PDA

View Full Version : Players ranked very high but who sucked at slams


Heracles
06-17-2011, 02:16 PM
It happens that sometimes players who reach the top 10 and even become solid top 5 of the tour are unable to perform well at slams.

I think the prime exemple of that is Ljubicic, the guy used to be ranked a career high of #3 and a lot of time in the top 5 but his best result in a slam is a single SF, at Roland Garros in 2006.

Worse, he only had another QF.

In 45 slams appearance:

He lost 21 times in R1, 10 times in R2 and 10 times in R3.

He never did better than a 3rd round in Wimbledon and USO, despite being a fast court player.

Are there other exemples of players acheving so high rankings while being so useless at slams?

Manus Domini
06-17-2011, 02:17 PM
Marcelo Rios reached #1 and never won a slam (IIRC), does that count?

btw, find it funny a S&V player played best at RG lol

jmverdugo
06-17-2011, 02:18 PM
wait I know this one ... the answer is WTA! ... ;) j/k

Andres
06-17-2011, 02:19 PM
Gaudio reached one slam F.
And that's it. No other slam QFs whatsoever.

He does have one TMC SF tho'

Andres
06-17-2011, 02:19 PM
Marcelo Rios reached #1 and never won a slam (IIRC), does that count?

btw, find it funny a S&V player played best at RG lol
If you're talking about Ljubicic, he's not a S&Ver.

Heracles
06-17-2011, 02:21 PM
Gaudio reached one slam F.
And that's it. No other slam QFs whatsoever.

He does have one TMC SF tho'


Gaudio won a slam, obviously he did not sucked at it. And he was only ranked high because of this slam results and his CC results.

Heracles
06-17-2011, 02:23 PM
Marcelo Rios reached #1 and never won a slam (IIRC), does that count?

btw, find it funny a S&V player played best at RG lol

He passed 3rd round 4 times in his career, 3 times at Roland Garros!

He was not really a S&V but his big serve and powerful strokes with high risk were designed for fast courts.

Moose Malloy
06-17-2011, 02:35 PM
I think the prime exemple of that is Ljubicic, the guy used to be ranked a career high of #3 and a lot of time in the top 5 but his best result in a slam is a single SF, at Roland Garros in 2006.



top tenners Brad Gilbert, James Blake, & Tommy Robredo never reached a slam SF.

Mustard
06-17-2011, 02:35 PM
About Marcelo Rios, he was world number 1 for 6 weeks yet only once did he get past the quarter finals of a major (finishing runner-up of the 1998 Australian Open).

What about Nicolas Kiefer? He once got as high as number 4 in the world. His best results in majors are 1 semi final loss and 4 quarter final losses.

viduka0101
06-17-2011, 02:38 PM
I immediately thought of Ljubo when I saw the title

jamesblakefan#1
06-17-2011, 02:43 PM
About Marcelo Rios, he was world number 1 for 6 weeks yet only once did he get past the quarter finals of a major (finishing runner-up of the 1998 Australian Open final).

What about Nicolas Kiefer? He once got as high as number 4 in the world. His best results in majors are 1 semi final loss and 4 quarter final losses.

Blake made it to #4 in the world, 0 SFs and only 3 QFs.

Heracles
06-17-2011, 02:45 PM
About Marcelo Rios, he was world number 1 for 6 weeks yet only once did he get past the quarter finals of a major (finishing runner-up of the 1998 Australian Open final).

What about Nicolas Kiefer? He once got as high as number 4 in the world. His best results in majors are 1 semi final loss and 4 quarter final losses.


Yes that's a good catch for Kiefer. Rios disappointed at slams but had a short carreer and at least he reached a final.


And yes for Blake, I forgot him, he was always ranked high but in slams was losing to better players than him or just underperforming. There are quite a few very good players who never could have succes at the biggest tournaments.

Manus Domini
06-17-2011, 02:45 PM
If you're talking about Ljubicic, he's not a S&Ver.

oh, thought he was. In his match with Nadal, it seemed he could barely hit a groundstroke over the net, so I presumed lol

Rhino
06-17-2011, 02:52 PM
My first thought was Ljubicic. Davydenko also sprang to mind, being that he was top ten for what seemed like forever and yet never made a slam final.
Blake is a good one.

Cup8489
06-17-2011, 03:19 PM
My first thought was Ljubicic. Davydenko also sprang to mind, being that he was top ten for what seemed like forever and yet never made a slam final.
Blake is a good one.

