Not the most underachieving, but worth a mention: the Texas Rangers in the 90’s.
Until last year they were in the playoffs for 13 straight seasons - over seven straight if we’re limiting it to “after 2000.” That includes going to the World Series in 2001 and 2003, and division titles every year from 2001 to 2007. There’s no way that is underachieving.
I’d say it is a bit harsh to call the 90s Braves teams underachievers. Between 91 and 99 they earned 5 pennants and won the world series once. Two of the series they lost went 7 games including extra inning final games. It stinks that such a great team could only win the big series once out of all those chances, but, I think it as much matter of luck as anything else.
How about the 1946-1957 Brooklyn Dodgers. A terrific team on paper, they only won one series, and several times missed the series by less than three games.
The 1947-47 Red Sox missed the series both years by a whisker – once in a playoff, the other by losing two games in a row to the Yankees on the last two days.
Brazil between 1974-1994? Football.
RSA Cricket team is rated the number one Test Team in the world. They took that mantle from Australia earlier this year.
Detroit Lions, last seasons 0-16 season withstanding, haven’t been near a championship game since the early 50’s. Sure they made the playoffs over the years, but c’mon.
The Proteas always do well and get to the Semis and then lose.
In recent years they’ve been terrible despite having one of the highest payrolls in the league. It’s one thing to have a high payroll and not be able to win a championship, or get bumped from the playoffs, but to be a big market team, have a high payroll and flat out stink, that puts you on another level.
The Pittsburgh Pirates.
It’s easy to have a high payroll when you blow a lot of money on big names or on players who don’t deserve it. But beyond that there never seemed to be a plan for what kind of team it was supposed to be. And then on top of that you throw in the managment chaos of the Isiah Thomas years with his sexual harrassment lawsuit, the Larry Brown confusion and everyone’s disdain for Charles Dolan and it’s been a spectacular mess.
I’d go for the Houston Oilers of the late 80s and early 90s. Lots of talent, particularly in the offensive and defensive lines, a lot amount of regular season success, and some horribly bad playoff games (including probably the worst collapse in the history of pro football in a playoff game vs. Buffalo of all teams). I think Sean Jones and William Fuller wound up winning a superbowl with Green Bay after they escaped from Houston.
Heck - this was a team that was so disappointing it killed pro football in Houston for half a decade.
Correct. Also, if I’m not mistaken, S. Africa had the opportunity to take the number one test ranking from Australia if they had won their series at home against Australia earlier this year. Of course, they lost. They’ll back into the number one slot if Oz loses the Ashes, but given today’s play, that is not looking nearly as likely as it did yesterday.
The problem with the Brooklyn Dodgers during that time wasn’t underachieving but rather that they kept running into one of the consistently dominating teams in American sports history in the World Series, the New York Yankees (and, for the record, I am NOT a Yankee fan). With the exception of the Cleveland Indians (1948 and 1954) and the Chicago White Sox (1959) the Yankees rolled over everybody in the American League between 1947 and 1964 and went on to win ten World Championships–including five straight from 1949 to 1953. It’s to the Dodgers’ credit that from 1947 to 1956 they managed to win one World Series in 1955 and were at least competitive with the Yankees in several others.
The Dutch have had loads of soccer stars, but have never won the World Cup.
Speaking as a Cubs fan*, I would be shocked if the management did anything to mess up their wildly successful business plan. They’ve figured out how to turn losses into money. Who else in the history of the world, other than stockbrokers, has ever worked that one out?
*OK, so I’m not very involved and couldn’t really tell you what’s going on with the team, nor do I now or have I ever lived in Chicago. Still. They’re my team, and there’s no such thing as a fairweather Cubs fan, because the Cubbies will never, ever find their way out of the storm.
For a team to underachieve, they’d have to have the ability to achieve in the first place. The Lions had no chance of that and really still don’t. They’ve no lines (offensive/defensive) to speak of. I’d say they still have a good chance to go winless this year.
I’ll second the Sharks. They’ve been this close to winning the Stanley Cup for years now and have choked practically every time. If they went undefeated for the entire NHL season, I’d still pick them to get swept in the first round by the number eight seed.
From the NHL’s recent history, I think that the Senators meet the criteria better than the Sharks. In the early half of the decade the Sharks had the bad luck to keep running into the Avalanche and Stars. Meanwhile Ottawa, who first won their division title in 1999, kept getting ousted by fellow pretenders Buffalo and Toronto, and got knocked out by the Devils in the one year between 1999 and 2007 that they didn’t draw either the Sabres or Leafs.
Notre Dame football- The Irish finally won a bowl last year, after going 6-6. The previous last bowl game they had won was about a month before Nancy Kerrigan was clubbed in the leg- all time record for most bowl game losses in a row, plus they didn’t even go to one in 4 of those years. Still, ask the most casual fan who they think the best college football program is from the last 20 years and they’ll probably often say notre dame- they’re always news, and unlike any other team, always on tv, nation wide, every game.
If I’m recalling correctly, the Carolina Panthers have been to 3 Championship Games and a Super Bowl in their short history, but have never brought home a trophy.