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

[The_18th_Slam]

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.

By that reasoning, you should be telling your fellow Bamos Vrigade members to never question Federer's 2006/2007 AO titles. After all, he is a 5-time champion at the AO that beat Berdych, Nishikori, Wawrinka, and Nadal at the age of 35 to win his 5th AO title.

 

[Phoenix1983]

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.

Yeah but the point is, he never showed anything near slam winning calibre either before or after the 2004 FO - thus it was a fluke. Especially considering that Coria won a set 6-0 and had match points before choking.

Other than the early AO champs like Edmondson and Teacher, there are no other winners who are weak as Gaudio in the OE.

 

[KG1965]

TIER 1
-Andrés Gimeno

TIER 2
-Manuel Orantes
-Adriano Panatta
-Roscoe Tanner
-Vitas Gerulaitis
-Yannick Noah
-Pat Cash
-Michael Chang
-Andrés Gomez
-MIchael Stich
-Thomas Muster
-Richard Krajicek
-Goran Ivanisevic
-Petr Korda
-Carlos Moya
-Thomas Johansonn
-Albert Costa
-Juan Carlos Ferrero
-Andy Roddick
-Gaston Gaudio
-Juan Martin del Potro
-Marin Cilic

TIER 3
-Marc Edmondson
-Brian Teacher
... the top players did not go to Melbourne; AO = Master 500

 

[KG1965]

-Andrés Gimeno

Most respect for Gimeno, worthy of Laver & Rosewall. Thanks.

 

[veroniquem]

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

Wow you're a mind-reader (have you ever thought about becoming a psychic ? )
I was about to answer: actually I've always posted a mixture of factual analysis and personal opinion, ratio of the 2 depending on my mood

 

[Chanwan]

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 confused:). She's one of a kind, that's for sure.

Different folks, different tastes I guess. I for one prefer the new vero version to this one

Fed didn't retire. He withdrew. He withdrew after going out of his way to win the semi. He withdrew at the last minute without even trying to play one of the most important finals of the season. And the true statistics for doing what he's done is 0. In open era, the combined 100% of all other male players have done it 0 time. So Fed stands on his own here. Alone.
And the worst of it is when his fans are trying to claim he shouldn't have to bear the consequences of what he's done. No responsibility, no backlash, no raised eyebrow, no heat. Because you know, he's Fed, so he should be allowed to get away with anything, no question asked.
So convenient, so wrong.

Novak owns Fed at WTF these days.
He was unlucky with draw and schedule at Dubai. I really want to see a case scenario where Fed would have had to play the 2nd semi vs Berd and see what would have happened in final the next day. Really. Fed fans are quite right to be happy but they could turn the arrogance down a notch because Fed DID get lucky in Dubai, independently of how well he played...

Fed is tanking of course. He's trying to stop Djoko from qualifying. It is not the first time he's done something like that at WTF. Fed really has no integrity at all.

 

[Mainad]

TIER 1
-Andrés Gimeno

TIER 2
-Manuel Orantes
-Adriano Panatta
-Roscoe Tanner
-Vitas Gerulaitis
-Yannick Noah
-Pat Cash
-Michael Chang
-Andrés Gomez
-MIchael Stich
-Thomas Muster
-Richard Krajicek
-Goran Ivanisevic
-Petr Korda
-Carlos Moya
-Thomas Johansonn
-Albert Costa
-Juan Carlos Ferrero
-Andy Roddick
-Gaston Gaudio
-Juan Martin del Potro
-Marin Cilic

TIER 3
-Marc Edmondson
-Brian Teacher
... the top players did not go to Melbourne; AO = Master 500

Why is Gimeno the only one in Tier 1? He only made 1 other Slam final which he lost in straights. Some of the names you lumped together in Tier 2 made more Slam finals than that eg. Cash, Ivanisevic and Roddick.

 

[KG1965]

Why is Gimeno the only one in Tier 1? He only made 1 other Slam final which he lost in straights. Some of the names you lumped together in Tier 2 made more Slam finals than that eg. Cash, Ivanisevic and Roddick.