Davy made 2 SF's though; He just ran into Federer both times, IIRC. He was very good for what he could do; not many people 5'9" can hit the ball like that. For me, he deserved the number 4 ranking when he had it; he played his *** off.

egn
06-17-2011, 03:25 PM
My first thought was Ljubicic. Davydenko also sprang to mind, being that he was top ten for what seemed like forever and yet never made a slam final.
Blake is a good one.

I think the first consistent top 10 guy who struggled in the majors was Eliot Teltscher. He was top 10 for a good deal in the early 80s, top 15 for almost all of it and just never could get it going in majors. Guy was a class act though and the tour loved him. Read a lot about him and saw some footage a great sport, gifted. He was the opposite of the bratty image that McEnroe had.

egn
06-17-2011, 03:26 PM
Davy made 2 SF's though; He just ran into Federer both times, IIRC. He was very good for what he could do; not many people 5'9" can hit the ball like that. For me, he deserved the number 4 ranking when he had it; he played his *** off.

He made 4 actually.

Davy performed well in slams and in masters and the year end he deserved his ranking if anything it's almost a crime that he had Fedal and couldn't snag out one major. Had he peaked in 00-03 he probably would have won at least one.

Rock Strongo
06-17-2011, 03:54 PM
Verkerk

10flukes

Bobby Jr
06-17-2011, 03:59 PM
Thomas Muster, aside from his French Open win, must surely be considered a poor performer in slams. He was just able to make up ranking points by playing tons of smaller clay court tournaments all year long between the slams.

He only got to one French final ever and only 2 Aussie Open semis by virtue that he basically didn't take a Christmas break.

At the US Open he never got past the quarter-finals and Wimbledon he never got past the 1st round.

For such a supposed good clay court player he lost in the 4th round in 96 (to an old Stich), 3rd round in 94 (to a 22 yr old Pat Rafter), the 4th round in 93, 2nd round in 92, 1st round in 91 (by Sampras)and a single semi-final run in 1990 (losing to eventual winner Gomez) - many of these were complete thumpings which included a fair few breadstick sets.

norbac
06-17-2011, 04:07 PM
Milos Raonic.

Qubax
06-17-2011, 04:07 PM
It happens that sometimes players who reach the top 10 and even become solid top 5 of the tour are unable to perform well at slams.

I think the prime exemple of that is Ljubicic, the guy used to be ranked a career high of #3 and a lot of time in the top 5 but his best result in a slam is a single SF, at Roland Garros in 2006.

Worse, he only had another QF.

In 45 slams appearance:

He lost 21 times in R1, 10 times in R2 and 10 times in R3.

He never did better than a 3rd round in Wimbledon and USO, despite being a fast court player.

Are there other exemples of players acheving so high rankings while being so useless at slams?

Wow that is pretty impressive for Ljubicic - in a bad way...

quite remarkable....he must have cleaned up at the little tourneys to even get the points to remain such a top 10 staple for so long...

Rock Strongo
06-17-2011, 04:09 PM
Thomas Muster, aside from his French Open win, was often criticised for being a poor performer in slams who made up for it by playing tons of smaller clay court tournaments all year long to accrue lots of points.

I find Muster an interesting case. As good as he was on clay, it was a surprise that he didn't do better at RG or in any other slam for that matter. He's the only world #1 who has failed to advance past the first round at Wimbledon.

PSNELKE
06-17-2011, 04:11 PM
Victor Clownski - #12 with only 1 Slam R16. :lol:

carlitox
06-17-2011, 07:45 PM
Victor Clownski - #12 with only 1 Slam R16. :lol:

Yep. WIN. That's really bad performance for such a good rating.

bluetrain4
06-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Despite making a Slam final, beating most of the top players of his era at one time or another, and playing well outside of Slams, Thomas Enqvist was fairly miserable at Slams for someone so good.

You'd think that with his game he would have been, at least for a couple of years, a relatively consistent quarterfinalist and maybe 1 or 2 additional SFs. But other than his final at the AO, he has only two QFs. He does have 6 other 4th Rnds, but that's over 13 years. I know, strong era, but still. I don't know. Having typed out his accomplishments, it doesn't look THAT bad, but still not good.

I think he's a better example than clay court specialists who reached the Top 10.

