Grand Slam men's singles champions who least deserved it.

[Praetorian]

So exactly which one of these players won the trophy without playing the tournament. THAT is the only definition of least deserved. If you ever consider the winner not deserving, or "least deserving", when then guess what, all the losers DO NOT deserve the trophy - so by logic, if the "least deserving" winner, beat all those who DIDN'T deserve to win, that still made him/her the most deserving player of the tournament to win.

 

[duaneeo]

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.

Exactly, which is proof not of how awesome Cilic played, but of how awful Federer played.

That said, you'll never hear me say Cilic or any slam winner didn't deserve his title.

 

[sbengte]

That said, you'll never hear me say Cilic or any slam winner didn't deserve his title.

Honestly, I felt for the longest time Cilic didn't deserve that USO because he only really had to go through a sub par Fed while Nishikori had to do the dirty work of taking out Djokovic , Wawa and Raonic . So in a way it wasn't fair because he had it easier than his final opponent.
But he made a slam final again this year which really changed my opinion. A slam winner who was a match away from winning another slam cannot be called undeserving.

 

[TennisD]

Threads like these baffle me. If you managed to win 7 matches in a row against the world's best players then you absolutely deserve the trophy that comes with it. Doesn't matter if you only did it once or went on to do it ten more times, doesn't matter who you did or didn't have to beat. Threads like these are insanely disrespectful and ignore all of the incredibly hard work it takes to just get to a Grand Slam, let alone win one.

 

[sbengte]

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.

You really have grown into one of my favorite posters Vero.
It's a good thing because we are going to be on the same side when Z starts dominating the tour

 

[albertobra]

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.

We can agree here. Defenitely Cilic was better in 2016 than in 2017, even if went deeper in Wimby 17.

But let's take the amazing match Cilic lost to Fed in Wimby 16. That Federer was 70% of what he is today. Today's Federer would have never lost that SF to Raonic in Winby '16. Today's Fed would have crushed Raonic in 3 sets in Wimby '16. But he lost in 5. I firmly believe the USO '14 Cilic would have beated Federer in that QF in Wimby '16. The fact is, that was not USO '14 Cilic, he was a good Cilic, but a much lesser version, because Federer would have not beated in that QF a USO 14 version of Cilic. That USO 14 version of Cilic was subhuman. Everything was working from any side of the court,

 

[TennisLBC]

A player goes through a draw with no byes. Beat everyone front of him in a best of 5. Win a Slam title, but somehow is less deserving?

Welcome to tennis silly season.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Either Brian Teacher or Gaston Gaudio.

 

[Phoenix1983]

There's a lot of guys on the list who don't play the caliber tennis that should win a slam, but Gaudio has to be the worst. His opponent had a mental breakdown on court and all but gave the thing to him.

Yup.

Also evidenced by Gaudio's other slam results - the guy never even reached another slam quarter-final, let alone another final.

His win was purely due to Coria's unprecedented choke.

 

[sbengte]

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!

Ok, going by this logic, I will say Cilic is more deserving than Delpo because Cilic won a slam and them made a slam final.

Delpo won his fluke slam and then did nothing.

 

[BHServe]

T Johansson AO’02. If I’m not mistaken his second best showing at a slam is a QF. Fluked it Big time!


For perspective, Philippousis is a far better player, yet went slam-less and is regarded as a ‘weak’ slam finalist by many so called tennis ‘experts’ (sic) at TTW.

Like many have said here before, there is no such thing as fluke win, especially in bo5 format, in tennis. Only fluke or free wins you will have is when your opponent is losing on purpose or is injured in a way that there is not even possibility to put a decent effort into the match.

In bo3 format one can argue (i’m still against that perception) that one can luck out a win since there is ”only” two sets needed to win. In bo5 that excuse cant be used.

 

[Djokovic2011]

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.

Talk about going all round the houses! Just come out and say it mate.

 

[albertobra]

Talk about going all round the houses! Just come out and say it mate.

You just gotta be redundant sometimes.

 

[albertobra]

albertobra said: ↑
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!

Ok, going by this logic, I will say Cilic is more deserving than Delpo because Cilic won a slam and them made a slam final.

Delpo won his fluke slam and then did nothing.

Common Sbengte, you don't believe what you wrote. Delpo without his wrist problems could have very well been a multiGS winner, He is actually still in time....
The logic is just a starting point for further discussion.

