PDA

View Full Version : Mary Pierce: Tennis' Biggest Underachiever??


SV_Fan
Nov 13th, 2012, 03:25 AM
I was watching Tennis Channel's 100 greatest of all time. I thought it was interesting that during Mary Pierce's segment, everyone said she helped lay the foundation for today's generation. It was unanimous that she should have been a greater player than what she was. Lindsay Davenport said she only played her best Tennis when she was happy, other said her career was marred by injuries which caused inconsistency.

What is about Pierce that leaves everyone in both awe and disappointment. Is there a true explanation as to why her career turned out the way it did?

Dominic
Nov 13th, 2012, 03:43 AM
She definitely is one of the biggest underachievers yes..

Barktra
Nov 13th, 2012, 03:45 AM
The Legend that is Peak Pierce :inlove: Peak Pierce's legacy still going strong :inlove:

Being serious her father could be a factor and injuries and just her maybe just not having a love for the sport

SV_Fan
Nov 13th, 2012, 04:01 AM
^^^

She never liked tennis ????

duhcity
Nov 13th, 2012, 04:03 AM
^^^

She never liked tennis ????

Google Jim Pierce. Among the...unsavory characters of tennis parents unfortunately.

Barktra
Nov 13th, 2012, 04:03 AM
^^^

She never liked tennis ????

I don't know that is my assumption because of her father :shrug: I could be dead wrong

Jakeev
Nov 13th, 2012, 05:57 AM
I think it hard to say a player who had won a couple of Slams is an underachiever. Could she have done more? Sure but so could have Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati and Hana Mandlikova. What killed her career sadly was that horrible injury she had when she clearly had her career going places.

Aryman3
Nov 13th, 2012, 06:29 AM
Yes, she could(and should) be Top Ever player or at least Best of her generation What a talent

DomenicDemaria
Nov 13th, 2012, 08:00 AM
I would say injuries and choking. Her peak was the 2000 FO and the lead up to that. In this time she won hilton head dropping 12 games (a record she holds with Serena for the least amount of games lost in a Tier 1/Premier 5 event). She won the FO injured and then only played Wimbledon and USO after that (retired in the 4r of us open). Then she spent close to year out of the game and got completely out of shape. Her next peak was 2005. She didn't grab a major but made three major finals and then got injured early 2006. If you look at the 6 slam finals she played she was favourite in at least four of them. She could have walked away with 3-4 slams.

danieln1
Nov 13th, 2012, 12:57 PM
Should have won 5 slams minimum

Her game when on, was able to beat ANY player, and she did beat ALL of the greats, Serena, Venus, Davenport, Hingis, Graf (6-2 6-2), Seles and many others.

I agree, she is the biggest underachiver because of the talent she had

basset
Nov 13th, 2012, 01:12 PM
no she didn't because she simply wasn't fit enough most of her career to do better than she did...

jj74
Nov 13th, 2012, 01:23 PM
People seem to not understand that a peak player is not the real player. Mary was able to play at an incredibly high level from time to time, but she wasn't able to sustain that level for long.
Serena, Graf, Navratilova or Evert are on everyone's list as the best (in different order) because they were able to sustain a high level tennis for a long time, and even more, they were able to win big tournaments even without being at her top level or in their best form.

1994 is a good example why Pierce not achieve more. She was in top form, she destroy all her rivals, including Steffi Graf in semis, but she wasn't able to be that good in the final. Arantxa simply doesn't let her play the way she wanted, she had to hit one more ball in every game, and finally she started to make more errors. Her finals against Henin and Clijsters are good examples of that too.
In a good day Mary could defeat everyone, but when she wasn't in a good day, the number of players who were able to defeat her were really high.
And mentally she was very far from the ones that dominated the 90's

spencercarlos
Nov 13th, 2012, 01:49 PM
People seem to not understand that a peak player is not the real player. Mary was able to play at an incredibly high level from time to time, but she wasn't able to sustain that level for long.
Serena, Graf, Navratilova or Evert are on everyone's list as the best (in different order) because they were able to sustain a high level tennis for a long time, and even more, they were able to win big tournaments even without being at her top level or in their best form.

1994 is a good example why Pierce not achieve more. She was in top form, she destroy all her rivals, including Steffi Graf in semis, but she wasn't able to be that good in the final. Arantxa simply doesn't let her play the way she wanted, she had to hit one more ball in every game, and finally she started to make more errors. Her finals against Henin and Clijsters are good examples of that too.
In a good day Mary could defeat everyone, but when she wasn't in a good day, the number of players who were able to defeat her were really high.
And mentally she was very far from the ones that dominated the 90's
Pierce was as good to beat anyone at her best but that level she was not consistent or maybe she was still beatable afterall.

Its actually a myth that Pierce was all injured apart from 1994 French Open, 1995 Australian Open, 97 Australian Open,2000 Roland Garros and her 2005 slam run. She played lots of grand slam events and she was just good enough to make it past the Qf round just 6 freaking times out of 52 times, about 12 percent of the time. And she should be the best of her generation?

Her slam semis oponnents. (Graf, Martinez, Coetzer, Hingis, Likotseva, Dementieva)

And out of her 52 slams she has another 8 QF rounds to her name on them, not really outstanding numbers in comparisson to the greatest ever, or even players below her in slam count.

