Originally Posted by DRII
No, because they have not won a slam...
and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.
This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?
Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.
Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.
Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?