 

[TahoeTennis]

Nadal and Fed come to mind.

/is this thread serious?

 

[toby55555]

My immediate thought was Richard Krajicek who had a joke opponent in the 1996 Wimbledon final thanks largely to an historic choke by Todd Martin in the semi. However i'd forgotten he beat Sampras in the Q/F so hats off to him.

 

[sbengte]

Common Sbengte, you don't believe what you wrote. Delpo without his wrist problems could have very well been a multiGS winner, He is actually still in time....

Yes, I do know no one deserved the title more than Delpo. He was the first player in the Fedal era to beat both Fed and Nadal to win a slam. And he certainly deserved it more , if anything, than Nadal deserved this year's USO. I was just trying to point out to you why considering 1 slam winners alone is flawed.

 

[vbranis]

Korda.

 

[Antonio Puente]

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.

Subtract everything else, only talk about the USO, and he's still a three slam winner at the tournament, so no, it deserves no mention in a "least deserved" discussion. When you have won the slam three times, beating a tier 1 great and hardcourt GOAT candidate in the previous two finals, only on TTW would the third title be questioned. In the real world, the player who has either won or made the USO final in 4 of his last 6 appearances would get the benefit of the doubt, especially when the MFer has 16 slams and has won the tournament 3 times. lol

The daily nonsense discussed on TTW - it's not real.

 

[timnz]

Cilic was playing out of his mind in those matches. Fully deserved. He is probably on top of this list if we talk about deserved. He blew both of them off the court and finished it in straights. Two very dominant performances against great opponents.

This, I have zero doubt that if cilic had been in Djokovic’s semi, Djokovic wouldn’t have won a set. Yes, that was not normal - but Cilic was playing at super human levels in the semi and finals.

 

[veroniquem]

Subtract everything else, only talk about the USO, and he's still a three slam winner at the tournament, so no, it deserves no mention in a "least deserved" discussion. When you have won the slam three times, beating a tier 1 great and hardcourt GOAT candidate in the previous two finals, only on TTW would the third title be questioned. In the real world, the player who has either won or made the USO final in 4 of his last 6 appearances would get the benefit of the doubt, especially when the MFer has 16 slams and has won the tournament 3 times. lol

The daily nonsense discussed on TTW - it's not real.

My angle was: weakest draw at a slam, not passing a judgement on player’s talent in general. Of course Nadal is a superlative player and I believe he would have won USO with a harder draw.

 

[AlxThm]

Del potro? Wait, are we talking about the same Juan Martin Del Potro who beat Federer in 2009??

 

[Djokovic2011]

This, I have zero doubt that if cilic had been in Djokovic’s semi, Djokovic wouldn’t have won a set. Yes, that was not normal - but Cilic was playing at super human levels in the semi and finals.

Let's not go overboard timnz. Even in Djokovic's lacklustre form that year I've no doubt he would've been more of a challenge than Federer was, if for no other reason than he would've run down more balls and made Cilic play at least one extra shot. Heck, I've never really been entirely convinced Marin would've beaten him in the final had he got past Nishikori.

 

[User123]

This, I have zero doubt that if cilic had been in Djokovic’s semi, Djokovic wouldn’t have won a set. Yes, that was not normal - but Cilic was playing at super human levels in the semi and finals.

LMAO. Do you even know what his head to head against Djokovic is? Not only Djokovic was 14-0 up until Paris last year, but he won almost all of their meetings VERY easy, with a lot of bagels and breadsticks. And even in Paris 2016 he served for the second set, despite playing very bad.

 

[abmk]

LMAO. Do you even know what his head to head against Djokovic is? Not only Djokovic was 14-0 up until Paris last year, but he won almost all of their meetings VERY easy, with a lot of bagels and breadsticks. And even in Paris 2016 he served for the second set, despite playing very bad.

Before USO 2014, there was only one breadstick in the meetings among them and Cilic had inflicted that on Djokovic - IW 14.

Cilic had taken DJokovic to 5 sets in Wim 14 (&they had a 4 set clash at RG 14).

While I don't agree that Djokovic wouldn't have won a set stuff, Cilic would have likely won a hypothetical USO 14 final encounter.

 

[User123]

Before USO 2014, there was only one breadstick in the meetings among them and Cilic had inflicted that on Djokovic - IW 14.

Cilic had taken DJokovic to 5 sets in Wim 14 (&they had a 4 set clash at RG 14).

