Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by heninfan99, Oct 23, 2012.
Best Player of Recent Times That Never Won a Slam
Definitely Nalbandian. Haas would be my next choice, but when Nalbandian was on, he was inhumanly good.
Davydenko? Not that I think the title (of the thread) is his but to mention Gasquet instead of Davydenko is just not right
Didn't Todd Martin make a few slam finals?
I was torn between nalbandian and haas.
but in terms of talent and shotmaking, haas was not too far behind federer.
The answer on these forums will always be Nalbandian. However, both Pioline and Martin made more slam finals and often tend to get overlooked. So I won't cast my vote on David.
Exactly, I thought we were going by results instead of talent.
Well that depends on how you define "Best."
Nalbandian and haas second.
Nalbandian/Haas, before 2012 my choice would have been Nalby. But given how Haas managed to bounce back from years of injury and is in the top 20 at the age of 34, an impressive feat, makes me think how many slams he could have won had he stayed healthy.
You've no idea how good it feels not to have to post on these threads any more that Murray's 4 slam finals, 8 MS titles et al are > Nalby's 'talent' OK, maybe just one more time.
I have to go with Nalby now.
do you rank nalby above rios? nalby had more longivity than rios but rios had a better peak, won more tournaments and was number 1. he had of course not to face fedal but still I would rank his career aboce nalby.
Agreed, it usually took a prime Federer to stop him in the hardcourt majors. Davydenko is pretty underrated around here. He's miles ahead of Gasquet.
Probably Nalby but have to say am surprised that Mark Philippousis is constantly overlooked in these discussions! US Open runner up 1998 Wimbledon runner up 2003! Had Pete on the rack at Wimbledon 1999 before an injury forced him to withdraw! He deserves to be in this discussion IMHO.
Rios for sure. Nalbandian a close second, and Haas a close third.
I'd put Davy @ #4. Not sure why.
Pioline was decent too.
For peak play, Rios. For career, Haas or Nalbandian. For the one who was best at getting to finals and not winning, Pioline.
On clay, definitely Coria!
Best? Rios. Not close.
I was about to type his name in the poll but then realized I would then have to include Ferrer but he's certainly deserving.
Completely forgot Philippoussis. What that man could have done had he decided to play tennis instead of running around like the Austin Powers of Australia...
If you look at it from highest level of play for a match I may go with Nalbanian also. Rios is a possibility.
The only slams this guy has had are the ones served up at Denny's!
It is hard to say, nobody is really a good choice.
Nalbandian- Only slam final was a major fluke, pre prime and on his worst surface by far at Wimbledon 2002. Never made another slam final besides that one.
Rios- Weak slam results, 1 terrible final performance, and no other times past the quarters.
Gasquet or Larsson- LOL!
Martin- Did he even win a Masers title in his career?
Pioline- Not competitive in either of his slam finals. Only real outside shot at a slam was the 2000 French where he ended up going out in the round of 16 anyway.
Haas- No slam finals.
By careers end it could be Berdych, Tsonga. Right now it might even be Soderling looking at the other choices. Of the poll choices I guess I would pick Haas only since he was unlucky to not win the 2002 Austrailan Open, but probably should have picked Rios.
I'm going to stick Henman in. He may not have reached a major final but out of the 6 major semi finals he reached, he was beaten by the eventual winner in 5 of them (Coria being the combo breaker...).
Maybe Coria. For comparisions sake he was much better on clay than Nalbandian was on any of the slam surfaces (hard, clay, grass), he owned Nalbandian head to head, and he actually did have a major he should have won at the 2004 French and totally had in the bag but blew somehow. So if so many people think it is Nalbandian, why not Coria.
Philipoussis would be another who could be considered.
Larsson defeated Sampras in the Slam Cup final for a million bucks. That's not an easy thing to do. He had some serious game and some great results.
Nalbandian in Madrid/Paris 2007 was incredible really...Does anyone doubt that he would not win the TMC that year, if he managed to qualify, and he needed a little more ATP points...
I know he was a dangerous player when he was on (which was rare) but that is not enough to be one of the best to not win a major. He has no credentials that would put him in that group. 1 slam semi and 2 masters semis. It would be like saying Safin should be in the group of 12 slam winners since he played like one when he was on.
Minimum requirement would be to have made a slam final or two. So Ferrer and Davydenko are out.
Corretja? 2 slam finals + a YEC title ( Soderling and Berdych did never win the YEC)
Gasquet and Haas
Must agree with the people above who mentioned Davydenko. When he's fit and his game is on he can beat anyone and has. He's right up there with Nalbandian and Haas in terms of guys who should have a Grand Slam on their resume. He'll never achieve it now but it's just one more reminder of how insanely hard it is to win even one of these things.
I'm surprised there isn't more love for Gonzalez around here as well. He was doomed to catch Federer in the Australian Open but he gave a pretty good account of himself. Fun to watch.
Yes Gonzo is one of my favourite players, had a solid chance for GS title in RG 2009, but choked in that 5 set! :cry:
i could vote for this as well
It seems Andy Murray agrees with you.
I wonder what the other top players (eg. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) would say if asked this question?
I would say Rios. He had amazing game and I was always puzzled to see how poorly he played in the slams. He had every shot though. Pleasure to watch...
Clearly he's been the winner of many slams at Denny's.
He lost a five setter in the US Open final to Agassi and lost another slam final to Sampras, and should have lost a Wimbledon final to Krajicek but choked in the fifth set to Mal Washington, he's certainly deserving.
Tsonga or Nalbandian. Each of them has (had, in David's case) the game to challenge the best, which means they would have been worthy slam winners. Tsonga still might be.
Rios beats them all.
Where is Davydenko?
Used to be Murray.
Now it's Tsonga.
Federer. Nadal second.
Neither won a Slam.
I do. If someone is able to play at a very high level to win a tournament and fail in the next one it is him. Nalbandian has definitively the worst ration of talen/achievments. He won only 11 tournaments. To 21 to Nikolay Davydenko...
Separate names with a comma.