Going back to your post i agree completly, a great bunch of players could and indeed beat Pierce in the biggest stage over her carreer, that is why she achieved what she did.

Matt01
Nov 13th, 2012, 02:30 PM
Should have won 5 slams minimum

Her game when on, was able to beat ANY player, and she did beat ALL of the greats, Serena, Venus, Davenport, Hingis, Graf (6-2 6-2), Seles and many others.

I agree, she is the biggest underachiver because of the talent she had


Yeah, she was one of the biggest underachievers for sure.

Sammo
Nov 13th, 2012, 02:35 PM
She really should have won more but on the other hand there have also been many extremely talented players that never even cracked the top 30 so :shrug:

The Dawntreader
Nov 13th, 2012, 02:38 PM
Far too inconsistent. I think two Slams were a pretty good measure of her career.

tommyk75
Nov 13th, 2012, 02:49 PM
Jj74 said it best, IMO. Champions have to know how to win even on an off day, and Mary didn't really have the ability to dig deep against players she couldn't blow away. She was still a special player, of course, and yes, Mary at her best hit with more power than anybody else in her generation, and I'm including both Steffi and Monica in that statement (Not saying she was a better player than them, of course, but peak-wise, I'd take her over either of them).

n1_and_uh_noone
Nov 13th, 2012, 08:02 PM
past the Qf round just 6 freaking times out of 52 times

Well, that just means that PEAK Pierce would have won 52*2 (remember, she would embarrass peak Federer :shrug: ) = 104 Slams. But as we know, peak Pierce was not daily Pierce. Hence just a 2-Slam winner.

edificio
Nov 13th, 2012, 08:37 PM
I can't see her not loving the sport since she attends so many tennis events to this day!

Anyway, just because you think a player should have won more doesn't make them an underachiever. :shrug: She had a good career, albeit hampered by many of the things that hamper other players: injuries, family, shifting desires, etc.

thrust
Nov 13th, 2012, 09:31 PM
People seem to not understand that a peak player is not the real player. Mary was able to play at an incredibly high level from time to time, but she wasn't able to sustain that level for long.
Serena, Graf, Navratilova or Evert are on everyone's list as the best (in different order) because they were able to sustain a high level tennis for a long time, and even more, they were able to win big tournaments even without being at her top level or in their best form.

1994 is a good example why Pierce not achieve more. She was in top form, she destroy all her rivals, including Steffi Graf in semis, but she wasn't able to be that good in the final. Arantxa simply doesn't let her play the way she wanted, she had to hit one more ball in every game, and finally she started to make more errors. Her finals against Henin and Clijsters are good examples of that too.
In a good day Mary could defeat everyone, but when she wasn't in a good day, the number of players who were able to defeat her were really high.
And mentally she was very far from the ones that dominated the 90's

WELL PUT.

Shvedbarilescu
Nov 13th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Tennis's biggest underachiever is a player neither you or I ever heard of. She had the talent to be a world number 1 but she didn't put in the work when she was young, fell out of shape, lost interest, perhaps didn't have the money to back her up and support her and didn't get the coaching and sponsorship she needed and so she quit the game as a junior, and now none of us have ever heard of her. Sad, but almost certainly true.

NashaMasha
Nov 13th, 2012, 11:09 PM
biggest underachievers - Tracy Austin, Monica Seles

fluffyelloballz
Nov 14th, 2012, 12:44 AM
2 majors, 4 runner-up trophies, 2 time finalist at YEC, world number 3, $9.7 million in prize money....
Pretty serious achievements there.
Did she underachieve? She could have won another major or two yes but she lost those finals to Sanchez, Henin, Hingis and Clisters, all of whom won more majors than she did and all of whom had the consistency to become number one.
Consistency is what Pierce lacked and why she did not win more.
I think she achieved what she was due, if that makes any sense.

VultureHater
Nov 14th, 2012, 04:15 AM
Pierce the Canadian the French decided to class as their own just so they could say they had a slam winner. :lol: She overachieved tbh.

moonballnurse
Nov 14th, 2012, 04:15 AM
Wozniacki is a bigger underachiever because she would have a slam if she pushed a little harder. :o

Adi1987
Nov 14th, 2012, 06:06 AM
Mary Pierce was the Hana Mandlikova of Big Babe Tennis.


Sublime when playing at her best , but even if one thing went off, the whole performance suffered.

OsloErik
Nov 14th, 2012, 06:21 AM
If you think of the evolution of Big Babe Tennis as baseliners with...

power off one side -> power off both sides -> power off both sides w/ a big serve

Pierce was the first player to really put all three together. Did it inconsistently, but she was the first top player who had power off both wings and a big serve.

The next step was adding good footspeed to all three components, and that's where the Williams sisters came in.

sebbe
Nov 14th, 2012, 11:50 AM
Mary would have done much better if her mental part was better - the inconsistency was the result of the mental part which made her so tight on important points. Just looking at her game, she should have had more success in my oppinion. Her strokes were pretty much perfectly performed, and she was moving pretty good when she was in shape. She was in 41 finals during her long bumpy career but she only managed to win 18 of them so I believe that she is an underachiver.

SV_Fan
Nov 14th, 2012, 05:01 PM
So it seems everyone is split between over and under achiever.

Is there a reason for the inconsistency.