While I don't agree that Djokovic wouldn't have won a set stuff, Cilic would have likely won a hypothetical USO 14 final encounter.

Oh yeah, Cilic won two sets in Wimbledon, what an achievement. Not like he was any close to winning the match anyway, Djokovic won his sets 6-1 6-2 6-2.
Truth is, Cilic is a mug who makes too many unforced errors. And Djokovic is a player who returns a lot of balls, so Cilic would make much more errors against him than against a tired Nishikori.

 

[abmk]

Oh yeah, Cilic won two sets in Wimbledon, what an achievement. Not like he was any close to winning the match anyway, Djokovic won his sets 6-1 6-2 6-2.
Truth is, Cilic is a mug who makes too many unforced errors. And Djokovic is a player who returns a lot of balls, so Cilic would make much more errors against him than against a tired Nishikori.

yeah, because everyone and their daddy gets two sets off Djokovic at Wimbledon

Cilic was zoning at that USO and would've been favored vs Djokovic. He wasn't a mug at that USO. Stop making yourself look crappy by rubbishing every other player than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (&maybe a couple of other exceptions)

It'd taken 2011 USO Djokovic or 2015 USO Djokovic to stop that version of Cilic.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

Everyone who wins a major deserves it. Period.

 

[SafinSucks]

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.

I agree with 2017 Australian Open, especially in these circumstances, still had an easy quarter but otherwise it was a tough one.
I would also nominate 2014 Australian Open, even though Wawrinka had a bye in R2 I think, and Wimbledon 2014 (Stepanek-Simon-Tsonga-Cilic-Dimitrov-Federer).

Back on topic: sorry but Johansson totally deserved it. All slams won are deserved but if I had to answer I would say Gaudio, anyone who watched the final know what I am talking about.

 

[NatF]

Yup.

Also evidenced by Gaudio's other slam results - the guy never even reached another slam quarter-final, let alone another final.

His win was purely due to Coria's unprecedented choke.

Guy went through Canas, Jiri Novak, Enqvist, Andreev, Hewitt, Nalbandian before beating Coria. There are definitely easier draws, saying it was purely due to Coria's choke is BS.

 

[Chanwan]

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.

That is what an injection of confidence can do

 

[nemala]

Korda. No slam won while doping is deserved.

 

[Chanwan]

You really have grown into one of my favorite posters Vero.
It's a good thing because we are going to be on the same side when Z starts dominating the tour

vero's made a once in a lifetime turn from heel to an objective poster with lots of knowledge and analysis to share . Hope it stays this way @veroniquem !

 

[Chanwan]

Funny, but only one-time GS champions are eligible.

Sorry to tell you that, but that's an odd and stupid criterion.

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.

Subtract everything else, only talk about the USO, and he's still a three slam winner at the tournament, so no, it deserves no mention in a "least deserved" discussion. When you have won the slam three times, beating a tier 1 great and hardcourt GOAT candidate in the previous two finals, only on TTW would the third title be questioned. In the real world, the player who has either won or made the USO final in 4 of his last 6 appearances would get the benefit of the doubt, especially when the MFer has 16 slams and has won the tournament 3 times. lol

The daily nonsense discussed on TTW - it's not real.

My angle was: weakest draw at a slam, not passing a judgement on player’s talent in general. Of course Nadal is a superlative player and I believe he would have won USO with a harder draw.

Vero's right on this one. It def. belongs in the discussion given the draw (and yes, he could have won it with a harder one as well as he showed by going through better players in Beijing and Shanghai a month later)

 

[Sudacafan]

Sorry to tell you that, but that's an odd and stupid criterion.




Vero's right on this one. It def. belongs in the discussion given the draw (and yes, he could have won it with a harder one as well as he showed by going through better players in Beijing and Shanghai a month later)

OK, not only one-timers should be eligible, I picked a wrong justification.
I was just trying to say that Nadal deserved his USO 2017 win.
Who else if not him?

 

[User123]

yeah, because everyone and their daddy gets two sets off Djokovic at Wimbledon

Cilic was zoning at that USO and would've been favored vs Djokovic. He wasn't a mug at that USO. Stop making yourself look crappy by rubbishing every other player than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (&maybe a couple of other exceptions)

It'd taken 2011 USO Djokovic or 2015 USO Djokovic to stop that version of Cilic.

