Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Career omisson - whose is the most painful? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=434668)

timnz 08-02-2012 05:44 PM

Career omisson - whose is the most painful?
 
No-one in tennis has ever won everything (not yet anyway). Every top player has something they haven't won. It would be interesting to see how people see the most glaring omission from former number 1's achievement and rank the most glaring omission.

Laver - No WCT Finals or Masters
Federer - No Olympics singles gold (yet)
Nadal - no year end final championship
Borg - no US Open
Agassi - no Grand Slam Cup
Connors - no French Open
McEnroe - no French Open, no Australian Open
Lendl - no Wimbledon
Sampras - no French Open
Edberg - no French Open
Becker - no French Open
Gonzales - no Clay court major (including Pro Majors)
Rosewall - no Wimbledon
Newcombe - no French Open
Courier - no Wimbledon, no US Open
Tilden - no Australian Open (don't think this is much of an omission - the Australian though existing wasn't a major until 1924 - note: He had the World Hard Court championships which is an equivalent to the French Championships - that is why I didn't mention the latter).

My view is that Borg lack of a US Open must hurt a lot as much as McEnroe's lack of a French, Borg having more chances of winning that tournament than McEnroe. I feel that Federer's current (At the time of writing) lack of an Olympic singles Gold isn't anywhere is serious as Nadal's lack of a WTF. There are two main reasons for that - the WTF is far more important (double the points) and also Nadal has had 4 times as many opportunities to win the WTF as compared to the Olympics. If you have 4 times as many chances to win something the lack of getting it is more glaring. Tilden lack of an Australian probably didn't even register with him. Sampras' lack of a French Open title hurts him personally, but his career is so amazing in every other category that it doesn't hurt him that much. Laver's lack of a WCT finals wasn't much (though he really wanted it) since he only got to compete in it first at the age of 33.

Mustard 08-02-2012 05:55 PM

Whose is the most painful? It has to be Lendl at Wimbledon, considering how he became more and more obsessed with winning it as each year passed.

krosero 08-02-2012 05:59 PM

Wilander - no Wimbledon or Masters
Ashe - no French Open or Masters
Vines - no French

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 6772943)
Gonzales - no Clay court major (including Pro Majors)

I think what hurts Pancho's career the most is the lack of any Grand Slam titles outside of Forest Hills. He was unable to play them for almost all his career. So his career remains underappreciated, to put it mildly.

timnz 08-02-2012 06:01 PM

Credit to Lendl
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 6772956)
Whose is the most painful? It has to be Lendl at Wimbledon, considering how he became more and more obsessed with winning it as each year passed.

I think he deserves the most credit of all the people I have listed with regard to trying to fill that gap in his CV. I think he tried harder than anyone. He made 5 Wimbledon Semi's and 2 Finals through sheer hard work and dedication and focus. If he had todays slow Wimbledon then, he surely would have broken through.

timnz 08-02-2012 06:04 PM

Only should measure gaps during a players prime
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero (Post 6772960)
Wilander - no Wimbledon or Masters
Ashe - no French Open or Masters
Vines - no French

I think what hurts Pancho's career the most is the lack of any Grand Slam titles outside of Forest Hills. He was unable to play them for almost all his career. So his career remains underappreciated, to put it mildly.

I guess it shouldn't be counted against someone if they couldn't play an event during their prime. Prime Gonzales was from 1952 to early 60's so that is why I didn't list Wimbledon or the French Open as gaps in his CV. The other thing is a player shouldn't be regarded as having a gap if a tournament wasn't regarded highly during their prime - even if it later came to prominence eg you can't say that Lendl's lack of the Olympics Gold is significant at all.

krosero 08-02-2012 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 6772943)
Tilden - no Australian Open (don't think this is much of an omission - the Australian though existing wasn't a major until 1924 - note: He had the World Hard Court championships which is an equivalent to the French Championships - that is why I didn't mention the latter).

All this was true of Bill Johnston as well. Like Tilden he won Wimbledon, the US, the WHCC and the Davis Cup, but no Australian.

Borotra actually went to play the Australian one year and won it. He also won a French and Wimbledon, but never won at Forest Hills (he made the final in 1926 but was blown out by Lacoste 6-4, 6-0, 6-4).

Cochet and Lacoste each won all the Grand Slam titles except the Australian (which I don't think they ever played). Lacoste never won the WHCC, though (nor did Borotra).

Mustard 08-02-2012 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero (Post 6772960)
I think what hurts Pancho's career the most is the lack of any Grand Slam titles outside of Forest Hills. He was unable to play them for almost all his career. So his career remains underappreciated, to put it mildly.

And it's very wrong that Gonzales' career should be underappreciated. It needs to be said that he was the best player in the world for 8 years, that he won 8 US Pros, 4 Wembley Pros and 3 Tournament of Champions, and that even at age 41, he was capable of beating a peak Laver in 5 sets. This is why I was disappointed when I saw Gonzales ranked so slow in that Tennis Channel list. They clearly haven't understood how tennis was at the time.

