[GoBlue77]

and go!


1. Tsonga
2. Monfils
3. Paire
4. Gasquet



not trying to single out the French but these players came to mind and they all happened to be French.

[sunshineSpecial]

carreno busta

[Honeybadger44]

Querrey, Nishikori, Kohlschreiber, Verdasco, Lacko, Bellucci...

[beefcake]

and go!


1. Tsonga
2. Monfils
3. Paire
4. Gasquet



not trying to single out the French but these players came to mind and they all happened to be French.

Its ok man..French mostly suck anyway...

Maybe add Brown to the list...Top 50 talent but the guy has been content for the last 10-13 years to hover around 100 and not get better..

[beefcake]

Its ok man..French mostly suck anyway...

Maybe add Brown to the list...Top 50 talent but the guy has been content for the last 8-10 years to hover around 100 and not get better..

Edited

[stepaside777]

dimitrov
goffin

[SCI]

Monfils, Haase, Struff and Fognini come to mind.

[Jeff_Black]

Ernests Gulbis is easily the biggest underachiever in recent memory. Doesn't give a crap 80% of the time. Had a rich dad so he never really felt pressured to make money. Explains his good hit rate in finals because there is extra motivation.

[BennyBigNuts]

Ernests Gulbis is easily the biggest underachiever in recent memory. Doesn't give a crap 80% of the time. Had a rich dad so he never really felt pressured to make money. Explains his good hit rate in finals because there is extra motivation.

Gulbis is a good one but I'm not sure he had elite potential like a couple others.

Horrific list by OP in this thread by the way who obviously got buried this week laying chalk on all those losers lol, and also to the dumb fk who listed Carreno-busta, who cracked the top 10 at the end of 2017 and is like 25 years old.

The number 1 waste of talent (active players) isn't even a debate, it's fognini.
He's lazy, bi-polar, a showboat, and always been out of shape.
Fogster is one of the biggest cheats in the game and has probably made many millions tanking so I'm sure he's financially comfortable with Flavia for the rest of their lives.

100 miles behind foggy would be maybe Berdych (mental game) Nishikori (injuries), Goffin, and Raonic.

Then you have what is basically a debatable cheat list, guys who had way more talent than their actual career records:
Bagdhatis
Dolgopolov
Youznhy
Verdasco
F. Lopez
Cuevas

You can always have a debate about Wawrinka.
He has some hardware, but in my opinion could have been wayyyyy better and has never been dedicated enough (he's admitted this publicly) on a week to week basis.

The possible watch list for "biggest wastes of talent" in the future are probably Kyrgios (He will win majors eventually just like Stan and still be in this conversation), Borna Coric, Thiem, and Sock.

[gaebiskon]

andy "feminist" mugray

[jtoler]

I dont really consider any of those guys underachievers you guys named other than Dustin Brown. He has the most talent and has done least with it ranking wise than them all. Those other guys on the list are lacking physical different physical attributes to begin with when you compare them to the top 4 players the last 10 years. Monfils lacks consistent power and stamina. Carreno Busta has overachieved. I can agree somewhat with a guy like Dolgo, he is immensely talented but has things like health issues that prob held him back.

[Tmuston Beltics]

Fognini
Gasquet
Dolgopolov
Kohlschreiber
F. Lopez
Verdasco
Monfils
Paire
Vesely
Young
Troicki
Istomin
Herbert
Pospisil
Albot
Youzhny
Lacko
Sela
Mahut
Baghdatis
Stakhovsky
Darcis
Kuznetsov
Janowicz
Brown
McDonald
Tipsarevic
De Schepper
Soeda
Robredo
Tomic
Bolelli
Gulbis
Duckhee Lee
Napolitano
Millot
Opelka
Kokkinakis
Rosol
J-P Smith
Marchenko
Kamke
Di **
Munoz de la Nava
Giraldo
Krajicek
Gabashvili
Vanni
Dancevic
Masur
Samper-Montana
McGee
Dodig
Brands
Haider-Maurer
Evans
Bangoura

[Jeff_Black]

Gulbis is a good one but I'm not sure he had elite potential like a couple others.

