Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Funny, but only one-time GS champions are eligible.
Grand Slam men's singles champions who least deserved it.
- Thread starter albertobra
- Start date
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Why ?
If a player wins a single slam GOATing for those two weeks facing a real difficult draw, you are going to call that undeserved compared to a player resting on past laurels getting lucky ?
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Didn't know OP used this one-time champ criterion. OP, see my post above.
duaneeo
Legend
Zetty
Hall of Fame
He dominated them though, even if they were tired you expect at least one competitive set from them.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Nadal destroyed Del Potro convincingly in the semis at least.
George Turner
Hall of Fame
I've always considered Gaudio least deserving, won by the skin of his teeth against a superior opponent (Coria) who choked it away. Gaudio has a double bagel loss against Federer to his credit 
Thomas Johansson is a close second, had a run to the final similar to Nadals US open run, then played Safin who had one of his off days.
Thomas Johansson is a close second, had a run to the final similar to Nadals US open run, then played Safin who had one of his off days.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
A Delpo who had nothing left in the tank for more than a set. But that is besides the point, you didn't answer my question.
albertobra
Hall of Fame
It's the most convenient one. And it is interesting that in the open era we have 24 (the number has been corrected) one time GS winner.
We are talking about 24 winners in 48 years. This means that in average we get 1 -one time GS winner- every 2 years, or every 8 GS played. The probability to have a one time Slam winner is 12.5%.
RG is the Slam that gets more one time GS winners, with 10 throughout its 48 editions (20,8%). La Decima kinda stoped a higher percentuage.
Interesting to note that with the come of the "big 4" + Wawrinka from 2005 we had only 2 -one time slam winners- Cilic and Del Potro.
This means that in the last 52 GS played just 3,8% is a one time winner!
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Djokovic? Nope haha. Nobody would have beaten that Cilic. His shoulders are bigger in that tournament, seems pumped up.
Everyone knows he is convicted before for doping, the slam is a bye.
IMO he played better than any version of Wawrinka.
IN that tournament Nishikori was very good once he touched the ball but he didn't touch many balls..
Last edited:
George Turner
Hall of Fame
There's very few tennis players who *don't deserve* to win their major to be fair. Just one or two *journeymen* on the list who got nice draws for their major. Still have to beat seven guys.
This thread would be better in a golf forum where they get alot of one time major winners who disappear afterwards, Danny Willett being the latest.
This thread would be better in a golf forum where they get alot of one time major winners who disappear afterwards, Danny Willett being the latest.
Each one deserves the title they won because they proved they were best in those two weeks. Can't take that away from them.
Having said that, if I had to choose, it would be Johansson in AO 2002. That joker should not be anywhere near a slam title. The most undeserving champion and a disgrace to our sport.
Having said that, if I had to choose, it would be Johansson in AO 2002. That joker should not be anywhere near a slam title. The most undeserving champion and a disgrace to our sport.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
The guy had reached three Wimbledon finals prior to his win in 2001, it's not like he won out of nowhere.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
W
TJ was just a huge server, got to USO QF 2x & Wim SF 1x, 4 R4. He has potential to serve top players off court, beaten some very sound players. Poor man's Goran.
Why disgrace? I understand Korda and his testosterone issue.
TJ was just a huge server, got to USO QF 2x & Wim SF 1x, 4 R4. He has potential to serve top players off court, beaten some very sound players. Poor man's Goran.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I think current Nadal would have gone through a tougher draw at USO.
But winning a slam without facing a top 27 had never happened in open era. Not once. Nor twice. Never.
Just for that, USO 2017 deserves a mention, 1 slam winner or not.
But winning a slam without facing a top 27 had never happened in open era. Not once. Nor twice. Never.
Just for that, USO 2017 deserves a mention, 1 slam winner or not.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, with a 1st-serve percentage of 56% against Federer.
Well makes it even more impressive then. His best weapon (along with his FH)wasn't working too good so that means he beat Fedeerer from the baseline. And that is exactly what he did. If anyone remembers the match Cilic was overpowering fed from the baseline all match and just hitting everything in. Some will call it luck but you cannot be lucky for 3 matches straight.
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
Well I agree he should not be listed but he did kind of win out of nowhere. He was a wildcard and most thought his best days were gone.
