PDA

View Full Version : Best player with only 1 slam


NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 08:59 PM
At this point who do you think consider the best player with only 1 slam.

Tenez101
09-25-2012, 09:03 PM
Gerulaitis should be up there.

Leelord337
09-25-2012, 09:05 PM
I was gonna say Rios since he was #1..but then again

2003-2009 Roddick was very dominant in his day

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 09:05 PM
Gerulaitis should be up there.

Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.

Still if you think it is him just vote "other".

Hawkeye7
09-25-2012, 09:22 PM
Murray or Roddick. Everyone else is miles behind.

Murray might not stay part of this group for long though.

Tenez101
09-25-2012, 09:22 PM
Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.

Still if you think it is him just vote "other".

I think he deserves to be in the discussion, though I myself wouldn't necessarily put him at the top among players in this category. Gerulaitis was kind of like the Murray of that day, losing to the two best players (who also happen to be all-time greats). Although it is true the Australian wasn't quite a full-fledged slam back then, if we do admit it as a slam win, then I think Gerulaitis is near the top of the players you list above in terms of pure skill.

Right now, gun to my head I would pick Murray, since he has (as far as I'm aware) the best Grand Slam record among all 1-slam winners, and has the potential to win more. At a close second I would take Chang, his run to the '89 French Open title (slaying two giants of the game Lendl and Edberg along the way) all at the age of 17 definitely deserves major kudos, and he remained a legitimate top competitor for much of the 90's.

slowfox
09-25-2012, 11:44 PM
Stich. Really talented, very classic game.

merwy
09-25-2012, 11:50 PM
Obviously Murray. He's just on his way to winning multiple slam titles. So in a way, you're comparing 1-time slam winners to a future multiple slam winner.

Fedex
09-26-2012, 12:40 AM
Obviously Murray. He's just on his way to winning multiple slam titles. So in a way, you're comparing 1-time slam winners to a future multiple slam winner.

Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.
These things are extremely difficult events to win especially with players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal around.
A big hitter like Raonic, Isner or Berdych can also take you out.
Someone else could do a Rosol.
And look at the effort and skill Murray had to display to beat Djokovic at USO. And he still only won by a whisker.
Certainly no guarantee Murray will win even another.
If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.

syc23
09-26-2012, 02:57 AM
Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.
These things are extremely difficult events to win especially with players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal around.
A big hitter like Raonic, Isner or Berdych can also take you out.
Someone else could do a Rosol.
And look at the effort and skill Murray had to display to beat Djokovic at USO. And he still only won by a whisker.
Certainly no guarantee Murray will win even another.
If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.

There is certainly no guarantees that Murray can win multiple slams going forward but winning the first will give him a ton of confidence and now he has secured 1 GS in this golden era, I look forward to see him play with the freedom knowing his place is secured in history.

How many big hitters has taken Murray out in the last 7 slams who is not Fed/Djokovic/Nadal? With the exception of Ferrer at RG '12 - none.

Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.

Regarding your point on injuries, the same could happen to Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. Ferrer can't possibly run around like an energizer bunny into his 40's. Berdych and Tsonga is older than Andy so will pick up injuries as they are big men.

I think the above points to Murray being in good position to add more GS wins to his resume in the future. Once Murray won his first MS1000 in Cincy '08, he won another 7 so the same could apply for him in slams.

batz
09-26-2012, 03:16 AM
I'm tempted to go with roddick as he was world number 1. Murray has lots more MS wins, but if pushed, I'd still go with ARod at this time.

My view would probably change if Murray won the WTF this year, but as of right now - Roddick for me.

Chillaxer
09-26-2012, 03:20 AM
Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people. Consistency in more minor tournaments? I'm sorry, but he isn't a naturally great tennis player, or even a better one than Roddick. He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best. He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.

batz
09-26-2012, 04:27 AM
Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people. Consistency in more minor tournaments? I'm sorry, but he isn't a naturally great tennis player, or even a better one than Roddick. He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best. He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.

OK - I just went for Roddick in this poll, but your statement in bold is utter tripe.

Roddick's record against Federer is ****poor. Murray has a winning head to head. Roddick's record against Murray is p1sspoor too.