Didn't pass a lot of time until he played Djokovic, in WTF of the same year. Result? 6-1 6-1 to Djokovic. And guess what, this result didn't surprise me at all. More than that, BERDYCH destroyed Cilic with almost the same scoreline. It made people wonder what Cilic even does in that tournament, he really didn't belong there.
I mean, is it that hard to admit that Federer lost to a mug? It happens to every player. Nadal also lost to mugs in slams when out of form, it is ok. It rarely happens to Federer, but sometimes it does. Federer clearly was out of form in USO 2014, much more than in USO 2017 by the way.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You really have grown into one of my favorite posters Vero.
It's a good thing because we are going to be on the same side when Z starts dominating the tour

You have to know veroniquem to appreciate who she really is!

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

Anyone who says Cilic is the most underserving winner are absolutely crazy.

He played his best tennis ever to win his lonesome Major.

If there's one guy that can really count his lucky stars for winning his Major has to be Gaston Gaudio.

This guy had 0 business of winning this Major where he was totally outplayed by Coria. Coria's choke has got to be the worst I have ever seen.

 

[Shaolin]

Anyone who says Cilic is the most underserving winner are absolutely crazy.

He played his best tennis ever to win his lonesome Major.

If there's one guy that can really count his lucky stars for winning his Major has to be Gaston Gaudio.

This guy had 0 business of winning this Major where he was totally outplayed by Coria. Coria's choke has got to be the worst I have ever seen.

Closing out a match is kind of an important part of winning it. Coria didn't have the balls to finish the job and Gaudio did. He fully deserves the W.

 

[Chanwan]

OK, not only one-timers should be eligible, I picked a wrong justification.
I was just trying to say that Nadal deserved his USO 2017 win.
Who else if not him?

That's the thing though - you could say that for a lot of the slams discussed in this thread. Yes, he deserved it the most of the players who played and displayed the highest level in the tournament, but that doesn't change that it's easily among the easiest draw in the Open Era.

In general, I don't agree with the premise of the thread though. Sure, you can get 'lucky' to an extent, but all of them are professional tennis players and it still takes a lot to hold it together for 7 straight matches. And the pressure is immense, not least for the first timers.

Didn't pass a lot of time until he played Djokovic, in WTF of the same year. Result? 6-1 6-1 to Djokovic. And guess what, this result didn't surprise me at all. More than that, BERDYCH destroyed Cilic with almost the same scoreline. It made people wonder what Cilic even does in that tournament, he really didn't belong there.
I mean, is it that hard to admit that Federer lost to a mug? It happens to every player. Nadal also lost to mugs in slams when out of form, it is ok. It rarely happens to Federer, but sometimes it does. Federer clearly was out of form in USO 2014, much more than in USO 2017 by the way.

sure dude

 

[abmk]

Didn't pass a lot of time until he played Djokovic, in WTF of the same year. Result? 6-1 6-1 to Djokovic. And guess what, this result didn't surprise me at all. More than that, BERDYCH destroyed Cilic with almost the same scoreline. It made people wonder what Cilic even does in that tournament, he really didn't belong there.
I mean, is it that hard to admit that Federer lost to a mug? It happens to every player. Nadal also lost to mugs in slams when out of form, it is ok. It rarely happens to Federer, but sometimes it does. Federer clearly was out of form in USO 2014, much more than in USO 2017 by the way.

Cilic had beat the the same Berdych in Wimbledon in straights and dominated him at the USO.

He was just woefully out of form in WTF 14.
He breadsticked Novak at IW, went 4 sets at RG, went 5 sets at Wimbledon and lost with a double breadsticked at the WTF. Anyone with an iota of common Sense would know which one is the outlier.

(Just in case you don't remember, Federer and djokovic make a mockery of the field in the RR that year. Federer set the record for least number of games lost in RR, only for it to be broken by Djokovic. It wasn't just Cilic who was being questioned)

Federer had mug losses to Robredo in 13 USO and Seppi in AO 15. I have no problem saying that. Because they were crappy losses.

Cilic in USO 14 on the other hand was zoning. You are being a sh*tty analyzer calling almost every other player a mug just for the heck of it.

 

[User123]

Cilic had beat the the same Berdych in Wimbledon in straights and dominated him at the USO.

He was just woefully out of form in WTF 14.
He breadsticked Novak at IW, went 4 sets at RG, went 5 sets at Wimbledon and lost with a double breadsticked at the WTF. Anyone with an iota of common Sense would know which one is the outlier.