Mustard 08-02-2012 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 6772965)
I think he deserves the most credit of all the people I have listed with regard to trying to fill that gap in his CV. I think he tried harder than anyone. He made 5 Wimbledon Semi's and 2 Finals through sheer hard work and dedication and focus. If he had todays slow Wimbledon then, he surely would have broken through.

I don't think he would have won Wimbledon in any era, personally. Lendl had tough 5-setters almost every year that he managed to win, in order to get as far as he did every year. With the exception of 1990 Queen's Club, I don't think he looked comfortable at all on grass.

Mustard 08-02-2012 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero (Post 6772977)
All this was true of Bill Johnston as well. Like Tilden he won Wimbledon, the US, the WHCC and the Davis Cup, but no Australian.

Borotra actually went to play the Australian one year and won it. He also won a French and Wimbledon, but never won at Forest Hills (he made the final in 1926 but was blown out by Lacoste 6-4, 6-0, 6-4).

Cochet and Lacoste each won all the Grand Slam titles except the Australian (which I don't think they ever played). Lacoste never won the WHCC, though (nor did Borotra).

Did Anthony Wilding ever play at the US Championships? He won everything else, Wimbledon, the WHCC, the WCCC, and even the Australasian Championships before it was a major. Of course, Wilding won the WHCC, Wimbledon and the WCCC in 1913, which were the 3 officially recognised majors by the newly formed ILTF at the time.

krosero 08-02-2012 06:19 PM

Lew Hoad - no US Championships

Mustard 08-02-2012 06:22 PM

Pancho Segura - No Wembley Pro (was runner-up 4 times)

krosero 08-02-2012 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 6772993)
Did Anthony Wilding ever play at the US Championships? He won everything else, Wimbledon, the WHCC, the WCCC, and even the Australasian Championships before it was a major. Of course, Wilding won the WHCC, Wimbledon and the WCCC in 1913, which were the 3 officially recognised majors by the newly formed ILTF at the time.

Not sure whether he did, looks like the most significant omission in his career. Of course travel conditions had everything to do with these omissions we're listing, in those days.

krosero 08-02-2012 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 6772970)
The other thing is a player shouldn't be regarded as having a gap if a tournament wasn't regarded highly during their prime - even if it later came to prominence eg you can't say that Lendl's lack of the Olympics Gold is significant at all.

That would apply to the Australian championships at certain times in its history, for example during Tilden's prime, or Borg's.

krosero 08-02-2012 06:28 PM

Can anyone think of significant titles missing for Perry, Budge or Emerson?

Limpinhitter 08-02-2012 06:28 PM

Rosewall never won Wimbledon!

krosero 08-02-2012 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter (Post 6773016)
Rosewall never won Wimbledon!

And he lost 4 finals there, matching Borg's 4 USO finals.

jrepac 08-02-2012 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 6772990)
I don't think he would have won Wimbledon in any era, personally. Lendl had tough 5-setters almost every year that he managed to win, in order to get as far as he did every year. With the exception of 1990 Queen's Club, I don't think he looked comfortable at all on grass.

Was 1990 the year he beat Mac at Queens? He really did struggle on the grass quite a bit; there was always someone more comfortable/skilled on it in his way, be it semis or final. (Mac, Connors, Becker, Cash, Edberg, etc.)

Mustard 08-02-2012 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero (Post 6773014)
Can anyone think of significant titles missing for Perry, Budge or Emerson?

Perry didn't win the Wembley Pro (although he only played it in 1951 and 1952, losing to Segura and Gonzales). Perry never played in the French Pro.

Budge seems to have won everything as an amateur and as a professional. Emerson won everything in the amateur game during the 1960s. You can have doubts in regards to the fact that arguably better players were in the professional game when Budge/Emerson had their best amateur achievements (in Budge's 1938 case, even his biggest amateur rival, von Cramm, was out, because he was jailed), but I can't really see any holes in their resume.

Mustard 08-02-2012 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrepac (Post 6773040)
Was 1990 the year he beat Mac at Queens? He really did struggle on the grass quite a bit; there was always someone more comfortable/skilled on it in his way, be it semis or final. (Mac, Connors, Becker, Cash, Edberg, etc.)

Yes. Lendl beat McEnroe in the semi finals and then beat Becker in the final. Lendl didn't drop a set in the whole tournament. On that form, Lendl was the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon, but he didn't play anywhere near as well a few weeks later at Wimbledon.

Mustard 08-02-2012 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero (Post 6772960)
Vines - no French.

Vines won the French Pro in 1935, beating Nusslein in the final. Did Vines ever play in the French Championships as an amateur? Vines didn't win the Australian Championships, losing to McGrath in 1933.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse