Murray: Rios is best player never to win a Slam.

Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
On a CNN interview I watched tonight, he had to face a quick-question-and-answer session at the end. When asked who he thought was the best player never to win a Slam, he immediately replied: Marcelo Rios.

(On the other hand, when he was asked a few years ago what he thought about Murray, Rios replied: I am not impressed.)

He was also asked how many Slams he thought he would win. He replied: About 3.
 
cork_screw

cork_screw

Hall of Fame
I mentioned Rios when a thread was started and everyone had murray's name. People need to look up stuff that isn't from your generation. Most people probably weren't alive during some presidential terms, yet they feel like they know all their policies based on what biases are floating around.
 
T

timnz

Legend
But

Headshotterer said:
Rios was never in contention because he is short like Ferrer 5'9
Click to expand...

But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
 
tacou

tacou

G.O.A.T.
I've heard a lot about Rios and from what I've seen he had talent, but the dude reached 4 quarter finals and 1 final in majors...not very impressive.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
90's Clay said:
He was much more talented then Murray.. He and Nalbandian should have had a 4-5 slams anyways.
Click to expand...

Rios was a royal headcase. I remember watching him when he ascended to #1 and he destroyed Agassi in the Miami final, I was really impressed, he looked like an Agassi with better foot speed and a slightly better serve. However around the same time when it came to big matches in slams he flopped like a fish out of water. Absolute pathetic virtual tank of the Australian Open final to Korda. A lackluster effort in losing to Moya at the French. Then a complete tank vs Larsson at the U.S Open. He did have to deal with alot of injuries but his attitude was terrible and he never had the will or heart of a champion.

He wouldnt have had the toughest era to win slams in either. 1998-2002 was mostly weaker than even the Federer era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
NadalAgassi said:
Rios was a royal headcase. I remember watching him when he ascended to #1 and he destroyed Agassi in the Miami final, I was really impressed, he looked like an Agassi with better foot speed and a slightly better serve. However around the same time when it came to big matches in slams he flopped like a fish out of water. Absolute pathetic virtual tank of the Australian Open final to Korda. A lackluster effort in losing to Moya at the French. Then a complete tank vs Larsson at the U.S Open. He did have to deal with alot of injuries but his attitude was terrible and he never had the will or heart of a champion.

He wouldnt have had the toughest era to win slams in either. 1998-2002 was mostly weaker than even the Federer era.
Click to expand...



It was sad his career came to that.. But he showed especially against in Miami in that match you're alluding to just how much crazy talent he truly had.. And he showed it a few other times.. I believe it was Safin who said Rios had the talent to be a double digit slam winner.

Rios (on his game and not head casing it) was one of the better players I saw from a pure ability standpoint in the last two years..

When people say who should have had a ton of slams, I got Rios' name right in there with guys like Safin, Nalbandian, Stich and Muster and a few others. These were some of those most pure talented players Ive seen..

But it of course there is more to tennis then just talent and ability.. Very few can bring it all together both mentally and physically and keep their focus and continuing their wanting to improve
 
Last edited:
tennisMVP

tennisMVP

Banned
Rios vs Agassi was extremely entertaining, in their 3 meetings-

2002 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Agassi, Andre
6-7(7), 6-4 RET

1998 Grand Slam Cup
Germany Hard F Rios, Marcelo
6-4, 2-6, 7-6, 5-7, 6-3

1998 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Rios, Marcelo
7-5, 6-3, 6-4
 
P

pvaudio

Legend
timnz said:
But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
Click to expand...
No, what held him back was that he was a ******bag who took his talent for granted.
 
syke

syke

Professional
Is winning a grand slam more than being No. 1.
Being No. 1 means you were the best player on the planet over that period of time. Winning a grand slam but only playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle to someone else throughout your career, to me just says you were never the best.

what do you guys think?
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
Click to expand...
And the fact he was, for long stretches, one of the worst slackers in tennis history coupled with being borderline uncoachable.

His coach even told me - right next to the court when Rios was practising - that he was going to move on because Rios didn't adopting anything he ever suggested - he *apparently* just like to have someone there to tell him he was doing fine.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
syke said:
Is winning a grand slam more than being No. 1.
Being No. 1 means you were the best player on the planet over that period of time. Winning a grand slam but only playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle to someone else throughout your career, to me just says you were never the best.

what do you guys think?
Click to expand...


No winning a Grand Slam is worth more. Just look at Wozniacki, Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic. Nobody wants to be them. Rios is the only slamless #1 in mens tennis history so he is a unique case. Being #1 also does not mean you are the best player in the World neccessarily, just that you collected the most points. There is a big difference. Even in the case you deserve the #1 ranking, it doesnt neccessarily mean you are the current best. Here are some cases where the #1 ranked player was NOT considered by people as the current best:

-Kafelnikov while he was ranked #1 in 1999. Was never considered the best player in the World by anyone, not for a moment. Moya, Rafter, during their 1 or 2 weeks stints werent either.

-Davenport when she ended 2001 at #1.

-Davenport again while ranked #1 in 2004 and 2005.

-Clijsters while ranked #1 in the latter part of 2003.

-Hingis while she was ranked #1, well certainly by mid 2000 at the latest, and she wouldnt lose it until late 2001.

-Safina the entire time she was ranked #1. Had she won the French maybe some would have briefly given her that title, but she didnt.

-Jankovic the entire time she was ranked #1.

-Ivanovic the brief time she was ranked #1 (even if she did win a slam around the same time she got to #1, she still was never considered the best).

-Most of all Wozniacki the entire time she was ranked #1.

-Lendl most of the times he was ranked #1 in 1989 and 1990.

-Azarenka right now.
 