As for Murray capitalising on the field waning - are you having a laugh? Need I remind you that Roddick beat the mighty Juan Carlos Ferrero to win his one and only slam?

Finally, 2009 was not 'prime Fed' - he won only 4 titles that year - one of his worst years since entering the the top 5. He won >10 titles in 04,05,and 06 - about the same time he was utterly owning ARod.

kiki
09-26-2012, 04:57 AM
Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.

Still if you think it is him just vote "other".

Since yoy never watched tennis before 2005 or so I will remind you that Vitas won WCT finals and played 2 Masters finals which, before you were born, were muuuuuuch more impoetant than Australian Open

Vcore89
09-26-2012, 05:12 AM
Stich, he could have won a couple more slams but he couldn't care less, he went for his degree and came back to play and be competitive.

Mainad
09-26-2012, 05:15 AM
Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people.

Well, he does hold a H2H of 8-3 against him for starters.


Consistency in more minor tournaments?

That's part of it, yes. He has 8 Masters titles v Roddick's 5. Roddick of course has more overall titles, 32 v 24, but he's had a longer career.

He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best.

Come again? He just beat the world #2, a 5 time Slam winner, defending champion and 4 time finalist at the USO! Roddick beat the world #3 who had just won his only Slam at the FO and was in his only ever USO final.



He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.

2009 was not exactly Fed's prime (see 2005-7) but nevertheless Roddick pushed him to the brink in that Wimbledon final and came closer to beating him there than any other player bar Nadal. Kudos to him for that.

As a former world #1, Roddick probably still has the edge over Murray at this point in time. But of course, Murray still has time to make an attempt on the #1 ranking and/or win another Slam.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-26-2012, 09:12 AM
Since yoy never watched tennis before 2005 or so

Flaming members with nonsense does not make a point.

I will remind you that Vitas won WCT finals and played 2 Masters finals which, before you were born, were muuuuuuch more impoetant than Australian Open

Still not a major, and loses when judging the career/historical importance of titles. For that reason alone, VG's WCT finals are inapplicable here.

Mikael
09-26-2012, 09:18 AM
Best player as in what? Best career achievements or best game when playing at peak level?

In terms of career achievements it would probably be either Murray, Chang, Ivanisevic or Roddick... probably Roddick considering he reached no1.

In terms of peak level I'd say Del Potro, or Stich. Attacking games with no glaring weaknesses.

Totai
09-26-2012, 09:22 AM
Del Potro. Had he not broken his wrist, he would have been #1 since mid 2010, and would have had multiple slams

Def
09-26-2012, 10:18 AM
Del Potro. Had he not broken his wrist, he would have been #1 since mid 2010, and would have had multiple slams

Maybe multiple slams, and that is a maybe, but no way would he have been #1 since mid 2010

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 10:20 AM
Maybe multiple slams, and that is a maybe, but no way would he have been #1 since mid 2010

That is the kind of talk that shows how insanely overrated Del Potro is on this forum. Even staying fully healthy he never would have put together the kind of years or tennis over a whole year that Nadal in 2010 or Djokovic in 2011 did. The guy at his peak didnt even win a freaking Masters title, even with further improvement he would be hard pressed to ever be #1 amongst this group of players, and if he ever did it would be for a blip in a year like this when nobody is dominant (but hugely unlikely even then as the overall years Federer, Djokovic, and Murray have had overall are hard to imagine DP ever reaching even in years he were to win a slam).

RF20Lennon
09-26-2012, 10:24 AM
I say Murray or Muster

veroniquem
09-26-2012, 10:33 AM
Best clay courter with only 1 slam: Muster. Best hard courter with only 1 slam: Murray (But I suspect Murray will win at least one more, I don't think he will stop at 1, so maybe it will be Chang or Roddick in the end).

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 10:36 AM
My order:

1. Murray
2. Stich
3. Ivanisevic
4. Roddick
5. Muster
6. Chang
7. Cash
8. Roche
9. Del Potro
10. Gerulatis

Murray on top seems an obvious choice.

I give Stich the edge on the others since he both won the ATP World Championships (over Sampras at his peak in the final) and made a slam final on all 3 surfaces. That is an incredible feat. The guy could play on anything when his brain was screwed on right.

