Roland Garros crowns.

Mary Pierce- She had so much talent and is a scary ball striker. If it wasnt for all her injuries and questionable mentality I think she could/should have won 4-5 slams.

and I also think Serena has underachived she could have been one of the all time greats had she really dedicated herself (I was expected her to have at least another 20 extra titles by now and maybe another 4 or 5 slams) to the game even more but I guess at the same time that could have caused burn out.
Mentioning the WS has a point but as you say we don't know what would have happened by now if they played at full force throughout the decade.

Seles who was stabbed and, to a lesser extent, Austin whose career was finished at 20 are the only underachievers over the last 30 years.
All other slam winners have achieved as much as they should have. Being a choker / not being good enough doesn't automatically mean you have underachieved.
I see it exactly the opposite - choking a slam you could have won is underachieving, while being injured (or stabbed) is not something that's up to the player (well, some injuries are a matter of conditioning, but that's beside the point).

Donny
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:18 PM
I'm a huge Serena fan, but I'm not ready to call her an underachiever.

Look at every other player who were active during the same time as the WS-- Henin, CLijsters, Davenport, Hingis- all of them either mentally burned out, or ended up retiring from injury. Do you think that Serena, playing every slam and going deep, would last as long as she has?

People here need to realize that it's simply harder to win slams than it was before. Serena, unless she was made of titanium, was never going to get to 20 or so slams playing the way she did. Expecting Evert or Graf like slam totals now is unrealistic.

Golovinjured.
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:52 PM
Hingis
Sabatini
Pierce
Davenport
Novotna
Clijsters

The Daviator
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:57 PM
Davenport. Too good to only have 3, should at least have 4, all those chances in 04/05 :sad:

Myskina should have done more too, only time past the QFs at a major was the Slam she won, should have made more SFs and won more regular titles.

Olórin
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:03 PM
I don't get why so many peoeple are calling Pierce an underachiever. She's incredibly inconsistent and injury prone, she did all she could.

I don't think Davenport underachieved massively, she was never the most mentally strong player and she played Venus and Serena Williams a lot. She missed a chance in Wimbledon and the US Open in 2004 but I don't really see what more she could have done in 2005, where she had an excellent season.

Hingis got it just about right with 5 too. She had that heart breaker in 2002 and didn't take her chances against Steffi, but she lost in straight sets an awful lots of times simply because she wasn't good enough. She won most of her slams when the field was quite weak. Again, I think she did all she could.

Venus I feel in the last few years has lost a lot of matches she shouldn't have. I think Serena has underachieved in the French, but that's about it.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Myskina definatly, all others achieved pretty much what was expected.

Graf won 11 slams before the stabbing and although Seles would have been a better challenge for her, Steffi would still have won several more anyway so I don't think saying Graf overachieved because of the stabbing is fair. Especially since Seles did only ok at Wimbledon before the stabbing anyway.

Dav.
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:36 PM
Tatiana Golovin

http://arras-france.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/golovin_gasquet.JPG

:p

But definitely Seles and Austin.

I also think Davenport, Novotna, Clijsters and Mandlikova had the potential to achieve a lot more. Lindsay kind of made up her slam count in other events and through her ranking, though.

crazillo
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Jana Novotna of course!

LDVTennis
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Steffi is the ultimate underachiever.

Yes...

She should have completed the calendar-year Grand Slam four (4) times.

In addition to her 1988 calendar-year Grand Slam, she should also have one for 1989 (lost FO Final to Vicario), 1995 (DNP AO), and 1996 (DNP AO).

Uranium
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Davenport underachieved in winning majors, she should have won more, but she achieved great success out of them:p She really could have won a RG title, mainly 2004, it was wide open but she lost rather easily to Dementieva, who had she beaten she would have had Mauresmo, Suarez and Myskina. But IIRC, she went 3 sets in all her matches and nearly lost to Peng.
Venus IMO is an underachiever, she is one of the best hardcourters and has no AO to her name, only has 2 USOs even though that is her most consistent slam.
I also think Hingis, Clijsters and Seles are underachievers.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:30 PM
Tatiana Golovin

http://arras-france.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/golovin_gasquet.JPG

:p


Great Team :) :)

I'm still sad I won't see sexy Richie on court for a while :sad::sad::sad:

jzrnsk
Jul 9th, 2009, 10:38 PM
What if Evert and Navritalova had given a crap about the Aussie Open? Their haul might have surpassed Court and Graf. That's the problem with using Slams as the sole measure of success. Their importance has waxed and waned--the French and Aussie moreso than Wimby and the U.S. Open.

Ivanovic, and Kuznetsova

hablo
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:10 PM
Mauresmo and Clijsters come to mind.

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:20 AM
Venus should of won the Australian Open by nowWhen? What year did some unworthy win it that Venus should have?

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:25 AM
davenport...among the players with 50+ titles, she's the fewest majors by far.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:40 AM
davenport...among the players with 50+ titles, she's the fewest majors by far.

I agree with you Lindsay could've had at least another three if not more. I followed Lindsay at the start of her career when she was a young player coming up and they were always talking about Jennifer Capriati as the can't miss kid of that group. While yes Lindsay could've won at least another three slams if not more having seen her at the start of her career Lindsay had a good career compared with what the experts thought Lindsay could achieve and also Lindsay had a lot of injuries over her career too.

améliemomo
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:41 AM
amelie, mary,kimmy, tati

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:56 AM
I agree with you Lindsay could've had at least another three if not more. I followed Lindsay at the start of her career when she was a young player coming up and they were always talking about Jennifer Capriati as the can't miss kid of that group. While yes Lindsay could've won at least another three slams if not more having seen her at the start of her career Lindsay had a good career compared with what the experts thought Lindsay could achieve and also Lindsay had a lot of injuries over her career too.

I see..so in a sense she made the most of it. Only at the majors..wonder what went wrong there.