Yeah it's hard to say who can be elite these days with a guy called Roger Federer playing then, and Nadal to some extent. But when you see a guy like Gulbis made a QF and a SF in the slams in his whole career and then cant make it to the QF on hards on slams despite winning 5 HC titles. To me that's underachieving. I think he could have easily spent more time in the top 10, and well entrenched if he just applied himself. Game wise I think he had the tools, and sustainable game to maintain a decent career but as they say Tennis is 90% mental! I also think he could have easily been a guy who could have done waaaaay better on grass, 2 indoor titles and his game suited the surface.

Horrific list by OP in this thread by the way who obviously got buried this week laying chalk on all those losers lol, and also to the dumb fk who listed Carreno-busta, who cracked the top 10 at the end of 2017 and is like 25 years old.

Some players, like say Carreno Busta I consider over achievers. Like when Juan Monaco made the top 10 off a few good results. Don't really rate either player whatsoever. Don't really rate any of the tall guys like Anderson and Isner who IMO wouldn't be able to sustain being in the top 10 either. Guys like Paire and Fognini I consider technically flawed players in their shot making. It's why they never play more then two good months of tennis a year and it's why they have a high unforced error and fault count in service percentages. Whether it is more because of a lack of concentration (sometimes) or the technique, I think it's both. CAN be top 10-15 players but again with the playing style I don't think they can sustain it.

Baghdatis is a fair one, or maybe we just hold him in too high regard because of what he did in 2006. His game was never meant to be great on clay but even then guys like Monfils/Djokovic/Murray coming good and knocking him off probably had something to do with it. Think he could have done more with his ranking and sustained being at the top but I don't think he worked hard enough either to stay there.

Dolgopolov is another fair one. But like Fognini and Paire leaves too little margin for error and due to technique flaws because of that leaves him as a hit or miss type of player.

[BennyBigNuts]

Yeah it's hard to say who can be elite these days with a guy called Roger Federer playing then, and Nadal to some extent. But when you see a guy like Gulbis made a QF and a SF in the slams in his whole career and then cant make it to the QF on hards on slams despite winning 5 HC titles. To me that's underachieving. I think he could have easily spent more time in the top 10, and well entrenched if he just applied himself. Game wise I think he had the tools, and sustainable game to maintain a decent career but as they say Tennis is 90% mental! I also think he could have easily been a guy who could have done waaaaay better on grass, 2 indoor titles and his game suited the surface.



Some players, like say Carreno Busta I consider over achievers. Like when Juan Monaco made the top 10 off a few good results. Don't really rate either player whatsoever. Don't really rate any of the tall guys like Anderson and Isner who IMO wouldn't be able to sustain being in the top 10 either. Guys like Paire and Fognini I consider technically flawed players in their shot making. It's why they never play more then two good months of tennis a year and it's why they have a high unforced error and fault count in service percentages. Whether it is more because of a lack of concentration (sometimes) or the technique, I think it's both. CAN be top 10-15 players but again with the playing style I don't think they can sustain it.

Baghdatis is a fair one, or maybe we just hold him in too high regard because of what he did in 2006. His game was never meant to be great on clay but even then guys like Monfils/Djokovic/Murray coming good and knocking him off probably had something to do with it. Think he could have done more with his ranking and sustained being at the top but I don't think he worked hard enough either to stay there.

Dolgopolov is another fair one. But like Fognini and Paire leaves too little margin for error and due to technique flaws because of that leaves him as a hit or miss type of player.

Good post
Solid tennis guy in my book

Can somewhat agree with you on PCB as far as his ranking, but he does compete well on BOTH main surfaces so it helps. I like the guy. Inconsistent but has the tools to make a deep run in majors.

