So maybe Cash gets in next year...or the year after. Are there many who have won a major who havent gotten in? Shouldnt Bruguera be in if Chang is in? he's got a couple of Frenches I think
Most importantly is Beppe Merlo in the HOF? ;O
Bruguera had an imcomplete career. Had he stayed healthier longer, I believe he would have definitely got in. As it is, by far the biggest knock against him is that he maxed out at the round of 16 outside the French at the slams. His did, however, make the year ending masters semis when the courts actually played like a proper indoor cout, and he also won silver in the Olympics in his worst year before turning into essentially a half-time pro only. He was also the only two time ATP Comeback Player of the Year, but that doesn't factor for much. Still, if they can let doubles players in for being one of the best doubles players of all time; legitimate consideration should be made for someone who is one of the greatest clay court players of all time. Back to back French titles, historically dethroned Jim Courier when he was seen to be invincible, one semi, and one final, in his prime one of the most feared clay courters of all time. To me, I can understand the logic of letting in great doubles players, but by the same token I think that's more relevant in the woman's game than the men's in terms of actual ability level. The top women pros have always been more likely to play doubles than the men. The top women also don't have to simultaneously juggle best of five matches at slams with doubles the way a male pro would have to, significantly lessening the burden. To me, men's doubles has always been watered down. I remember watching Mahesh Buphati live before in singles, and the guy was nothing special at all. The only thing that really stood out was that he had a relatively solid, sharp, backhand and serve; but that's it. When a guy like that who in singles is exposed for what he is...mediocre at best...can go down as one of the greatest doubles players in history...or for that matter the Jensen brothers and their success in doubles...that's REALLY saying something negative about the general caliber of players headlining the men's doubles tour.
In men's doubles, with few exceptions, it really is true. It's the guys who could never quite hack it enough in singles who turn to doubles as the easier path to at least SOME fame and fortune and slam glory...see, the Bryan brothers. As good as they are, can you honestly tell me that they are even close to the caliber of say someone like Cedric Pioline? I couldn't.
To me, if you were to go down a list of all the pros who've ever played the game, the number of players who've won two slams or made the finals of three or more slams is ludicously small.
It's just that because tennis is an individual sport, we tend to think anyone who hasn't won a bejellion slams like the "legend" players is nothing special. News for ya, if team sport players were held to the same vaunted standards of tennis, then guys like Charles Barkley and John Stockton and Karl Malone and Reggie Miller and Patrick Ewing and Scottie Pippen would be considered the same chump change that apparently guys like Stich, Bruguera, Noah, Chang, and Rafter are. Why? Because playing second fiddle to the once in a generation type players like Agassi and Sampras is for some reason as seen as something to be ashamed of or something in tennis, whereas in team sports the "living legend" caliber players can still get their glory with OUT diminishing the importance or greatness in their own right of the second tier superstars, you know the guys who always seem to fall just one hair short of the greatness of the great bald one and soaring eagle known as the Michael Jordan's of the world.
To me, Stich by virtue of three slam final appearances and one HIGH caliber slam victory over a game Becker on his home turf (i.e. NOT in the same category and weight of historic importance as say Thomas Johansson waltzing through a listless and horny to get in bed Safin), should make it. Bruguera should too for being one of the most dominant clay courters of all time. Muster should too for making it to #1, putting together one of the most awesome streaks on clay ever, AND winning a slam. Rios SHOULDN'T, because he is the very definition of a flash in the pan. To me, a #1 ranking AND a slam victory is worthy of the hall of fame. Petr Korda IF he had managed to not choke away his chance at the #1 ranking should also be in the hall of fame. Two slam victories is worthy of the hall of fame, as it's not a fluke (i.e. remember everyone including your mother and Sampras basically intimating that Rafter winning the US Open once was just a fluke and he's still my bi-atch basically, for all intents and purposes, just being PC and polite here...or also, Roddick who DIDN'T go back to back at the Open...going back to back at a slam is EXCEEDINGLY rare and difficult as everyone and their mama is gunning for you the next year). Two slam victories, especially back to back is also worthy of the hall of fame, EVEN IF it's ONLY on clay, which most tennis "purist" and voting "committe" members seem to think requires less talent and ability to play on...albeit Johan Kriek winning the Aussie twice I believe doesn't count, because back then the Aussie was in reality more of a pseudo slam than an actual slam like it is now. Three slam finals appearances (not a fluke a la Malivai Washington and Cedric Pioline compared to Michael Chang or Goran Ivanisevic) is also worthy of the hall of fame, thus no nod for me on someone like Cedric Pioline. One slam but with NO other finals appearances is NOT worthy of the hall of fame, as it DEFINITELY signifies a complete and total fluke run that would never again happen in history a la Johnasson, Costa, Gaudio, Gomes, and if Medvedev hadn't choked away that one French final...and to a lesser extent Krajicek...though with him, like with Bruguera, without the injuries, they would have achieved more.
Also, I think too much is made of popularity. The reality is that popular and/or glamorous hunks like Rafter are more likely to make it.
For me, I would say that guys like Martin, Coria, Pioline, Washington, Krajicek, Rios, Korda, Nalbandian, Medvedev, Costa, Johansson, Corretja, etc. are all OBVIOUSLY not hall of fame worthy. They would be the relative equivalent of letting in guys like Glen Rice into the hall of fame. Good but not great players with the occasional splash of greatness once in a blue moon.
Muster, Bruguera, Stich, Rafter, Safin, Kuerten, Ferrero, Moya, Goran, Roddick, Chang, Rafter, Hewitt, etc. however, are ALL hall of fame worthy despite being seen as probably borderline. To me, there is a fairly CLEAR difference and a dividing line can be drawn where it no longer seems that murky if you use my guidelines. People act like if you let in ALL these fringe hall of famers, then the place will be over run and littered with junk. To me that elitist mindset just doesn't hold water, because again I look at it from the big perspective and just in terms of ACTUAL magnitude of accomplishment vs. PERCEIVED magnitude of accomplishment. Everything's skewed in individual sports, because usually there's much more of a tendency to think there can only be ONE king so to speak...and then there's everyone else, whereas in team sports you have room for BOTH the kings and the princes, the batman's AND the robin's (see Pippen and Jordon, or how Shaq used to want to pigeon hole Kobe as his robin to his batman, etc.).
Still, if you really look at this objectively, reaching three slam finals is NO joke or fluke when you consider just how few people in tennis history have been able to do that, or win two slams, or achieve the #1 ranking, etc.
Tennis' elitists act like oh my gosh, we're letting in alllll this riff-raf, what will we do? Really? THAT much rif-raff, I mean REALLY? To me, lets see the players I listed as being borderline but still definitely worthy, how many of those vs. how many thousands of WORLD-CLASS players who have gone by the wayside through the years without so much as even sniffing even ONE single slam final appearance or even sniffing the top twenty let alone top ten? In team sports, these guys would be considered nothing less than ONE hair below the totem pole of the legends. In team sports, they would be your Karl Malones and Charles Barkley's and NOT your Kenny "the jet" Smith's. They would still get the respect they deserve, and still be revered, and still NOT encroach on the greatness of the BEYOND greats like your Jordan's, Bird's, Wilt's, Magic's, Jabar's, what have you.
Don't be ridiculous!!
