Who could have been an all-time great, but wasn't?

[El Dude]

This is a variant on a thread that comes up every once in awhile on disappointing players. But I'm specifically curious about which players had the ability, talent, game, to be an all-time great, but just didn't manage it - either due to injuries, mentality, partying, etc.

Let me offer a clear definition of "all-time great": I'm going to set the bar at 5+ Slams and a #1 ranking. This means players like Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - but NOT Vilas, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray, etc.

The player I'm thinking of is the reason I started this thread: Marat Safin. As an 18-year old he beat Andre Agassi and Gustavo Kuerten in his first Slam, 1998 Roland Garros. Actually, those were the first and second rounds - the first two matches of qualified play! By the end of 2000 he was 20-years old, #2 in the world, and with his first Slam title under his belt. Is there any way this guy isn't a future all-time great at this point? To put that in today's context, that would be like Nick Kyrgios ending this year #2 with a Slam title and two Masters under his belt.

But it wasn't to be. Safin had an excellent career, but not one worthy of all-time greats. I think if we had been told at the end of 2000 that he would only win one more Slam, the response would have been "You're nuts."

OK, who else? Again, I'm not just talking about disappointing players, but players who really had the talent to be--and looked like they were going to be--all-time greats.

 

[lacatch]

Justin Gimelstob

:snicker

 

[Fiero425]

Justin Gimelstob

:snicker

Yep; right up there with Scott Davis, Tim Mayotte, and Jimmy Brown! :ras: :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[Kirijax]

Boris Becker. Even though he had 6 Slams, he seemed to never reach his full potential. He should have won over 10 slams.

 

[Kieran]

If safin had the same mentality as Roger, they'd have been sharing the limelight from 2004-2008, at least. In fact, Marat had a head start on Roger, and it might have taken Roger a while to get above him.

Becker is a good call. Same thing: mentality. Becker could accommodate losses more easily than, say, Sampras, who really suffered when he lost. Becker was okay after defeats usually. That's not good fuel for giant success like he should have had! :nono

 

[Great Hands]

If safin had the same mentality as Roger, they'd have been sharing the limelight from 2004-2008, at least. In fact, Marat had a head start on Roger, and it might have taken Roger a while to get above him.

Becker is a good call. Same thing: mentality. Becker could accommodate losses more easily than, say, Sampras, who really suffered when he lost. Becker was okay after defeats usually. That's not good fuel for giant success like he should have had! :nono

What was that famous line of his after a loss - 'Nobody died'?!

Whereas the true all-time greats after a loss would have said 'No, nobody died - it was a lot worse than that!'

Although, Roger seems to be o.k. with losing - but maybe that's just an act!

 

[nehmeth]

If safin had the same mentality as Roger, they'd have been sharing the limelight from 2004-2008, at least. In fact, Marat had a head start on Roger, and it might have taken Roger a while to get above him.

Becker is a good call. Same thing: mentality. Becker could accommodate losses more easily than, say, Sampras, who really suffered when he lost. Becker was okay after defeats usually. That's not good fuel for giant success like he should have had! :nono

Both of these guys led rather profligate lives during their careers. It's not just the work you do on the court, and their different involvements off court were not just distractions, but actual detriments.

 

[Kieran]

If safin had the same mentality as Roger, they'd have been sharing the limelight from 2004-2008, at least. In fact, Marat had a head start on Roger, and it might have taken Roger a while to get above him.

Becker is a good call. Same thing: mentality. Becker could accommodate losses more easily than, say, Sampras, who really suffered when he lost. Becker was okay after defeats usually. That's not good fuel for giant success like he should have had! :nono

Both of these guys led rather profligate lives during their careers. It's not just the work you do on the court, and their different involvements off court were not just distractions, but actual detriments.

What makes me chuckle about Boris is how he gets rebooted recently as some sort of warrior on court. Eh Bo', I saw the Wimbledon final in 1991. You reneged, baby. Could name other matches, too... :nono

 

[Riotbeard]

If safin had the same mentality as Roger, they'd have been sharing the limelight from 2004-2008, at least. In fact, Marat had a head start on Roger, and it might have taken Roger a while to get above him.