I debated between Ivanisevic and Roddick. Roddick was a contender to win 3 of the 4 slams (Aus, Wim, U.S Open), Ivanisevic really only 1 of the 4 (apart from the 96 U.S Open). Ivanisevic was better than Roddick on 3 of 4 major surfaces (grass, carpet/indoors, clay) with Roddick only better on hard courts. In the end I went with Ivanisevic since if his head was remotedly screwed on straight, which like Stich was infrequent at times, he was just the better player. Overall the better and more dominant serve (and this like Ivanisevic is by far Roddick's forte), better groundies, better movement and athletic ability, better return, better volleys, cant think of any technical thing Roddick did better except the forehand when really firing which was only 20% of his career. Roddick really should be commended in the sense he made the most out of very little, especialy once he lost his forehand. His fighting heart and consistency were well beyond Ivanisevic which is what makes it close.

I also debated between Muster and Chang. I was going to initially go with Chang since Muster is predominantly just based on clay court greatness. However come to think of it Chang is predominantly just based on hard court greatness too, he is nearly as much a hard court specialist as Muster is a clay court one. Yes I know Chang won a French but on the whole I dont even think he is much better on clay or indoor/carpet than Muster is on hard courts or indoor/carpet, and Muster on clay far eclipses Chang on hard courts. Muster also owns their H2H, regularly beating Chang even on Chang's preferred courts.

Cash and Roche have various slam finals, and lost some tough matches to legends which prevented them from winning an addition slam themselves.

I am giving DP some brownie points for beating Nadal and Federer back to back to win a slam, since his credentials are actually well below someone like Carlos Moya, and even below someone like Tomas Johansson who comes up in worst slam winner debates. Just on credentials alone he would probably be about 20th. However I believe his peak playing level would be amongst the top 4 or 5 amongst this group, so figure he deserves top 10.

Totai
09-26-2012, 10:40 AM
That is the kind of talk that shows how insanely overrated Del Potro is on this forum. Even staying fully healthy he never would have put together the kind of years or tennis over a whole year that Nadal in 2010 or Djokovic in 2011 did. The guy at his peak didnt even win a freaking Masters title, even with further improvement he would be hard pressed to ever be #1 amongst this group of players, and if he ever did it would be for a blip in a year like this when nobody is dominant (but hugely unlikely even then as the overall years Federer, Djokovic, and Murray have had overall are hard to imagine DP ever reaching even in years he were to win a slam).

By no means is Delpo overrated. Had he remained healthy, he would have dominated. Nadal had no answer to Delpo's attack, getting beaten 2-2-2, and then Delpo coming back in the finals and beat Fed at the US Open. His power was too much to handle, and he moves really well for a guy so tall.

ark_28
09-26-2012, 10:44 AM
I give Roddick a very slight edge over Murray, what shades it for me is the fact he was a year end number one and although Roddick and Murray have and identical win loss ratio in slam finals right now (w1 l4) I think the fact Roddick took Federer to 16-14 in one of those finals loses needs to be considered!

With all that said I don't think Murray will be part of this discussion for long as now he has won a major I expect him to win a few more!

Fyrepower
09-26-2012, 10:46 AM
roddick without a doubt.

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 10:48 AM
By no means is Delpo overrated. Had he remained healthy, he would have dominated. Nadal had no answer to Delpo's attack, getting beaten 2-2-2, and then Delpo coming back in the finals and beat Fed at the US Open. His power was too much to handle, and he moves really well for a guy so tall.

Yet before his major wrist injury he played the rest of the year and couldnt even win another tournament, and couldnt even beat Murray in the RR or Davydenko in the final of the WTF. Furthermore he retired from 2 tournaments mid match with smaller injuries, he was always going to be physically fragile.

Crushing Nadal once in a hard court slam is not a superhuman task, such icons of tennis like Jo Wilfried Tsonga and Fernando Gonzalez have managed the same feat. Especialy coming in the midst of a period Nadal was something like 2-12 vs top 10 opponents, and would go 0-6 in sets at the WTF. Tsonga did it at the start of Nadal's best ever year of tennis, at a time and in a match Nadal was actually playing twice as well as the 2010 U.S Open, but it was no prelude to World domination.