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
I agree that nobody believed in him and that it was a surprise, but, in my opinion, it's never out of nowhere with a proven surface specialist, especially with the career as Goran's.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
I haven't bothered to look it up but my answer is any player who won their lone grand slam during a player boycott. There you've got a player who doesn't have the skill to warrant such a prestigious title, along with lacking the morals and integrity to stand alongside fellow players in protest.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Looks like you just contradicted yourself then!
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Don't think there is such a player. The only player boycott I know of was at 1973 Wimbledon but, as I pointed out earlier, the winner, Jan Kodes, had already won 2 Slams at RG whatever the state of his morals or integrity.
chut
Professional
In recent history, Gaudio, Johansson and Costa come to mind.
Gaudio was totally outplayed by Coria until he suddenly started to fear winning and got cramps out of it. And yet, he almost lost it.
Johansson, as already said, had an easy draw (the whole tournament was strange really) and Safin didn't show up for a reason or another
Costa was an honest clay player, but more the Ferrer type. He made a good run in 2002 but i expected Ferrero to absolutely destroy him, yet Ferrero got totally scared and the final was underwhelming.
None of those guys could really back up their best result, but they had one opportunity to win a big prize and they took it, so props to them.
Odd wins/tournaments occur sometimes, people here cited uso2017 and it was indeed a weird one, in terms of how the draw unfolded.
Gaudio was totally outplayed by Coria until he suddenly started to fear winning and got cramps out of it. And yet, he almost lost it.
Johansson, as already said, had an easy draw (the whole tournament was strange really) and Safin didn't show up for a reason or another
Costa was an honest clay player, but more the Ferrer type. He made a good run in 2002 but i expected Ferrero to absolutely destroy him, yet Ferrero got totally scared and the final was underwhelming.
None of those guys could really back up their best result, but they had one opportunity to win a big prize and they took it, so props to them.
Odd wins/tournaments occur sometimes, people here cited uso2017 and it was indeed a weird one, in terms of how the draw unfolded.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Playing a tired Nishikori helped matters. That was a huge break that guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga and Raonic didn't get.
albertobra
Hall of Fame
My vote goes for Cilic as well. Of course he played some shocking tennis those 2 weeks.
The quality of his tennis in the 2 weeks was só increditble, that he never repeted such a performance. Never.
That is why I say it was a really odd result that one.
A player that in just the period of 2 weeks played amazingly well, a performance that he never had before those 2 weeks, and never after those 2 weeks.
And this is odd!
Especially in the last week Cilic would have beaten anyone, as he did and easely bated Berdych, Djoko and Nishi. His level of tennis was out of the normality that, as a matter of fact, he never repeated it.
What happened to Cilic during USO 2014, and how he has been able to bring the game at such a maniacal level, for me it's a mistery.
The quality of his tennis in the 2 weeks was só increditble, that he never repeted such a performance. Never.
That is why I say it was a really odd result that one.
A player that in just the period of 2 weeks played amazingly well, a performance that he never had before those 2 weeks, and never after those 2 weeks.
And this is odd!
Especially in the last week Cilic would have beaten anyone, as he did and easely bated Berdych, Djoko and Nishi. His level of tennis was out of the normality that, as a matter of fact, he never repeated it.
What happened to Cilic during USO 2014, and how he has been able to bring the game at such a maniacal level, for me it's a mistery.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Wimb 2016 was a similar performance. He just choked. Would have reached the final otherwise.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I've always considered Gaudio least deserving, won by the skin of his teeth against a superior opponent (Coria) who choked it away. Gaudio has a double bagel loss against Federer to his credit
Thomas Johansson is a close second, had a run to the final similar to Nadals US open run, then played Safin who had one of his off days.
Gaudio went through a tough draw but it was definitely a once in a lifetime couple of weeks.
Johansson had already won a masters title before the AO in 2002, he was unfortunate with injuries that same year.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
That he won Beijing and reached finals in Shanghai was good. If he had lost 1 round in China, USO win would have looked not great.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
A slam win always looks great, no matter what happens in the subsequent tournaments.
