Is Gael Monfils the biggest underachiever in Tennis today?

He is taller and faster than Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. He has a bigger first serve and more natural power than all of them, he almost won the junior grandslam but yet he is ranked in the 60s. His footwork is terrible, his court positioning is awful, his shot selection is awful. I have never seen a professional player fall down as much as he does in and around the baseline because he simply refuses to shorten his stride and keep his feet under him. I don't understand how he can be coached for years by top notch coaches and still be so technically and strategically deficient. For a player with his kind of power to stand that far back and be content to chase balls all day is the height of stupidity. And the same exact deficiencies he had at 19 are the same exact deficiencies he has today. Is he just stupid and incapable of learning? Really to lose after being two sets up and a break up in the 5th to old Robredo who has zero firepower on his home soil is just incomprehensible.

At least Gulbis likes to party, smokes, and is a spoiled rich kid. Gael what exactly is your excuse?

You're being a bit harsh judging Monfils on that 3rd round loss to Robredo. Monfils has only just come back from injury and did well to win 2 matches in probably the toughest part of the draw, beating Berdych and (an in-form) Gulbis. It was only a matter of time before those matches caught up with him - even if he'd beaten Robredo he'd have come unstuck against Almagro, who is a strong player over 5 sets.

Also, there have been countless examples of top junior players who've not made it at the highest level in ATP, and compared to many others, Monfils has done OK. That said, I do agree there are a couple of technical deficiencies that remain in his game, and he does expend too much energy chasing every ball down, which compounds the frequent injuries he has. At this stage of his career I really don't see him overcoming those. Injury-free though, Monfils is clearly a top 20 player, and, whilst he'll have been disappointed to have lost to Robredo, it was a case of him running out of gas, and reaching 3rd round was not a bad achievement for him.

Mr. Invisible, the problem I have is I don't see development from when he first broke on the tour. At 18, 17 he was the biggest talent around and if anything he still has the same exact weaknesses almost as bad as ever. It is harsh, but it is hard sometimes to see this kind of talent not progress. I guess you are right in one respect the guy has had a good pro career, been a top ten player shortly and made the semi of a slam, won a couple of tourneys but overall I honestly believe this guy is one of the great athletic specimens we have seen in tennis. When he unloads on a forehand he shatters triple digits and then some in terms of pace, when he hits big first serves he dials up the gun again. In terms of pace and athletic ability he is record breaking according to the French fed, but really ranked in the 60s? With the same exact weaknesses he had at 19, just as bad if not worse?

Yes- I think he ranks along with Nadal, Federer, Borg, Becker and Sampras as the greatest pure physical talents the game has ever seen. The guys I listed have more Slams than he has ATP tournament wins. Theres a great picture of him hitting a leaping forehand (From five metres behind the baseline) at Chartier (I think) and his head is parallel to the top of the sponor boards. Thats some serious vertical leap, and by extention, power.

But athleticism is a bit of a visual topic, thus everyone sees it differently. There was a topic on TTwarehouse about the most gifted tennis athletes of all time. Heres a comment:

"As far as Nadal and
Borg..no competition to my eye. Nadal looks like
he works much harder to move than Borg did and
Nadal is not as fast.."

The second part may be correct, I dont think so personally. But there is no way on Earth Nadal worked harder than Borg. Personal preferences cloud the mind in these discussions

That is the thing that gets me kingraf, and McEnroe on the US broadcast talks about it constantly his raw athletic prowess. And as for shotmaking when he is on song none of the top 4 can touch for miles per hour on forehand and serve. He has the raw ability but the fact that the same areas of concern still exist after so many years pretty much confirms what I have thought that Monfils will never win anything. But frankly of the current group of players Nadal, Djoko, and Murray included he was by far the best teen prospect. He still is naturally as or more gifted than any of them. He just seems to make an art of selecting the wrong shot at the wrong time and he has very poor footwork despite his blazing speed. For awhile I used to call him the fall guy. If you were going to break down what an ideal set of preconditions athletically would be for a tennis player Gael monfils rates right up there.