To be World #1 in this era you have to play all year round, have virtually no periods or slumps caused by minor injuries, win 3 or more Masters usually (Del Potro has not even won one), make semis or better of virtually all slams, winning atleast 1, often more. Sorry there is no way Del Potro with durability issues, mostly specializing on hard courts, not even having won a Masters title at his original peak, and very poor records vs all the top 4 (especialy Djokovic and Murray) was ever going to manage this. Just winning a slam here or there isnt even close to enough to be #1 in this era.

kiki
09-26-2012, 10:49 AM
Flaming members with nonsense does not make a point.



Still not a major, and loses when judging the career/historical importance of titles. For that reason alone, VG's WCT finals are inapplicable here.

Reached FO and USO final and wom twice Rome which was huge then I just see Stich and Murray above him and Chang being his equal but he played in golden age and Muurrey in weak era........

Mustard
09-26-2012, 10:54 AM
Muster. Show me a guy who won 21 tournaments in his 25 month peak, which included a major and 6 masters series titles? Show me a guy with 1 major who went 111-5 on his best surface over 2 calendar years? Show me a guy with 1 major who's won 44 career titles in all?

Overall achievement wise it's Murray, having been in 5 major finals, won the same number of masters series titles as Muster (eight), as well as having Olympic gold.

veroniquem
09-26-2012, 10:59 AM
Imo, Delpo has no place in this discussion. At all. For now. Right now, he's not even as good as Nalbandian (or Rios for that matter, much less Roddick and Chang) overall despite Nalby having no slam title. Delpo has 0 master, 0 WTF, not even a second slam final. He was never in the top 3 either. He probably is the only player in the history of open era who has 1 big title and absolutely nothing else besides that. Hopefully for his sake, it doesn't remain that way.

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 11:00 AM
I forgot Ferrero. I wouldnt pick him as the best but would have definitely included him on my poll and he would probably be about #6 or #7 on my list.

Mustard
09-26-2012, 11:05 AM
Imo, Delpo has no place in this discussion. At all. For now. Right now, he's not even as good as Nalbandian (or Rios for that matter, much less Roddick and Chang) overall despite Nalby having no slam title. Delpo has 0 master, 0 WTF, not even a second slam final. He was never in the top 3 either. He probably is the only player in the history of open era who has 1 big title and absolutely nothing else besides that. Hopefully for his sake, it doesn't remain that way.

There's Gaston Gaudio. Gaudio has a French Open, which was the only time he managed even a quarter final at a major in his career. Gaudio never reached a master series final either. He won a 500 event at 2005 Kitzbuhel, while all his other career titles were 250 events. He got as high as number 5 in the world, though.

Some people might mention Thomas Johansson, but Johansson did win a masters series (1999 Montreal).

AnotherTennisProdigy
09-26-2012, 11:07 AM
Why would Murray not be the best? The only thing he's missing from his resume is the #1 ranking, but I'm sure all of those masters more than make up for it.

veroniquem
09-26-2012, 11:08 AM
You're right Mustard, Gaudio is worse. At least Delpo has a master final... and he made it to #4.

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 11:11 AM
People have said Johansson is the worst but for me that is pure BS. He has made a Wimbledon semifinal, won a Masters, almost single handedly won them a Davis Cup by outplaying Moya and Corretja at their peaks in their semifinal with Spain. He owns Kafelnikov, a 2 time slam winner, in head to head. Heck in some ways you could even argue he is better than Del Potro, he is way better than Gaudio. The only positive for Gaudio in the comparision is he would probably win if they played on clay.

Mustard
09-26-2012, 11:12 AM
Muster had the more formidable aura at his peak, more so than Murray.

veroniquem
09-26-2012, 11:21 AM
Incidentally, Muster currently has the same # of master titles as Murray: 8. Even though I have no doubt Murray is gonna win more in the end. What's striking about Muster is his fitness and determination. It was hard coming back from his injury problems but he did and he had his best season at 27, which is quite remarkable.

forzamilan90
09-26-2012, 12:02 PM
Murray is he best 1 slam winner, but he'll win multiple slams soon, so he'll be out of this circle.

BauerAlmeida
09-26-2012, 12:53 PM
Roddick.