(Just in case you don't remember, Federer and djokovic make a mockery of the field in the RR that year. Federer set the record for least number of games lost in RR, only for it to be broken by Djokovic. It wasn't just Cilic who was being questioned)

Federer had mug losses to Robredo in 13 USO and Seppi in AO 15. I have no problem saying that. Because they were crappy losses.

Cilic in USO 14 on the other hand was zoning. You are being a sh*tty analyzer calling almost every other player a mug just for the heck of it.

Djokovic is 14-1 up in head to head against Cilic, and even in Paris 2016 Cilic didn't play that great when he finally got a win.
By the way, I saw their RG 2014 match. All match I was thinking: "omg, will Cilic ever stop making so many unforced errors?". I don't know how he won a set, but he was missing a lot of easy shots almost all the time. Djokovic was beatable then, but Cilic just never stopped gifting him free points.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic is 14-1 up in head to head against Cilic, and even in Paris 2016 Cilic didn't play that great when he finally got a win. So I have no idea how you call Cilic the favorite against him in a slam final.

Forget that for a second, first how on Earth Cilic was a mug in USO 14 ? Here's a clue : he wasn't. admit it.

Cilic actually held his nerve well when he finally beat Novak in Paris.

as far as your question is concerned, it was 10-0 at that stage. secondly Cilic had taken him to 5 sets at Wimbledon. And he was playing clearly better at the USO and was in the zone. Novak was playing clearly worse at the USO. That's why.

(Another fact : Cilic- djoko had met in uso in 08 and it took djoko 4 competitive sets to beat him then)

 

[duaneeo]

Cilic in USO 14 on the other hand was zoning.

Cilic serving at 56% is not "zoning". That's typically a guaranteed loss against a Roger Federer.

 

[Djokovic2011]

vero's made a once in a lifetime turn from heel to an objective poster with lots of knowledge and analysis to share . Hope it stays this way @veroniquem !

In fairness to vero she's always had lots of analysis and knowledge to share, even when she wasn't exactly being objective.

 

[BGod]

For me it's Johansson. You can say Aussie Champs in the 70s easily but given percentages and competition he's the worst.

Only 4 quarter runs or better but more importantly 2000-02 was worst transitional era until maybe 2016 to now.

His run in 02 was beating Bjorkman, Novak (who never made past 4th again) in 5 and a hungover Safin in 4.

Watching the Safin match is painful for how lazy of a performance it was and Marat still got 1st set and only lost 4-6, 4-6 and in tiebreak. That whole tournament was one of the worst last 30 years.

Quarterfinalists:
Safin
Johansson
Novak
Bjorkman
Koubek
Haas
Rios
Ferreira

Safin got a retirement against Ferreira 5-2 in the 1st.

 

[abmk]

Cilic serving at 56% is not "zoning". That's typically a guaranteed loss against a Roger Federer.

Actual thoughts from when it actually happened. Not revisionist history based on serve% alone.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/flawless-from-cilic-well-done.511890/

His serve% was not high, but he was still serving well and he got in huge 1st serves when he needed them to get free points.
He was playing too well off the ground in any case.

 

[Chanwan]

In fairness to vero she's always had lots of analysis and knowledge to share, even when she wasn't exactly being objective.

She did, but whenever Fed or something remotely Fed-related was involved, she would bend her arguments to whichever way would make Fed look the worst
@cc0509

 

[abmk]

By the way, I saw their RG 2014 match. All match I was thinking: "omg, will Cilic ever stop making so many unforced errors?". I don't know how he won a set, but he was missing a lot of easy shots almost all the time. Djokovic was beatable then, but Cilic just never stopped gifting him free points.

I didn't see that match, but if you saw the match in full, you'd know how Cilic won a set.

Plus that was clay.Cilic is not good enough on clay. Djokovic was not going to be beaten by Cilic on clay unless a freaking miracle happened.

 

[Djokovic2011]

She did, but whenever Fed or something remotely Fed-related was involved, she would bend her arguments to whichever way would make Fed look the worst
@cc0509

I'm not gonna lie, I kinda miss that version of vero. It was pretty much an expert way of driving the worst type of Fed fans up the wall and oh boy did she have it down to a T - a nice dollop of trolling thrown in but without being overly aggressive and always with a smile on her face. She's one of a kind, that's for sure.