Becker is a good call. Same thing: mentality. Becker could accommodate losses more easily than, say, Sampras, who really suffered when he lost. Becker was okay after defeats usually. That's not good fuel for giant success like he should have had! :nono

Both of these guys led rather profligate lives during their careers. It's not just the work you do on the court, and their different involvements off court were not just distractions, but actual detriments.

What makes me chuckle about Boris is how he gets rebooted recently as some sort of warrior on court. Eh Bo', I saw the Wimbledon final in 1991. You reneged, baby. Could name other matches, too... :nono

He's definitely a learn from my mistakes type of coach.

 

[Kirijax]

Both of these guys led rather profligate lives during their careers. It's not just the work you do on the court, and their different involvements off court were not just distractions, but actual detriments.

What makes me chuckle about Boris is how he gets rebooted recently as some sort of warrior on court. Eh Bo', I saw the Wimbledon final in 1991. You reneged, baby. Could name other matches, too... :nono

He's definitely a learn from my mistakes type of coach.

I still can't get over the image that Djokovic is helping out Becker, rather than the other way around. :cover

 

[El Dude]

If safin had the same mentality as Roger, they'd have been sharing the limelight from 2004-2008, at least. In fact, Marat had a head start on Roger, and it might have taken Roger a while to get above him.

It would have been very interesting. Clearly Hewitt and Roddick couldn't hold muster to Roger. Nalbandian and Safin had the talent to at least lessen Roger's accomplishments, but couldn't for various reasons.

A bit more on the Safin-Federer comparison. Marat is 1 year, 7 months older than Roger. Like Hewitt he peaked very young: he had his best year in 2000 at the age of 20, and his best three-year span 2000-02 (20-22). We could say that Safin was in his prime from 2000 to 2005, when he won his last Slam and finished #12 - so ages 20-25.

Roger, on the other hand, didn't start his peak until late 2003, after he turned 22. From that point on until early 2010 he was at or near his peak level. His best year was 2006 (age 24-25) and for the next few years he slipped a bit, which was exacerbated by the rise of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. But I think you can say that the 2010 Roland Garros - his first QF or earlier loss at a Slam in six years - is when he slipped from his prime.

Now what about the matchup between the two? Federer was dominant, going 10-2 against Safin. But was that all in the later years when Safin was declining? Marat played through 2009, fluctuating in the #20-60 range for the last four years but no titles after the 2005 Australian Open.

Roger's only two losses to Safin came in 2002 and 2005. He beat Safin once in 2001, went 2-1 against him in 2002, 3-0 in 2004, 1-1 in 2005, 1-0 in each of 2007-09. Here's the point: at no point, even when Safin was peaking and Roger was still developing, did Marat own Roger. If we look only at those matches held before 2004, when Roger came fully into his own, the h2h is still 3-1 in favor of Roger.

So I'm not so sure that Marat had it in him to compete with Roger at his best, considering that he couldn't even match Roger when he was at his best and Roger was still developing.

Now of course Marat was a player who clearly could have been more consistent, who was prone to go out early, to have nagging injuries and endless distractions. But I think even if he were more focused, he wouldn't have done much better against Roger. He might have been the second fiddle and distanced himself from the rest of the pack, and even won two or three more Slams, but we're talking more Courier to Sampras or Vilas to Connors and Borg than a Rafa-Novak type relationship.

Just my opinion, of course!

 

[shawnbm]

Mario Ancic--who knows? Lot of talent there, and might del Potro ultimately be thought of in this way? So many injuries and surgeries--sad.

 

[Kirijax]

Mario Ancic--who knows? Lot of talent there, and might del Potro ultimately be thought of in this way? So many injuries and surgeries--sad.

We may never have thought that if he hadn't won that USO. But we saw what he could do when he won it so it is sad to see how things have happened for him. Hear he is on the courts practicing again. Would take a miracle but would be nice to see.

 

[isabelle]

Rosol

 

[nehmeth]

Mario Ancic--who knows? Lot of talent there, and might del Potro ultimately be thought of in this way? So many injuries and surgeries--sad.

Not sure about Ancic shawn, I'd like to hear more of your thought behind that.

Del Potro really had the potential. He'd worked on his movement, developed a crushing serve, was always seeking to improve. I don't believe he had consistently reached his best levels yet.

 

[El Dude]

I think Ancic was going to be more of a Tsonga/Berdych type.