And yeah, all the tall guys are worthless but can make a decent living off of a serve.

Would be nice to see more people like you in the tennis forum instead of what it currently consists of.

[Jeff_Black]

Good post
Solid tennis guy in my book

Would be nice to see more people like you in the tennis forum instead of what it currently consists of.

Ay thanks, I always enjoy a good tennis chat with other fans from around the world

And I've probably lost money on all the guys mentioned above at some point too hah. That's life I guess.

[JC1186]

Can somewhat agree with you on PCB as far as his ranking, but he does compete well on BOTH main surfaces so it helps. I like the guy. Inconsistent but has the tools to make a deep run in majors.

What are you on about Bull Testicle? Wrong way around there.

He IS consistent, but DOESN'T have the tools to make deep run in Majors.

The US Open was a flash in the pan last year. Sure he'll have the potential to go deepish at RG (though don't think he'll ever replicate last years QF again), but that's less about "tools" and more about hard work and grinding. If you look at 2017 results alone, then sure, he looks inconsistent with the ability to go deep at Majors. That however is very misleading and anyone with a clue would know that.

He is an overachiever. Full stop. He's a Challenger player at his core and he'll always need many others to be off their game + a favourable draw to go deep just about anywhere.

Jeff comparing him to Juan Monaco is spot on! 10 in the world is pretty hilarious. Hope he enjoys it because in 2018 it'll be a fair fall for him from there.

[jtoler]

What are you on about Bull Testicle? Wrong way around there.

He IS consistent, but DOESN'T have the tools to make deep run in Majors.

The US Open was a flash in the pan last year. Sure he'll have the potential to go deepish at RG (though don't think he'll ever replicate last years QF again), but that's less about "tools" and more about hard work and grinding. If you look at 2017 results alone, then sure, he looks inconsistent with the ability to go deep at Majors. That however is very misleading and anyone with a clue would know that.

He is an overachiever. Full stop. He's a Challenger player at his core and he'll always need many others to be off their game + a favourable draw to go deep just about anywhere.

Jeff comparing him to Juan Monaco is spot on! 10 in the world is pretty hilarious. Hope he enjoys it because in 2018 it'll be a fair fall for him from there.

Agreed, dont expect that from him on hard or grass too much more, his bread and butter is clay. I watched him all last summer when he was super hot going into the U.S. Open, he was playing his best on hard Im sure ever. Just consistent on the ground, no big weapons really. Unless he does well in clay season I think itll be hard for him to maintain top 15.

[GoBlue77]

the more i think about it, when you venture outside the top 5, a lot of names come to mind...

some good suggestions in here.

[GoBlue77]

Gulbis is a good one but I'm not sure he had elite potential like a couple others.

Horrific list by OP in this thread by the way who obviously got buried this week laying chalk on all those losers lol, and also to the dumb fk who listed Carreno-busta, who cracked the top 10 at the end of 2017 and is like 25 years old.

The number 1 waste of talent (active players) isn't even a debate, it's fognini.
He's lazy, bi-polar, a showboat, and always been out of shape.
Fogster is one of the biggest cheats in the game and has probably made many millions tanking so I'm sure he's financially comfortable with Flavia for the rest of their lives.

100 miles behind foggy would be maybe Berdych (mental game) Nishikori (injuries), Goffin, and Raonic.

Then you have what is basically a debatable cheat list, guys who had way more talent than their actual career records:
Bagdhatis
Dolgopolov
Youznhy
Verdasco
F. Lopez
Cuevas

You can always have a debate about Wawrinka.
He has some hardware, but in my opinion could have been wayyyyy better and has never been dedicated enough (he's admitted this publicly) on a week to week basis.