IvanisevicServe
06-17-2011, 08:59 PM
Thomas Muster, aside from his French Open win, must surely be considered a poor performer in slams. He was just able to make up ranking points by playing tons of smaller clay court tournaments all year long between the slams.

He only got to one French final ever and only 2 Aussie Open semis by virtue that he basically didn't take a Christmas break.

At the US Open he never got past the quarter-finals and Wimbledon he never got past the 1st round.

For such a supposed good clay court player he lost in the 4th round in 96 (to an old Stich), 3rd round in 94 (to a 22 yr old Pat Rafter), the 4th round in 93, 2nd round in 92, 1st round in 91 (by Sampras)and a single semi-final run in 1990 (losing to eventual winner Gomez) - many of these were complete thumpings which included a fair few breadstick sets.

Muster made 2 AO SFs, 3 USO QFs, won the FO, and made a FO SF and QF. He doesn't belong in this discussion.

He never made it past the first round of Wimbledon because he only played it 4 times, and the last time he ever played it was 1994, before his breakout season. So he didn't under-perform there...he just didn't even bother.

The 92 and 93 early FO losses were to Jim Courier, who was the best clay court player in the world then. In 1991 he was a wreck after splitting with his coach and going through a "rebellious" phase. And young Pete Sampras was actually decent on clay. The FO was the only slam he even played that year.

1994 to Rafter...Muster struggled against S&V players (Edberg, for example, owned him), and Muster was also coming off a 5 set match against Agassi in the second round.

Same S&V struggle goes for Stich in 96. If he had won that match, he would've gone on to defend his title and take his place among the all-time greats on clay.

Bobby Jr
06-17-2011, 10:30 PM
Muster made 2 AO SFs, 3 USO QFs, won the FO, and made a FO SF and QF. He doesn't belong in this discussion.

He never made it past the first round of Wimbledon because he only played it 4 times, and the last time he ever played it was 1994, before his breakout season. So he didn't under-perform there.....
Notwithstanding - relative to his rank he generally well underperformed at slams. A top 10 player should make it to at least 2 or 3 QFs per year to justify their rank.

srinrajesh
06-17-2011, 11:02 PM
Blake highest No.4 - only 3 QTF in career- 2 at USO, 1 AO (10 titles)
Gilles Simon highest No.6 - only 1 QTF in career -at AO (8 titles)
Wawrinka highest No.9 - only 2 QTF in career AO, USO (3 titles)
Fish highest No.9 - only 2 QTF in career 1 AO, 1 USO (5 titles)


Slightly better are Ljubicic, Verdasco and Melzer who have reached a SF at least
Ljubicic highest No.3 - 1 SF and 1 QTF (10 titles)
Verdasco highest No.7 - 1 SF , 2 QTF in career SF at AO, 2 QTF at USO (5 titles)
Melzer highest No.8 - only 1 SF (3 titles) (excuse is he has been top 10 very less time comparatively and reached his peak late)
I have also mentioned no. of ATP titles each has won so that we know their record at weekly tournaments.

So i would say in relation to ranking the worst performers have been Ljubicic and Blake. Simon and Wawrinka are not far behind but have spent lesser time in Top 10. Another main reason for this is probably because all these players are notorious for losing focus and being inconsistent.. They cant retain their concentration for a two week period and are bound to have a bad day some time early on..

srinrajesh
06-17-2011, 11:33 PM
Some earlier era players to do badly at slams- Brad Gilbert,Aguilera, Sundstorm

Brad Gilbert Highest No.4 - only 2 QTF in career- Wimby, USO (20 titles)
Henrik Sundstorm Highest No.6 - only 1 QTF in career -at FO (5 titles)
Jay Berger Highest No.7 - 2 QTF in career (3 titles)

A strange case is that of Juan Aguilera Highest No.7 - Never reached a QTF in career best 4th Round at FO (5 titles)

Wonder how many people have reached Top 10 but never reached QTF in whole career...

gold soundz
06-18-2011, 12:20 AM
I can't believe no one has mentioned David Ferrer.

Andres
06-18-2011, 07:44 AM
I can't believe no one has mentioned David Ferrer.
He has a SF and a QF at the Australian, two QF at the French, and a SF at the US Open.

kOaMaster
06-18-2011, 07:54 AM
wawrinka, although he did better the last few grand slams and was just unlucky to run into federer :(

players who also came to my mind: greg rusedsky, tommy robredo (he doesn't lose in R1 but struggles to win vs a better player)