10rods

Nathaniel_Near
09-26-2012, 12:59 PM
I think Murray is the 'best', even if he isn't yet the most accomplished of these players. Special shout outs to Roche and Roddick.

jaggy
09-26-2012, 02:22 PM
I was tempted to go with Muster but Murray has more I think

OHBH
10-05-2012, 09:25 PM
I voted for Stich because of him being the most talented not because he had the best career. Best career would have to be Roddick at this point. Unfortunately Murray will eclipse him soon. Though maybe my disdain for Murray clouding my judgement as the poll suggests most already think he has or at least expect him to. Not that really like Roddick either.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 09:34 PM
Don't agree why Murray is already above Roddick.

firepanda
10-05-2012, 09:58 PM
Chang was good, wasn't he? I'm too young to remember, but he's meant to be one of the better players up there, I believe.

Mainad
10-05-2012, 10:57 PM
Don't agree why Murray is already above Roddick.

The fact that Roddick briefly held the number # 1 ranking is the only thing that gives him the edge at the moment. If Murray ever gets that or wins another Slam, then it will be case closed in his favour.

NadalAgassi
10-05-2012, 11:48 PM
The fact that Roddick briefly held the number # 1 ranking is the only thing that gives him the edge at the moment. If Murray ever gets that or wins another Slam, then it will be case closed in his favour.

A good topic is who really deserved the year end #1 of 2003. That is the whole key here since Roddick didnt just rank #1 briefly, he ended a year ranked #1 so officaly was #1 for a whole year. That is a big thing on the ATP (unlike the WTA where its relevance is almost squat now). However it was a very close year where 4 players arguably had the case:

Roddick vs Federer- Roddick had much better slam showings with win, two semis, and a 1st round loss vs Federer win, two 4th rounds, and a 1st round loss. Roddick won 2 Masters, Federer won 0. However Federer won the WTF, and won the most titles of anyone that year 7 (vs 6 for Roddick). Federer was also 2-1 vs Roddick that year, and drubbed him in their 2 more important meetings.

Ferrero- The only player to reach 2 slam finals this year, a slam title on clay in Paris, and a slam runner up on hard courts in New York. Won a Masters title on both clay and fast indoor court, showing great versatility. Consistent slam results of quarters, win, 4th round, runner up. Only 4 titles for overall year however.

Agassi- Consistent performer in slams with a win, quarters, 4th round, and semis, no truly poor slams unlike the other 3. A final at the WTF. One Masters title in Miami.

Looking back it is very close between Roddick, Federer, and Ferrero.

beast of mallorca
10-05-2012, 11:55 PM
To be honest, Delpo and Murray should not be in this poll since both have a long way to go to change this one Slam wonder title.

NadalAgassi
10-06-2012, 12:00 AM
I only included Del Potro in the poll for the lolz at how many votes I knew he would inexplicably get.

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 12:16 AM
I only included Del Potro in the poll for the lolz at how many votes I knew he would inexplicably get.

Ahhh, ok. But if we take Murray and Delpo out, I'd take Muster.

Romismak
10-06-2012, 01:01 AM
Close between Roddick and Murray, if Andy will finish his career just with 1 slam he will be for sure best ever with 1 slam, right now probably Roddick is leading by little margin, thanks to his No.1 ranking. But Murray is very close and even if he ends up with 1 slam, he will add many more titles, Masters 1000 and many weeks-years in top 5 so he would accomplish visibly more than Roddick for sure.

NLBwell
10-06-2012, 11:10 AM
Muster was the most dominant player of those listed. He really ruled clay for a couple of years. His hardcourt career was ruined by getting run over by the drunk driver - before then he was a real threat, but afterwards he only entered the required tournaments and usually tanked to avoid playing on the hard courts with his knee. He did win the Lipton/Miami (where he was injured) later in his career - I'm guessing it was important to him since the finals appearance was taken away by the drunk driver.

kiki
10-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Tony Roche.Next, Manuel Orantes,Adriano Panatta,Andres Gimeno and Pat Cash

Evan77
10-06-2012, 11:23 AM
Roddick does have a slight edge over Murray because of year end #1. it is a big thing on the ATP tour. However, Murray is just peaking right now and he'll probably have a better career than AR.
I'm surprised not to see Ferrero on that list (love him), although I can't say he was the best player with only 1 slam.