The possible watch list for "biggest wastes of talent" in the future are probably Kyrgios (He will win majors eventually just like Stan and still be in this conversation), Borna Coric, Thiem, and Sock.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AAR2owuaGfA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

don't be a douchebag

and my list murders yours. the players i listed have Slam "potential" and yours I would say most guys reached their limit of talent. Berdych, Lopez, Dolgo, etc are exactly who we always thought they would be. They would never have been favored in a Major if they made it that far. Tsonga and Monfils are the big two that should have won a few Slams already.

Nishikori and Goffin will eventually get a Slam since the big 3 are on the decline.

[BennyBigNuts]

Soon as you try and say PCB is a "challenger player at his core" you can't be taken seriously and have to be excluded from any future tennis talk.
Is he a top 10 player? Obviously not. Is he a top 10-75 player? Absolutely. Not even a debate.
Of course he's a natural clay player, he's from Spain, but he's stepped his game up overall on hards as well.
Dude isn't elite, but he's going to be a solid fixture in ATP events for the next 4 or 5 years easily.

[Optional]

Tomic
Fognini

[JC1186]

Well good luck to you with your bets on PCB to make deep runs at Majors. You know, with all those tools at his disposal.

Haha c'mon mate, mine was an exaggeration. You on the other hand pretty much select the entire range of ATP players (10-75) and put him in that massive bracket as though it's anything but an obvious statement. Of course he'll be a fixture at most ATP events for the next several years. That's a little different to regarding him as someone with the tools to go deep regularly on this biggest stage.

But hey, I guess you could make a case for most ATP players having "the tools". If I'm going to label someone "inconsistent", but with "tools to make deep runs at Majors", it isn't going to be PCB. So that's why I quoted you. It's a retarded thing to say. His entire career is based on being more consistent than the guy on the other side of the net.

[bruceBRUCEbruce]

Ernests Gulbis is easily the biggest underachiever in recent memory. Doesn't give a crap 80% of the time. Had a rich dad so he never really felt pressured to make money. Explains his good hit rate in finals because there is extra motivation.

yep
always thought he had the tools...for example, he's got 5 250 titles on Hard Courts, yet he's 2-8 all time at the Aussie Open

[sunshineSpecial]

Re: Carreno-Busta

From a bettor's perspective, I think consistency is more important than talent, and there's more value in betting on lower ranked players. My criteria for being an underachiever are how often, and how bad a player loses when he's the favourite. Not sure which match, but sometime recently he went from erratic to sh*t list (along with Isner, Monfils, Tsonga - half the top players basically). Too inconsistent to bet on, too talented to bet against and too risky to put in a parlay.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

He IS consistent, but DOESN'T have the tools to make deep run in Majors.

Other way round lately, he's been excellent in the slams. He's gone R4 Aus (lost tight one to Cilic), SF UO, QF Roland Garros.

Outside the slams he's hopeless - he's won one single match in his last 12, stretching back to August (and that was Guido Pella, indoors).

[JC1186]

Other way round lately, he's been excellent in the slams. He's gone R4 Aus (lost tight one to Cilic), SF UO, QF Roland Garros.

Outside the slams he's hopeless - he's won one single match in his last 12, stretching back to August (and that was Guido Pella, indoors).

Sure, but like I said, I think his results at the recent three Slams will be a run he'll never replicate again. He doesn't really have the tools to go deep very often at all. Despite recent results indicating otherwise.

I may as well say what I think re. his ranking too, and that is, imo, he'll be ranked outside the top 30 come year end. Where he belongs.

[BennyBigNuts]

Sure, but like I said, I think his results at the recent three Slams will be a run he'll never replicate again. He doesn't really have the tools to go deep very often at all. Despite recent results indicating otherwise.

I may as well say what I think re. his ranking too, and that is, imo, he'll be ranked outside the top 30 come year end. Where he belongs.

You're really going out on a limb there huh?
Of course he's favored to be outside the top 30 by year's end because of what points he has to defend.
But you claimed he's an overall challenger level player, which means you don't even think he's a top 100 player, which is laughable if you've ever watched him play.