When he won the French he had crossed the hill since he was born in 1937.

Gimeno was not a winner, but he has consistently been taught since the early 60s to 1967, behind the couple Laver-Rosewall.

No one listed has these features.
They are all good champions but have not been on the podium for so long.

 

[duaneeo]

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.

There weren't many times when Cilic "needed" huge 1st serves, as he only faced two break points.

When people say "zoning", it suggests Cilic would have beaten anyone that day. Can any true tennis fan say with a straight face that a 56%-serving Cilic would've beaten Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, (hell, Ferrer) that day?

 

[abmk]

There weren't many times when Cilic "needed" huge 1st serves, as he only faced two break points.

BPs aren't the only situation when you need huge 1st serves. 0-30, 15-30, 30-30, 40-40 are also situations when you need them.
He got in those big serves when he needed to.
I remember that because I was annoyed that he was doing so.

When people say "zoning", it suggests Cilic would have beaten anyone that day. Can any true tennis fan say with a straight face that a 56%-serving Cilic would've beaten Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, (hell, Ferrer) that day?

He'd have beaten anyone else in that US Open draw that day - yes, that includes Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka and obviously Ferrer.

am not talking about other versions of these players at other US Opens. Just that one US Open.

 

[User123]

BPs aren't the only situation when you need huge 1st serves. 0-30, 15-30, 30-30, 40-40 are also situations when you need them.
He got in those big serves when he needed to.
I remember that because I was annoyed that he was doing so.



He'd have beaten anyone else in that US Open draw that day - yes, that includes Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka and obviously Ferrer.

am not talking about other versions of these players at other US Opens. Just that one US Open.

Seems funny. You give Cilic more credit for a fluke slam win than you give Nadal for winning all of his 16 slams combined.

 

[abmk]

Seems funny. You give Cilic more credit for a fluke slam win than you give Nadal for winning all of his 16 slams combined.

oh really ? who just pointed out that Nadal's RG 07 form tends to get under-rated ?

Nadal doesn't many to defend what he's done. (and some of the cr*p against Nadal is retaliation to some of the cr*p sprouted by his fans/fanatics)

OTOH, Cilic's legit slam, while zoning in, gets rubbished considerably.

 

[User123]

oh really ? who just pointed out that Nadal's RG 07 form tends to get under-rated ?

Nadal doesn't many to defend what he's done. (and some of the cr*p against Nadal is retaliation to some of the cr*p sprouted by his fans/fanatics)

OTOH, Cilic's legit slam, while zoning in, gets rubbished considerably.

If Cilic is such a great player, how come he never brought that level again?

 

[abmk]

If Cilic is such a great player, how come he never brought that level again?

I didn't say Cilic is a great player, just that he had a great run at that USO.

Its the way things fall - players don't necessarily repeat their highest levels again.

In any case, Cilic has played pretty well on other occasions -- USO 09 ( took out Murray , was initially over-powering Delpo, but Delpo's cooler head and better consistency prevailed).
AO 10 (took out Delpo and had a good contest with Murray in the SF)
Wim 14 -16 --- reached QF, taken out by djoko in 5 sets in 14, taken out by an at-best Djokovic in 3 sets in 15, taken out by fed in 5 sets (was playing well, but did choke to an extent , but federer had to do real well to come back)
Wim 17 (minus the final) -- came through a tricky draw to the final.
USO 15 -- reached the SF, but got injured
won cincy 16 taking out Murray

 

[timnz]

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.

The H2H was irrelevant. Cilic was playing 3 levels above what he had ever played like before. Djokovic got beaten by nisihikori right? Then Cilic killed Nishikori in the final

 

[Antonio Puente]

Seems funny. You give Cilic more credit for a fluke slam win than you give Nadal for winning all of his 16 slams combined.

Welcome to TTW.

 

[abmk]

Welcome to TTW.

already answered that post of his , Nadal boy .

 

[Antonio Puente]

By that reasoning, you should be telling your fellow Bamos Vrigade members to never question Federer's 2006/2007 AO titles.

