Unluckiest Player ever at a Grand Slam is ....Becker

[Rhino]

I would say Lendl, because of his 19 finals, he should have won a few more, perhaps a Wimbledon.

Also McEnroe at Roland Garros against Lendl; man he is unlucky to not get the grand slam, but i guess he had his chances.

Agassi should have more than 8 slams too, considering his talent.

[Rhino]

Also Mark Philipoussis was really unlucky, that year that he was on fire at Wimbledon, beating Sampras but then got the cramps... so unlucky, he could've won the whole thing.

[srinrajesh]

Originally Posted by Camilio Pascual

You are not even close by your own criteria.
Chris Evert lost IN THE FINAL 16 times.

meant at one particular slam like wimby / US open etc.
was focussing on mens side womens side evert could be a contender depending on how many times she lost to eventual winner ....

[srinrajesh]

Originally Posted by Michael Bluth

Chang was very unlucky too.

1990 Roland Garros: Lost in four to Agassi, if he wins that match he gets to the final and may not have choked against Gomez like Andre did.

1992 US Open: Lost in semis in five sets to eventual champion Edberg. I highly doubt he would have beaten Sampras in the final though.

1993 US Open: Lost in four to eventual champion Sampras, and was a tiebreak win away from going up two sets to love.

1994 US Open: Lost in five to eventual champion Agassi.

1995 Roland Garros: Lost in final to prime Muster.

1996 Australian Open: Lost in final to Becker

1996 US Open: Lost in final to Sampras.

1997 US Open: Lost in semis to eventual champion Rafter.

Pretty unlucky.

could definitely add chang at USO - 5 losses to eventual winner but still behind 7 for becker at wimbledon.
was talking about performance at one slam alone not across all slams

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Rhino

Agassi should have more than 8 slams too, considering his talent.

Nothing to do with luck though, Agassi was a head case...

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by jrepac

w/out even looking, am quite sure MOST of those were to Martina.....could you imagine if she won even 1/2 of those????

Three very interesting and rarely mentioned aspects of their rivalry:
Chrissie lost 10 matches to Martina in 1982-82 when still playing with a wood racquet against Martina's graphite. Chrissie's fault for not keeping up with technology.
When you look at the old tourneys and schedules, it is obvious that Chrissie did not duck playing Martina on grass and that Martina did duck out of playing Chrissie on clay, compiling only 3 victories in 20 years. She completely ducked her on clay from early 1975 until 1981 Amelia Island when Chrissie beat her 6-0, 6-0.
A plurality of their matches were played on (must resist obvious joke) indoor carpet, Chrissie's worst surface.

[AAAA]

Originally Posted by Rhino

Also Mark Philipoussis was really unlucky, that year that he was on fire at Wimbledon, beating Sampras but then got the cramps... so unlucky, he could've won the whole thing.

It was an actual (knee?) injury as I recall. Came completely out of the blue, fine one moment and the next he pulls up approaches the net and calls it a day. Even Pete looked shocked because there wasn't a bad twist, fall or other visible sign.

[kishnabe]

Becker is unlucky at 1989 rolland garros semi's when he won the 4th set and after ate 2 posionous apples that made him lose to Edberg 6-2 in the fifth set. Sad day for becker fans and good day for Edberg fans but that too didn't last since Chang destroyed the party!

[ericsson]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Nothing to do with luck though, Agassi was a head case...

Euhh could be said about Boris too, did you read his book? the guy drunk Whisky before entering Centre Court on Wimbledon for god sakes!

[thalivest]

Unluckiest ever, LOL! His first Wimbledon title came courtesy of a whole host of grand escapes. His 89 Wimbledon title might have gone to Lendl without the rain delay in the semis. His 89 U.S Open title never would have happened without a let chord vs Rostango. An underachiever given his incredible talent perhaps but in no way one of the unluckiest players.