Out of interest, and to provide a bit of context, here's the top 3 junior ranked players at year end from 2004-2008 - see http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/rankings/year-end-rankings.aspx?yr=2004

2004: 1 = Monfils; 2 = Eduardo Schwank; 3 = Brendan Evans
2005: 1 = Donald Young; 2 = Marin Cilic; 3 = Ryan Sweeting
2006: 1 = Thiemo de Baker; 2 = Nicolas Santos; 3 = Martin Klizan
2007: 1 = Ricardas Berankis; 2 = Uladzimir Ignatik; 3 = Matteo Trevisan
2008: 1 = Tsung-Hua Yang; 2 = Yuki Bhambri; 3 = Bernard Tomic

There's been far bigger underachievers on that list. Only Cilic has had comparable success to Monfils - Schwank has also had a reasonable career, and obviously Tomic is still young and has a lot of potential.

In some ways the biggest under acheivers are probably people who never made the professional game at all. There is probably someone out there with more talent than Murray and Federer combined who gave up tennis for girls at the age of 13, having not tried that hard before that either.

MrInvisible wrote:Out of interest, and to provide a bit of context, here's the top 3 junior ranked players at year end from 2004-2008 - see http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/rankings/year-end-rankings.aspx?yr=2004

2004: 1 = Monfils; 2 = Eduardo Schwank; 3 = Brendan Evans
2005: 1 = Donald Young; 2 = Marin Cilic; 3 = Ryan Sweeting
2006: 1 = Thiemo de Baker; 2 = Nicolas Santos; 3 = Martin Klizan
2007: 1 = Ricardas Berankis; 2 = Uladzimir Ignatik; 3 = Matteo Trevisan
2008: 1 = Tsung-Hua Yang; 2 = Yuki Bhambri; 3 = Bernard Tomic

There's been far bigger underachievers on that list. Only Cilic has had comparable success to Monfils - Schwank has also had a reasonable career, and obviously Tomic is still young and has a lot of potential.

Mr. I, I don't disagree with you very few number juniors in the world actually go on to be slam winners or successful pros. It isn't his junior success that makes me think he is disappointing today, it is his athletic ability and easy power from all areas. Yes most highly touted juniors don't amount to much, as you pointed out. But that was just one part of the argument. All the players I see on that list above do not have the firepower or athletic ability approaching Monfils, at least of the ones that I have seen play. And of course Henman has a good point that at least the guy has become a top professional. But I really think his athletic ability and raw power in his shots is unique in the game of tennis to a certain extent, even among the top pros, he just has way too many ups and downs even over the course of single game or set let alone the whole season.

HB - I dont buy that story at all. It's remarkable how everyone says that about every single sport. "There are countless basketballers who could have beaten Klitschko if they chose boxing", "Tom from the back of the yard probably could have outran Usain Bolt". Sure there are probably people who could have made the transition to top level tennis... But comsidering that tennis is the fourth most popular sport in the world, and that less than 10 players have won six Slams or more in recent history, I doubt the number of people actually more talented than Federer are "countless".

I know that wasnt your phrase but the term really irks me, especially in a masss participation sport.

By the very definition of under achiever, any one who could have - would have is one.

That's true, Jubba. I do think that socal has a point from the physical perspective though, Monfils would be a decent prototype to build the perfect player with his levers and athleticism. He also has plenty of shots, definitely not just a grinder when he opens his shoulders and actually uses his brain.

In my mind, I tend to associate underachievement with a lack of mental strength or tactical nous when the physical attributes are all there. Almagro's a great example; fantastic player, but just hasn't got it upstairs. Wawrinka the same, though he may have turned the corner now based on improved performances in the big matches this year. Safin could've left a far greater mark on the tennis world than he did, though of course he achieved plenty. 'Underachiever' is relative though, and they're all excellent players in their own right.

Sorry silver, I was alluding to Kingraf's suggestion that underachieving could and has been said of any sport.

But as you say, the difference between great players and very good players is how they maintain and exercise their mental agility. i would think that to get into the top ten in tennis, you'd have to have a pretty good idea of what shots to play and when, but we see time and again players of Monfils class throw the book out the window and play an almost Sunday league style of tennis that beggars belief.