I try. I Wish they would listen to me. I offer one simple piece of advice at the ************* Christmas party and they ask where their next drink is.

 

[Antonio Puente]

already answered that post of his , Nadal boy

You are prolific, no doubt.

Quantity over quality in the abmk household.

 

[abmk]

You are prolific, no doubt.

Quantity over quality in the abmk household.

didn't talk about the # of posts at all, but rather that his point was completely rebutted.
Too bad you can't deal with it.

both quality and quantity in my case.
Yours is neither. too bad.

 

[Antonio Puente]

didn't talk about the # of posts at all, but rather that his point was completely rebutted.
Too bad you can't deal with it.

both quality and quantity in my case.
Yours is neither. too bad.

Generally speaking, I stay out of these pissing matches, as it's the same nonsense over and over, but as far as I can tell you responded to nothing I posted. Were you intending to, but forgot? Not that it matters.

 

[abmk]

Generally speaking, I stay out of these pissing matches, as it's the same nonsense over and over, but as far as I can tell you responded to nothing I posted. Were you intending to, but forgot? Not that it matters.

you were bringing up User123's post like he had a valid point.
I had already completely rebutted it in the next post. (see post #162)
Selective reading ?

 

[Antonio Puente]

you were bringing up User123's post like he had a valid point.
I had already completely rebutted it in the next post. (see post #162)
Selective reading ?

Got it now, and this is why I stay out of these pissing matches.

Carry on. lol

 

[Druss]

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.

Not a fluke win you say? Intoxicated, hungover, dispirited Safin played at a woeful 15~20% and still Johansson scraped through that win.

 

[sbengte]

...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

It could also be argued that he did well in Beijing and Shanghai from the confidence of winning USO ( doesn't matter how he did it). But remember when he came into the USO, he was vulnerable and wasn't that confident after losses to Shapo and KyrGOAT at Montreal/Cincy.

 

[Tshooter]

Like many have said here before, there is no such thing as fluke win,...

True except, of course, for Roddick's one fluke Major.

 

[Chanwan]

It could also be argued that he did well in Beijing and Shanghai from the confidence of winning USO ( doesn't matter how he did it). But remember when he came into the USO, he was vulnerable and wasn't that confident after losses to Shapo and KyrGOAT at Montreal/Cincy.

Agree

 

[BHServe]

Not a fluke win you say? Intoxicated, hungover, dispirited Safin played at a woeful 15~20% and still Johansson scraped through that win.

Had you read my post properly, there was said that a rare occasion when fluke wins occur are when opponent is seriously injured or tanks/does not put decent effort into it.

 

[albertobra]

I just wanted to clear up the term "deserved" in this OP. I think it created some confusion and I haven't been clear enough.

Having your name written in the books as a Gran Slam winner is quite a big thing. So the "deserved" is based exactly on this.

Which player, according to his career, according to what he has rappresented for the sport (or is rappresenting if still in activity) least deserves to have his name written on this book?

 

[ollinger]

thread suffers the tragic flaw of many threads in this forum, in that when a player wins a tournament he wasn't expected to win because he isn't one of the dominant players of his era, that win is somehow not deserved. This is some of the lamest reasoning I've ever heard. Many on this list are there because they merely outplayed everyone else entered. How is that an undeserved win??

I just wanted to clear up the term "deserved" in this OP. I think it created some confusion and I haven't been clear enough.

Having your name written in the books as a Gran Slam winner is quite a big thing. So the "deserved" is based exactly on this.

Which player, according to his career, according to what he has rappresented for the sport (or is rappresenting if still in activity) least deserves to have his name written on this book?

 

[ollinger]

^^^ stop, already, with this nonsense!!!! "according to what he has represented for the sport" is just another inane way of saying that if you haven't won big before, you don't particularly deserve to win now. Tournaments aren't knighthoods or lifetime achievement awards reflecting what you've done over the years. They are contests that last one or two weeks and whoever performs best during that week or two wins --- and deserves it as much as anyone who's been in that winner's circle before!

