Best player with only 1 slam

[Nathaniel_Near]

I think Murray is the 'best', even if he isn't yet the most accomplished of these players. Special shout outs to Roche and Roddick.

[jaggy]

I was tempted to go with Muster but Murray has more I think

[OHBH]

I voted for Stich because of him being the most talented not because he had the best career. Best career would have to be Roddick at this point. Unfortunately Murray will eclipse him soon. Though maybe my disdain for Murray clouding my judgement as the poll suggests most already think he has or at least expect him to. Not that really like Roddick either.

[dangalak]

Don't agree why Murray is already above Roddick.

[firepanda]

Chang was good, wasn't he? I'm too young to remember, but he's meant to be one of the better players up there, I believe.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Don't agree why Murray is already above Roddick.

The fact that Roddick briefly held the number # 1 ranking is the only thing that gives him the edge at the moment. If Murray ever gets that or wins another Slam, then it will be case closed in his favour.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mainad

The fact that Roddick briefly held the number # 1 ranking is the only thing that gives him the edge at the moment. If Murray ever gets that or wins another Slam, then it will be case closed in his favour.

A good topic is who really deserved the year end #1 of 2003. That is the whole key here since Roddick didnt just rank #1 briefly, he ended a year ranked #1 so officaly was #1 for a whole year. That is a big thing on the ATP (unlike the WTA where its relevance is almost squat now). However it was a very close year where 4 players arguably had the case:

Roddick vs Federer- Roddick had much better slam showings with win, two semis, and a 1st round loss vs Federer win, two 4th rounds, and a 1st round loss. Roddick won 2 Masters, Federer won 0. However Federer won the WTF, and won the most titles of anyone that year 7 (vs 6 for Roddick). Federer was also 2-1 vs Roddick that year, and drubbed him in their 2 more important meetings.

Ferrero- The only player to reach 2 slam finals this year, a slam title on clay in Paris, and a slam runner up on hard courts in New York. Won a Masters title on both clay and fast indoor court, showing great versatility. Consistent slam results of quarters, win, 4th round, runner up. Only 4 titles for overall year however.

Agassi- Consistent performer in slams with a win, quarters, 4th round, and semis, no truly poor slams unlike the other 3. A final at the WTF. One Masters title in Miami.

Looking back it is very close between Roddick, Federer, and Ferrero.

[beast of mallorca]

To be honest, Delpo and Murray should not be in this poll since both have a long way to go to change this one Slam wonder title.

[NadalAgassi]

I only included Del Potro in the poll for the lolz at how many votes I knew he would inexplicably get.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I only included Del Potro in the poll for the lolz at how many votes I knew he would inexplicably get.

Ahhh, ok. But if we take Murray and Delpo out, I'd take Muster.

[Romismak]

Close between Roddick and Murray, if Andy will finish his career just with 1 slam he will be for sure best ever with 1 slam, right now probably Roddick is leading by little margin, thanks to his No.1 ranking. But Murray is very close and even if he ends up with 1 slam, he will add many more titles, Masters 1000 and many weeks-years in top 5 so he would accomplish visibly more than Roddick for sure.

[NLBwell]

Muster was the most dominant player of those listed. He really ruled clay for a couple of years. His hardcourt career was ruined by getting run over by the drunk driver - before then he was a real threat, but afterwards he only entered the required tournaments and usually tanked to avoid playing on the hard courts with his knee. He did win the Lipton/Miami (where he was injured) later in his career - I'm guessing it was important to him since the finals appearance was taken away by the drunk driver.

[kiki]

Tony Roche.Next, Manuel Orantes,Adriano Panatta,Andres Gimeno and Pat Cash

[Evan77]

Roddick does have a slight edge over Murray because of year end #1. it is a big thing on the ATP tour. However, Murray is just peaking right now and he'll probably have a better career than AR.
I'm surprised not to see Ferrero on that list (love him), although I can't say he was the best player with only 1 slam.

I'm also tempted with Muster and his incredible run.

[mattennis]

Not going to talk about accomplishment, but only wanted to say what a waste of talent Stich, Ivanisevic and Krajicek winning only one Slam each.

When they were on they could beat anyone on any surface, but injuries and lack of mental focus/desire/whatever...made them achieve way less than expected.

At the beginning of the 90s, when they all were very young, I thought of each one of them as sure multi-Slam winners in the future, but at the end each one of them only managed to win one single Slam title, at Wimbledon.

They were three of the great generation of players of that time: Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Rafter (all of them Slam-winners) and honorable mention to Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira, from the same group age.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by mattennis

Not going to talk about accomplishment, but only wanted to say what a waste of talent Stich, Ivanisevic and Krajicek winning only one Slam each.

When they were on they could beat anyone on any surface, but injuries and lack of mental focus/desire/whatever...made them achieve way less than expected.

At the beginning of the 90s, when they all were very young, I thought of each one of them as sure multi-Slam winners in the future, but at the end each one of them only managed to win one single Slam title, at Wimbledon.

They were three of the great generation of players of that time: Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Rafter (all of them Slam-winners) and honorable mention to Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira, from the same group age.

The last great and competitive generation of tennis in the male´s ranks.

[NadalAgassi]

I dont think Krajicek is an underachiever. He was really slow, had a poor return of serve, not great backhand, and he didnt have any GOAT aspects to his game. 1 slam is about right for him. Stich and Ivanisevic are underachievers.

[norbac]

If he had a Slam, Berdych.

[mattennis]

I really enjoyed that time, the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s, because just about every week you saw yet another promising young talent and there was a point where I thought: "my God, where do all these talented youngster come from all of a sudden?"

And as soon as 1991 and 1992 many of them were in the top-10 ( Courier, Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Agassi, Krajicek, Bruguera...) being all of them so young.

Only Becker, Edberg and Muster could still compete with them from the previous generation (and they were still only about 24-25 years old).

It was an amazing generation of talented young players.

But tennis was different back then, much more polarized conditions and many different styles being competitive.

It was so much fun, so many young talents looking so strong and seemed to put the tennis world upside-down.

[Federer20042006]

I think the floodgates could be open for Murray, and he and Djokovic will be contesting most of the GS finals the next 3-4 years as The Rivalry in tennis (God help us all having to watch those kinds of matches with 40 stroke rallies being the norm, though).

So I think Murray will have a few slams when he's done.

Ivanisevic should have won at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles, but I think his height worked against him on other surfaces. He had the ground strokes, but not the footwork.