Who cares if he had lost in the 1st round of China? He would have always had the USO
albertobra
Hall of Fame
Desagree, not even half close in 2016. And not even in Wimby 2017, totally another player.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Luckily Pouille missed a sitter on MP and saved Nadal's USO
I do agree Nadal's USO looks better in hindsight (in terms of his playing level) because after that 1R match in Bejing he went from strength to strength until that QF with Dimitrov in Shanghai really - around that match it looked like his level was dipping a bit.It's still the easiest slam draw for quite some time. But when you compete at this level for over a decade you're bound to get some easier draws. It's impossible to win so many majors without the odd weaker draw.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
In Wimb 2017 not. But in 2016 he was awesome. Dropped only 1 set on his way to the QF. I would say that level was close to USO 2014.
There's no way to actually quantify it so I'm not really wrong. Cilic hasn't had many such performances.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah. An extremely difficult draw is more rare IMO.Luckily Pouille missed a sitter on MP and saved Nadal's USO
It's still the easiest slam draw for quite some time. But when you compete at this level for over a decade you're bound to get some easier draws. It's impossible to win so many majors without the odd weaker draw.
NatF
Bionic Poster
What would be an extremely difficult draw? I can name extremely difficult draws where a player has lost in the final but not so much for winners. I'm thinking quality opponents playing at their top level and depth here.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
For winners an extremely difficult draw is more rare. Even the big 3 have had only 1 or 2 extremely difficult ones (like Federer AO 2017, Nadal AO 2009, Djokovic AO 2012).
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's tough, Nadal's AO 2009 had an extremely difficult SF and F - Djokovic's 2012 to a lesser extent. But otherwise they weren't particularly difficult - Hewitt played well in the 4R for Djokovic. The FO 2013 was a really deep draw with every round having a good clay court player - but only the SF was a really tough match.
I was thinking more like if Hewitt had managed to take out Safin at the AO in 2005. He would have gone through Clement, Blake and Chela in the first 3R. All guys that can play. Then he had Nadal, Nalbandian and Roddick to get to the final. If he took out Safin that would have been a crazy draw.
albertobra
Hall of Fame
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
Cilic played with well during that US Open and both had to navigate a hard draw. Nishikori is no more deserving than Cilic.
Nishikori beat in-form Raonic and Wawrinka in five set thrillers, and then beat Djokovic who wasn't at his best, but still not easy.
Cilic on the other hand had to beat only Federer who was clearly tired in the semifinal. And please, don't even mention Berdych in the 1/4 finals. Don't make me laugh.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
That’s not Cilic’s fault that he succeeded while those players failed. No one deserves a GS title, it is earned.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
You have no idea why people praise a grand slam champion? Haha. Then I have no idea why you even watch tennis.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
Nishikori beat in-form Raonic and Wawrinka in five set thrillers, and then beat Djokovic who wasn't at his best, but still not easy.
Cilic on the other hand had to beat only Federer who was clearly tired in the semifinal. And please, don't even mention Berdych in the 1/4 finals. Don't make me laugh.
Fair enough, I didn’t even mention Berdych who is a choker and mental midget.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
For people that is not that into tennis, like most of the peopleA slam win always looks great, no matter what happens in the subsequent tournaments.
Who cares if he had lost in the 1st round of China? He would have always had the USO
... they have not that much clue about the draw and all.But for me it matters
Cant believe I am the only one
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I know. But sometimes circumstances help when you're not a great player. Who's to say Bahgdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga and Raonic wouldn't have won their slam finals if they had faced someone like tired Nishikori instead of a peaking Big 4 player?
Cilic might have not won the USO if he had got Djokovic instead of tired Nishikori.
On the flip side, Nishikori also got the opportunity of a lifetime of not having a Big 4 player in his only GS final, but he laid an egg in that one.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
you guys are too harsh with the nadal... his slam titles are as deserved as lance's tours
I will take a few names off this list; at least where I have context.
- Stich: Totally deserved it and probably should have won a couple of more slams.
- Muster: For a time being, Muster was like Nadal on clay courts winning every tournament. He lasted only a couple of years and was probably a heavy PED user, but given his clay court dominance, he should have at least a FO and he does.
- Ivanisevic: C'mon now. Without Sampras (and maybe that Agassi choke), he has 5 Wimbledons.
- Roddick: Again, without Federer, he has 3-4 Wimbys and a couple of US Opens.
Similar threads