 

[NatF]

Why is Gimeno the only one in Tier 1? He only made 1 other Slam final which he lost in straights. Some of the names you lumped together in Tier 2 made more Slam finals than that eg. Cash, Ivanisevic and Roddick.

Gimeno was a consistent #3 behind Laver and Rosewall in the mid 60's while he was barred from the traditional majors. Think of him as the Andy Murray of the 60's

 

[bhpower]

Gaudio: Coria got nerveous and cramped, before that He was destroying his rival.
Johansson: Lucky draw, his opponent sucked in the final.
CIlic: lucky draw, his opponent got nerveous, was exhausted and played very bad.
Roddick: Nalbandian played with two injuries in his semis final, yet He had match point and in the fifth set Roddick broke with a bad call, his draw was easy too although overall He deserved to win a slam in his career specially Wimbledon.

 

[HuusHould]

Just to make it clear. Goran on his way to the title beat Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Henman, Rafter. Not mentioning he played 3 WIMBLEDON FINALS before he won at his fourth attempt.

My tally has 3 players listed there who were number one in the world and all major winners, so I think we can rule Goran out, even though he was a goose!

You missed out Mark Edmondson (last Aussie to win the Aussie Open).

Come on man, an Aussie hasn't won at home for 40? years and now your trying to tell us the last one didn't even deserve it?

 

[Mainad]

Gimeno was a consistent #3 behind Laver and Rosewall in the mid 60's while he was barred from the traditional majors. Think of him as the Andy Murray of the 60's

We can't do that, can we? He only won 1 Slam and never made it to #1.

 

[Mainad]

Come on man, an Aussie hasn't won at home for 40? years and now your trying to tell us the last one didn't even deserve it?

I said nothing of the kind. The OP listed all the 1 time Slam winners of the Open Era and missed him out. I merely corrected him, that's all.

 

[NatF]

We can't do that, can we? He only won 1 Slam and never made it to #1.

I wouldn't put him in a class of his own personally but I can see the arguments. We need to observe the context of the era as well as what they all achieved.

 

[every7]

Playing a tired Nishikori helped matters. That was a huge break that guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga and Raonic didn't get.

Agree, it was a stroke of luck. Credit to Cilic for capitalizing on the occasion, though.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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.

I rate them about the same these days.

Cilic made an extra GS final but Del Potro is more accomplished at the SF/QF level. Cilic has a MS-1000 title but Del Potro has many finals.

Del Potro also has an Olympic medal which matters a little in this era.

Cilic is ahead slightly but they are on the same level.

 

[mike danny]

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.

Delpo was ruined by injuries. That's why I still consider him to be better than Cilic.

Check out the polls concerning the two players. They aren't pretty

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

Ivanesavic - did he ever win anything else?

Grand Slam Cup
2 Masters
22 Titles
3 Grand Slam Finals
3 Grand Slam Semifinals
60 "Top 10 Wins"
Ranked #2

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

I'm gonna say Brian Teacher or Gaston Gaudio

 

[The Green Mile]

Regarding Cilic vs Federer, honestly, 56 percent of first serves in, isn't all too bad when the delivery is that effective. He won around 87% of first serves against Federer that day. In set two, he was just below 50%, yet did not drop a point behind the first.

 

[Fabresque]

If only MaliVai Washington won that 96 Wimbledon Final... most undeserved finalist?

 

[The Green Mile]

If only MaliVai Washington won that 96 Wimbledon Final... most undeserved finalist?

Washington won two epic matches in the QF and SF stage. Came back from 1-5 down in the 5th set to defeat Martin. May have saved MPs in the QF match as well, against Radulescu...

I have both matches, I'm pretty sure he saved MPs, IIRC...

 

[Mainad]

If only MaliVai Washington won that 96 Wimbledon Final... most undeserved finalist?

Metreveli (1973), Lewis (1983) and Washington (1996) all strike me as the 3 most obscure and unexpected Wimbledon finalists in the Open Era. I never seem to have heard a thing about any of them other than their one-off Wimbledon runs!