[SV_Fan]

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]

She definitely is one of the biggest underachievers yes..

[Barktra]

The Legend that is Peak Pierce Peak Pierce's legacy still going strong

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

[SV_Fan]

^^^

She never liked tennis ????

[Anthony.]

Originally Posted by SV_Fan

^^^

She never liked tennis ????

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

[Barktra]

Originally Posted by SV_Fan

^^^

She never liked tennis ????

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

[Jakeev]

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]

Yes, she could(and should) be Top Ever player or at least Best of her generation What a talent

[DomenicDemaria]

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]

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]

no she didn't because she simply wasn't fit enough most of her career to do better than she did...

[jj74]

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]

Originally Posted by jj74

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]

Originally Posted by @danieln1

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]

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