Originally Posted by Mainad
I agree with you that Davydenko was the better overall player. His results in non-Slam tournaments were far superior and he achieved a higher ranking than Henman.
But in Slams, Henman clearly has the advantage. 6 semi-finals beats 4. That is why I think Henman has to be called the best player never to reach a final simply because he was a semi-finalist in Slams more times than anybody else.
2 more slam semis is not that much IMO to say that Henman was a clearly better player in slams. Davydenko also reached 2 more QF than Henman in majors. That, coupled with IMO a higher peak level of play (good enough to greatly trouble Federer and even beat him at an important event like the WTF) makes him the best player to never win a slam. He was just a better player overall than Henman, and deserved a major final more.