I'm also tempted with Muster and his incredible run.

mattennis
10-06-2012, 01:50 PM
Not going to talk about accomplishment, but only wanted to say what a waste of talent Stich, Ivanisevic and Krajicek winning only one Slam each.

When they were on they could beat anyone on any surface, but injuries and lack of mental focus/desire/whatever...made them achieve way less than expected.

At the beginning of the 90s, when they all were very young, I thought of each one of them as sure multi-Slam winners in the future, but at the end each one of them only managed to win one single Slam title, at Wimbledon.

They were three of the great generation of players of that time: Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Rafter (all of them Slam-winners) and honorable mention to Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira, from the same group age.

kiki
10-06-2012, 01:55 PM
Not going to talk about accomplishment, but only wanted to say what a waste of talent Stich, Ivanisevic and Krajicek winning only one Slam each.

When they were on they could beat anyone on any surface, but injuries and lack of mental focus/desire/whatever...made them achieve way less than expected.

At the beginning of the 90s, when they all were very young, I thought of each one of them as sure multi-Slam winners in the future, but at the end each one of them only managed to win one single Slam title, at Wimbledon.

They were three of the great generation of players of that time: Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Rafter (all of them Slam-winners) and honorable mention to Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira, from the same group age.

The last great and competitive generation of tennis in the male´s ranks.

NadalAgassi
10-06-2012, 02:02 PM
I dont think Krajicek is an underachiever. He was really slow, had a poor return of serve, not great backhand, and he didnt have any GOAT aspects to his game. 1 slam is about right for him. Stich and Ivanisevic are underachievers.

norbac
10-06-2012, 02:08 PM
If he had a Slam, Berdych.

mattennis
10-06-2012, 02:08 PM
I really enjoyed that time, the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s, because just about every week you saw yet another promising young talent and there was a point where I thought: "my God, where do all these talented youngster come from all of a sudden?"

And as soon as 1991 and 1992 many of them were in the top-10 ( Courier, Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Agassi, Krajicek, Bruguera...) being all of them so young.

Only Becker, Edberg and Muster could still compete with them from the previous generation (and they were still only about 24-25 years old).

It was an amazing generation of talented young players.

But tennis was different back then, much more polarized conditions and many different styles being competitive.

It was so much fun, so many young talents looking so strong and seemed to put the tennis world upside-down.

Federer20042006
10-06-2012, 02:11 PM
I think the floodgates could be open for Murray, and he and Djokovic will be contesting most of the GS finals the next 3-4 years as The Rivalry in tennis (God help us all having to watch those kinds of matches with 40 stroke rallies being the norm, though).

So I think Murray will have a few slams when he's done.

Ivanisevic should have won at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles, but I think his height worked against him on other surfaces. He had the ground strokes, but not the footwork.

Evan77
10-06-2012, 02:25 PM
I think the floodgates could be open for Murray, and he and Djokovic will be contesting most of the GS finals the next 3-4 years as The Rivalry in tennis (God help us all having to watch those kinds of matches with 40 stroke rallies being the norm, though).

So I think Murray will have a few slams when he's done.

Ivanisevic should have won at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles, but I think his height worked against him on other surfaces. He had the ground strokes, but not the footwork.
Ivanisevic was a nut case of the highest order. He was driving me crazy. He should have won at least 3 more Wimbledon. He either chocked or would mentally break down at any given moment. It was so painful to watch him.

NadalAgassi
10-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Ivanisevic blew chances to win Wimbledon in 1992, 1995, and 1998. Could have won all 3 of those quite possibly. Maybe 1996 as well.

I meant to include Ferrero on the poll, I forgot to by accident. I would have left Cash off if I had remembered, only leaving Del Potro on instead for the lolz factor like I mentioned.

Shocked Mainad picked Muster. Never knew he was a Muster fan of any sort.

Mainad
10-06-2012, 03:46 PM
Shocked Mainad picked Muster. Never knew he was a Muster fan of any sort.

I'm not a fan. I picked him because he was a world #1, had won 44 titles (more than any others on the list) and 8 of them were Masters titles like Murray but, unlike Murray, won on both clay and hard court. So it seems to me that his achievements presently outweigh any of the others.