[JC1186]

What I said could be interpreted in a few ways. "A challenger player at his core", for the record, is what I said. Not what you've stated above. Please don't change what I said to suit you.

You're an idiot if you think he'd be favoured to be outside the top 30 because of the points he has to defend. Especially the "of course he'd be" part of your statement. Again, you're just sprouting crap as though it's a fact based on, guess what, your opinion.

Idiot. Lol. Go and educate yourself on how the ranking system works, and in particular, how many points he has up his sleeve over 30th position.

Oh and I just took one look at your posts and they are toxic as penetrate and reek of someone who isn't doing well. In life.. Every second post is you insulting someone with virgin and fat comments. Get some help buddy.

[Jeff_Black]

Speaking of Challenger players there are probably a list of players who somehow lasted a year or so on the ATP circuit but had no business being there in the first place. Im sure we can make a list of that too.

Ill start:

Sam Groth

[Jeff_Black]

yep
always thought he had the tools...for example, he's got 5 250 titles on Hard Courts, yet he's 2-8 all time at the Aussie Open

To me though I think it's mental as well. A lot of the guys people have mentioned here, IMO...walk into a tennis match much less prepared then they should be. You see Monfils sliding around hitting trick shots and you think 'He hasn't really come into this match with a set plan' You should really be thinking about the match and prepared the second you get out of bed that day. Sure some players are more talented and get away with it but it's lights out when you play someone switched on. Which is why you see guys like Fognini/Paire lose relatively easy matches.

[sunshineSpecial]

I think most young established players are coasting on talent right now, waiting for Fed and Nadal to decline/retire. Why sacrifice your entire life maintaining peak fitness when you'll inevitably hit that wall in the semis. Many of them will up their game once the field is more open. Pouille is currently consistent. Rublev is hungry. Benoit Paire played his way off the sh*t list, must be taking his meds.

I have a lot more success betting on guys like Mcdonald, Bedene, Cecchinato, Ymer bros at 1.70 than Carreno-Busta, Zverev at 1.30. Oscar Otte is a workhorse when he's on. Auger Aliassime is a great underdog when he's going for it (not a great start this year). I had written off Jason Jung (28) completely - look at him now.

The Fognini hate is understandable, but I think he's been fairly reliable over the past year compared to other unethical talents. I stay away from games involving dolgopolov, Troicki, Kohlschreiber, etc. Might as well be betting on wrestling.

Aussie players Kyrgios, Tomic will likely always be immature head cases. I think Kyrgios especially is afraid to put in work - and then lose. Easier to say he doesn't give a f*k, and keep his potential a mystery.

WTA, I don't know. Garcia is consistent (as far as women go). Suarez Navarro is reliable in early rounds. Woz and Svitolina, of course, but offer less %.

[BennyBigNuts]

What I said could be interpreted in a few ways. "A challenger player at his core", for the record, is what I said. Not what you've stated above. Please don't change what I said to suit you.

You're an idiot if you think he'd be favoured to be outside the top 30 because of the points he has to defend. Especially the "of course he'd be" part of your statement. Again, you're just sprouting crap as though it's a fact based on, guess what, your opinion.

Idiot. Lol. Go and educate yourself on how the ranking system works, and in particular, how many points he has up his sleeve over 30th position.

Oh and I just took one look at your posts and they are toxic as penetrate and reek of someone who isn't doing well. In life.. Every second post is you insulting someone with virgin and fat comments. Get some help buddy.

Bro, all you did was contradict yourself with the shit you were saying. Just stop while you're only partially buried.
The people I hammer on here go from way back.
I don't even post here anymore.
This forum is an extinct dinosaur that has not kept up with the times, but is still good for sbrodds.

[jtoler]

Busta showing what's still a part of him and that is getting broken to love serving for the match.

[jtoler]

Busta showing what's still a part of him and that is getting broken to love serving for the match.

And loses the match.

[SCI]

Forgot about Tomic. Tomic makes Gulbis and Fognini look like Nadal.