Best player with only 1 slam

[NadalAgassi]

At this point who do you think consider the best player with only 1 slam.

[Tenez101]

Gerulaitis should be up there.

[Leelord337]

I was gonna say Rios since he was #1..but then again

2003-2009 Roddick was very dominant in his day

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Tenez101

Gerulaitis should be up there.

Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.

Still if you think it is him just vote "other".

[Hawkeye7]

Murray or Roddick. Everyone else is miles behind.

Murray might not stay part of this group for long though.

[Tenez101]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.

Still if you think it is him just vote "other".

I think he deserves to be in the discussion, though I myself wouldn't necessarily put him at the top among players in this category. Gerulaitis was kind of like the Murray of that day, losing to the two best players (who also happen to be all-time greats). Although it is true the Australian wasn't quite a full-fledged slam back then, if we do admit it as a slam win, then I think Gerulaitis is near the top of the players you list above in terms of pure skill.

Right now, gun to my head I would pick Murray, since he has (as far as I'm aware) the best Grand Slam record among all 1-slam winners, and has the potential to win more. At a close second I would take Chang, his run to the '89 French Open title (slaying two giants of the game Lendl and Edberg along the way) all at the age of 17 definitely deserves major kudos, and he remained a legitimate top competitor for much of the 90's.

[slowfox]

Stich. Really talented, very classic game.

[merwy]

Obviously Murray. He's just on his way to winning multiple slam titles. So in a way, you're comparing 1-time slam winners to a future multiple slam winner.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by merwy

Obviously Murray. He's just on his way to winning multiple slam titles. So in a way, you're comparing 1-time slam winners to a future multiple slam winner.

Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.
These things are extremely difficult events to win especially with players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal around.
A big hitter like Raonic, Isner or Berdych can also take you out.
Someone else could do a Rosol.
And look at the effort and skill Murray had to display to beat Djokovic at USO. And he still only won by a whisker.
Certainly no guarantee Murray will win even another.
If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.

[syc23]

Originally Posted by Fedex

Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.
These things are extremely difficult events to win especially with players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal around.
A big hitter like Raonic, Isner or Berdych can also take you out.
Someone else could do a Rosol.
And look at the effort and skill Murray had to display to beat Djokovic at USO. And he still only won by a whisker.
Certainly no guarantee Murray will win even another.
If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.

There is certainly no guarantees that Murray can win multiple slams going forward but winning the first will give him a ton of confidence and now he has secured 1 GS in this golden era, I look forward to see him play with the freedom knowing his place is secured in history.

How many big hitters has taken Murray out in the last 7 slams who is not Fed/Djokovic/Nadal? With the exception of Ferrer at RG '12 - none.

Originally Posted by Fedex

Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.

Regarding your point on injuries, the same could happen to Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. Ferrer can't possibly run around like an energizer bunny into his 40's. Berdych and Tsonga is older than Andy so will pick up injuries as they are big men.

I think the above points to Murray being in good position to add more GS wins to his resume in the future. Once Murray won his first MS1000 in Cincy '08, he won another 7 so the same could apply for him in slams.

[batz]

I'm tempted to go with roddick as he was world number 1. Murray has lots more MS wins, but if pushed, I'd still go with ARod at this time.

My view would probably change if Murray won the WTF this year, but as of right now - Roddick for me.

[Chillaxer]

Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people. Consistency in more minor tournaments? I'm sorry, but he isn't a naturally great tennis player, or even a better one than Roddick. He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best. He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.

[batz]

Originally Posted by Chillaxer

Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people. Consistency in more minor tournaments? I'm sorry, but he isn't a naturally great tennis player, or even a better one than Roddick. He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best. He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.

OK - I just went for Roddick in this poll, but your statement in bold is utter tripe.

Roddick's record against Federer is ****poor. Murray has a winning head to head. Roddick's record against Murray is p1sspoor too.

As for Murray capitalising on the field waning - are you having a laugh? Need I remind you that Roddick beat the mighty Juan Carlos Ferrero to win his one and only slam?

Finally, 2009 was not 'prime Fed' - he won only 4 titles that year - one of his worst years since entering the the top 5. He won >10 titles in 04,05,and 06 - about the same time he was utterly owning ARod.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.

Still if you think it is him just vote "other".

Since yoy never watched tennis before 2005 or so I will remind you that Vitas won WCT finals and played 2 Masters finals which, before you were born, were muuuuuuch more impoetant than Australian Open

[Vcore89]

Stich, he could have won a couple more slams but he couldn't care less, he went for his degree and came back to play and be competitive.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Chillaxer

Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people.

Well, he does hold a H2H of 8-3 against him for starters.

Originally Posted by Chillaxer

Consistency in more minor tournaments?

That's part of it, yes. He has 8 Masters titles v Roddick's 5. Roddick of course has more overall titles, 32 v 24, but he's had a longer career.

Originally Posted by Chillaxer

He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best.

Come again? He just beat the world #2, a 5 time Slam winner, defending champion and 4 time finalist at the USO! Roddick beat the world #3 who had just won his only Slam at the FO and was in his only ever USO final.

Originally Posted by Chillaxer

He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.

2009 was not exactly Fed's prime (see 2005-7) but nevertheless Roddick pushed him to the brink in that Wimbledon final and came closer to beating him there than any other player bar Nadal. Kudos to him for that.

As a former world #1, Roddick probably still has the edge over Murray at this point in time. But of course, Murray still has time to make an attempt on the #1 ranking and/or win another Slam.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by kiki

Since yoy never watched tennis before 2005 or so

Flaming members with nonsense does not make a point.

I will remind you that Vitas won WCT finals and played 2 Masters finals which, before you were born, were muuuuuuch more impoetant than Australian Open

Still not a major, and loses when judging the career/historical importance of titles. For that reason alone, VG's WCT finals are inapplicable here.

[Mikael]

Best player as in what? Best career achievements or best game when playing at peak level?

In terms of career achievements it would probably be either Murray, Chang, Ivanisevic or Roddick... probably Roddick considering he reached no1.

In terms of peak level I'd say Del Potro, or Stich. Attacking games with no glaring weaknesses.

[Totai]

Del Potro. Had he not broken his wrist, he would have been #1 since mid 2010, and would have had multiple slams

[Def]

Originally Posted by Totai

Del Potro. Had he not broken his wrist, he would have been #1 since mid 2010, and would have had multiple slams

Maybe multiple slams, and that is a maybe, but no way would he have been #1 since mid 2010