What big events was he in ever way unlucky not to win? The 90 Wimbledon final maybe but not really since he was down 2 sets to 0 and overall slightly outplayed even though he blew a break lead in the 5th set. It was his fault for coming out flat then not closing the deal in the 5th set when he had the momentum Edberg's level was falling well off. OK he was unlucky to have so many injuries in 96 when he was having a revival and playing some GREAT tennis when healthy. Then again I am not sure if beats Krajicek at Wimbledon or Sampras at the U.S Open even had he stayed healthy. The 95 U.S Open he was unlucky that Agassi and Sampras were playing unstoppable tennis, but even Courier or Chang might have beaten him there. If anything his draws at the 91 and 96 Australian Opens were pretty lucky as well. I never thought of him as either a lucky or unlucky player, but since this thread made me think about it more if anything he was a lucky player. He could have won more with his talent and huge game but that is his own fault.

[thalivest]

Originally Posted by Michael Bluth

Chang was very unlucky too.

1990 Roland Garros: Lost in four to Agassi, if he wins that match he gets to the final and may not have choked against Gomez like Andre did.

1992 US Open: Lost in semis in five sets to eventual champion Edberg. I highly doubt he would have beaten Sampras in the final though.

1993 US Open: Lost in four to eventual champion Sampras, and was a tiebreak win away from going up two sets to love.

1994 US Open: Lost in five to eventual champion Agassi.

1995 Roland Garros: Lost in final to prime Muster.

1996 Australian Open: Lost in final to Becker

1996 US Open: Lost in final to Sampras.

1997 US Open: Lost in semis to eventual champion Rafter.

Pretty unlucky.

I dont know why you think Chang wouldnt have beaten Sampras in the 92 U.S Open final. His head to head vs Sampras was great at that point, and this was not the start of prime Sampras like a year later. Chang despite being younger began and ended his prime earlier than Sampras did. Sampras in the final didnt play that well and also got sick. Chang would have won that final IMO.

I dont think he was going to win the 1990 French. Gomez was on fire that French Open, and even that clay court season. I dont see Chang beating him there. Agassi's supposed choke in the final is exagerrated by U.S media, he was just outplayed. Muster, Chesnokov, Gomez, LeConte, Agassi, all had better odds of that years French than Chang, and Lendl would have probably beaten them all and won the whole thing had he even showed up. 89 was a miracle at that point in his career (though thank god it happened as it would be a crying shame if he never won a slam) and was very unlucky to be duplicated as early as 1990.

I agree with you on all the rest. He was definitely one of the most unlucky players. At the U.S Open he was the most unlucky player hands down other than maybe Borg.

[PimpMyGame]

Being unlucky (or being lucky) is down to a one-off circumstance that's either in your favour or it's not. When you see a pattern emerging the outcome goes further than luck.

In Becker's case he was a headcase who found difficulty in controlling himself when he was being beat. I remember him behaving like some kind of madman in one of the Wimby finals he lost. This is why he was beaten so many times - crazy Boris would always give his opponents hope.

OTOH, he was unbeatable when he was on form, and if you were on the other side of the net you'd have to hope and pray he'd start coming back down to earth.

[PimpMyGame]

Double post

[jimbo333]

Connors is definitely the most unlucky

In 1974 is wasn't allowed to enter the French Open. He won every other Grand Slam tournament that year, and had an excellent chance of wimming the French and doing the calender Grand Slam, but he was really unfairly banned

[thalivest]

Originally Posted by PimpMyGame

OTOH, he was unbeatable when he was on form, and if you were on the other side of the net you'd have to hope and pray he'd start coming back down to earth.

I agree with most of your post but wouldnt say he was unbeatable when on form, atleast not his whole career near the top. Maybe for awhile in the late 80s it seemed that way as he was taking the power game to a new level, before the arrival of Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. Agassi was a horrible matchup for him though and on hard courts Becker had almost no chance if Agassi played well, regardless what Becker did. On grass and indoors he was even in real tough if Agassi was in form, despite that Becker at his best is clearly a better player on those surfaces. Just a bad matchup for Becker.

Sampras in form would be the favorite on any surface vs Becker in form, though they had some amazing matches when both guys played well. Both are incredible and all around power players, but Sampras just does everything a bit better.

Edberg wasnt an easy matchup for Becker in big matches. Becker owned him throughout their careers, but in slams Edberg leads 3-1.