To be honest, in my book, the player with the best skill at having the patience and tenacity to think their way through a match, point to point, not just in sections, will win if they are evenly matched in other depts.

Murray is a great example of this, and with Lendl's help he has improved immensely in the way he approaches matches, a few lapses, but generally he is much stronger than he was a few years ago.

If Monfils could get this under control and use his noggin then he could win a slam if he also had the confidence in his game that he should have, lets face it, he's certainly got the range of skills needed to compete in a final except those up top.

When Monfils beat Murray and then Federer at the Paris Masters 2010, I thought at last he'd joined the big boys. Instead, he wimped out against Soderling in the final and has never really looked that interested since

So the recent injuries or fact he's done 'ok' is nothing to do with it.

You see, if he can beat the two best fast hard courters of the last 3 years (arguably!!) at a fast hard court event - then the fact that he's only reached one slam SF is indeed a gross under achievement

If a player underachieves and hasn't had all their career decimated by injury or other off court stuff (i.e. Haas) then it is almost certainly mental weakness

A couple of months back someone (Lydian or Cogen iirc) compiled a list of Junior Grand Slam winners from the Open era. What is showed was that success in the juniors only rarely translates into success on the main tour (I think it was 9 junior GS winners out of about 100 had gone on to slam winning success at senior level, with another half dozen having reached GS finals).

One issue is that success in juniors can come from being bigger and stronger earlier than your contemporaries. Murray (for one example) was still growing and developing physically when he came out of the junior ranks (and he'd at least been successful enough to win one junior GS title), while I assume that Monfils was already the big athletic monster he still is. Meant Murray had to develop more solid technique to compensate for his deficit in physicality by comparison with Gael, who could get away with just muscling the ball.

Banbrotam, one then has to ask, why ?

Is it mental weakness to beat some of the top players then lose to a lesser player or is it mental stamina. Federer could pace himself physically over a whole slam, I wonder if he was able to do that with his mental side too.

Players like Gael too often give in to the inevitable, but also cave in when they really need to focus and ignore the wobbly knees. To me that requires patience and stubbornness and a certain amount of arrogance on court to pull it off.

Most of the top 6/7 have these attributes I'd say and is why Federer imo, was so dominant at key moments when you thought he looked a bit vulnerable the point before.

It will always be an unanswerable question

I'd argue that the way Tsonga (another mental lightweight, but not as bad as Gael) is playing the should be now beating Roger in straight sets

This would be no disgrace for the GOAT. My argument is that if Jo wants to replace Roger in the Top 4, then if he can't make an attempt now when will he

But we would all see it as a shock if it was a straight sets win, whereas we thought that really Murray should have beaten Roger in straights at the last slam

I sometimes wonder if the Tennis world's expectations of those outside the Top 4 are so low, that this feeds into them - giving this 'rabbit in the headlights' approach

I think Juniors are a little overrated. Remember: Nadal only played one junior slam (in 2002), and Novak has gone on record stating that from a young age, Nadal was the wunderkid. If I had a son, I would most certainly prefer it if he were slugging it out vs Carlos Moya, rather than facing and defeating... Brandon Evans. Tennis is a pretty close sport, with respect to pros helping out juniors. I'd rather my kid was Nadal's hitting partner, in preperation for Slams, than entering into junior slams. Of course winning is a feeling that needs to be nurtured, as such they should be playing age-appropriated talent, but I think that a kid would be better served roaming around slams for two weeks hitting out with various pros, rather than running deep into junior slams with players who will, in all likelyhood never be better than Challenger-level.

They maybe kingraf. But Monfils is a serial underachiever - who makes Tsonga look like some kind of highly consistent overachiever

he is. But I think he would have been better served practising vs people who he couldnt out-muscle as a kid, vs kids who simply lacked the athleticism to bother him. It would have done wonders for his mental approach, as well as forced him to technically tighten up his groundstrokes.

kingraf wrote:he is. But I think he would have been better served practising vs people who he couldnt out-muscle as a kid, vs kids who simply lacked the athleticism to bother him. It would have done wonders for his mental approach, as well as forced him to technically tighten up his groundstrokes.

Agree wholeheartedly