Ivanisevic is another who could be a potentialy tough matchup for Becker if his serve was firing. He definitely outserves Becker if both are serving their best, and can compete with him in all other areas apart from volleying.

[thalivest]

Originally Posted by jimbo333

Connors is definitely the most unlucky

In 1974 is wasn't allowed to enter the French Open. He won every other Grand Slam tournament that year, and had an excellent chance of wimming the French and doing the calender Grand Slam, but he was really unfairly banned

I think he was very unlucky in many ways:

-missing the French Open from 74-78. Probably would have won the Calender Slam in 74, and might have snuck out another French in either 75 or 76 (no chance after 76 though).

-the U.S Open being on green clay for the only 3 years in history right during Connors's prime from 75-77. Every other year in history was either on grass or decoturf. The two guys who beat him in the final- Orantes and Vilas, had no prayer vs Connors on any surface other than some form of clay. Very unlucky to not have won the U.S Open an additional 2 times for that reason.

-Like many players missing Australia when it wasnt viewed as a valid slam, and missing out on more slams in comparision to players of the last 25 years because of it, in addition to all the other things I pointed out.

-Of course being in his prime while the great Borg was coming onto to scene and in his prime also soon after, and later in his career while playing some great tennis past his prime having such formidable competition as both McEnroe and Lendl in their primes. Contrast that to what Agassi faced when playing some great tennis past his physical prime in 2000-2003, especialy at the Australian Opens he won, LOL!

I would say of all the truly great players Connors is actually one of the most unlucky to not have alot more slams.

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by Rhino

Also Mark Philipoussis was really unlucky, that year that he was on fire at Wimbledon, beating Sampras but then got the cramps... so unlucky, he could've won the whole thing.

agree. don't think he wins this thread, but there was a short window in time where mark p. was playing some monster tennis, huge weapons from everywhere: serve, off the ground, and surprisingly, some really nice touch at net. injuries and a bad brain for tennis held him back in a big, big way.

i remember him unloading on balls off the baseline, it sounded like a freaking potato gun when he pulled the trigger.

[KitinovR]

If anyone was unlucky, that was Goran Ivanisevic.
4 finals at Wimbledon, most of it Sampras was the person "guilty" for the loses.
I really think that Goran should have defeated Stoltenberg in that 1/4finals match at Wimbly. He would have won in instead of Krajicek.

As for Becker, he has few GS , but also could have won few more Wimbledons.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by britbox

Why do you equate losing with bad luck? If he tripped on a back cat and sprained his ankle before each match, then that would be bad luck.

Getting beaten by a better player on the day is not unlucky it's what sport is.

To some extent I agree, in that, for example, Becker lost to players he "deserved" to lose to, excellent players who often went on to win the title! Looking at it that way, he wasn't unlucky at all.

On the other hand, you could look at it this way, Chang, for example, probably would have a few more slams had he been lucky enough to get a just a little bit better breaks in the draw! Players have won, and do win, slams against draws that Chang, in his prime, would also have beaten....so it depends exactly how you are defining these terms, which in turn, depends on how you look at it.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by mental midget

agree. don't think he wins this thread, but there was a short window in time where mark p. was playing some monster tennis, huge weapons from everywhere: serve, off the ground, and surprisingly, some really nice touch at net. injuries and a bad brain for tennis held him back in a big, big way.

i remember him unloading on balls off the baseline, it sounded like a freaking potato gun when he pulled the trigger.

I think this is a huge stretch. Flipper had a big game, that is for sure, the potential was there for him to get a lucky slam or 2. (he was just too heavy-footed for more) However, it's far from a guarantee that'd he'd even get one. Especially since much of his career underachievement was his own doing. (laziness, partying etc).

And when Rhino says "beating Sampras'....well...yeah...he won the first set...though he was playing very well, it was one HECK of a long way from being over! Sampras had taken him in 3 straight at Wimbledon the year before, I suspect Sampras would likely have won anyways, certainly their records suggest that is most likely. Sampras was the far superior player, the far better Wimbledon/grass player, and the head to head leader. Actually, other than the AO match Flipper won, he never beat Sampras off clay! However, that was an unlucky year, an injury is always unfortunate.