B

big ted

Legend
rios could beat anyone or lose to anyone so i dont think he was consistent enough to be the best player to never win a slam. he didnt even get past the 3rd round in over half of the gs tournaments he played. he was probably a player that the others didnt mind playing against since he mentally folded so easily. i think leconte, mecir, and todd martin were better players than rios
 
TennisLovaLova

TennisLovaLova

Hall of Fame
Mainad said:
But they didn't. In the end, it's what you do with your talent that counts. Murray has done much more with his.
Click to expand...

Murray is lucky Federer was burned in the olympic final and the universe wanted him to win uso
so talent has nothing to do with this, it's also about luck and how everything is perfectly aligned for you to win a gs

big ted said:
i think leconte, mecir, and todd martin were better players than rios
Click to expand...

Put that bong down now
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
TennisLovaLova said:
Murray is lucky Federer was burned in the olympic final and the universe wanted him to win uso
so talent has nothing to do with this, it's also about luck and how everything is perfectly aligned for you to win a gs
Click to expand...

Oh please change this well-worn record. You need talent and a bit of luck to win any big title. That's the same for everybody. You cannot land big titles just by sheer luck alone unless your opponents all pull out of the matches. Just because you like Rios and dislike Murray doesn't translate to "One of them must have talent and the other doesn't'. You need to understand this and try and separate your feelings about a player from a true and objective analysis of their abilities.
 
Gonzalito17

Gonzalito17

Banned
roundiesee said:
I think every one on tour knew how good Rios was in his heyday; I think even Federer once said his favourite player to watch was Rios.
Click to expand...

Federer has said numerous times Rios was one of his favorite players to watch.

Here is one of them from the Rios book:

On Marcelo Rios in 2006: I think he could play both Tours (ATP and Seniors), he's that good. I'm happy to see him play at all, you know, because of all the injuries he's had, good career he's had. It would be a disappointment not to see him play at all. He's such a unique player with a lot of talent. I would love to see him back on Tour. You know, that's where I would like to see him. Not the Senior's Tour.
 
Gonzalito17

Gonzalito17

Banned
big ted said:
rios could beat anyone or lose to anyone so i dont think he was consistent enough to be the best player to never win a slam. he didnt even get past the 3rd round in over half of the gs tournaments he played. he was probably a player that the others didnt mind playing against since he mentally folded so easily. i think leconte, mecir, and todd martin were better players than rios
Click to expand...

Todd Martin was 2-0 vs. Rios and he explained it that his coach Jose Higueras had the perfect strategy for him to apply to Rios (I'll post it later have to pull it from the book). Martin was a heckuva player and underappreciated, he strangely never gets mentioned in the 'best player to never win a major' debate. Never.
 
TennisLovaLova

TennisLovaLova

Hall of Fame
Mainad said:
Oh please change this well-worn record. You need talent and a bit of luck to win any big title. That's the same for everybody. You cannot land big titles just by sheer luck alone unless your opponents all pull out of the matches. Just because you like Rios and dislike Murray doesn't translate to "One of them must have talent and the other doesn't'. You need to understand this and try and separate your feelings about a player from a true and objective analysis of their abilities.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that murray has the talent but also the luck to win the gs
And I dont dislike murray as a person but I really dislike his passive tennis
 
Crisstti

Crisstti

Legend
timnz said:
But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
Click to expand...

Yep. That and that he was a headcase. But he had gotten himself together in 2008, and then to a big degree injuries derailed his career.
 
Ripster

Ripster

Hall of Fame
-RF- said:
Everyone forgets Coria :( He could have been so good...
Click to expand...

Coria came closer than Rios but was really only a threat at the French. He was decent on hard courts but was never slam winning caliber on anything but clay.

Rios was a threat at all the slams aside from maybe Wimbledon. In a way, he was unlucky with all the injuries and running into a juiced up Petr Korda in his only Grand Slam final.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Ripster said:
Coria came closer than Rios but was really only a threat at the French. He was decent on hard courts but was never slam winning caliber on anything but clay.

Rios was a threat at all the slams aside from maybe Wimbledon. In a way, he was unlucky with all the injuries and running into a juiced up Petr Korda in his only Grand Slam final.
Click to expand...

Korda tested negative after that final, by the way. The only player to test positive after a major final is Puerta.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Ripster said:
Coria came closer than Rios but was really only a threat at the French. He was decent on hard courts but was never slam winning caliber on anything but clay.

Rios was a threat at all the slams aside from maybe Wimbledon. In a way, he was unlucky with all the injuries and running into a juiced up Petr Korda in his only Grand Slam final.
Click to expand...

Rios played like garbage in that final. Lets not blame his losing on Korda's supposed doping. If Korda was really to be eliminated Kucera is the real champion, he lost to Korda in the semis after beating Sampras, and I am sure would have beaten the pathetic Rios that played that final.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
oy vey said:
I'd say that's about right, wouldn't you? I don't think he's Fedal calibre.
Click to expand...

He's probably left it a bit too late to rack up the same number of Slams that Federer and Nadal have. They started at a much earlier age, 21 and 19 respectively, which gave them a much greater head start. Murray is now 25 with probably about 5 years left as a top player. He's admitted as much himself.
Not impossible, just very unlikely.
 
Last edited:
M

monfed

Guest
Imo it's Nalbandian. A true tennis tragedy that he didn't win multiple slams and it's truly sad that we didn't get to see a full fledged Federer-Nalbandian rivalry at the biggest of stages. Truly enjoyed their masters cup meetings,even though Fed lost some of those. Great stuff.
 
oy vey

oy vey

Semi-Pro
Mainad said:
He's probably left it a bit too late to rack up the same number of Slams that Federer and Nadal have. They started at a much earlier age, 21 and 19 respectively, which gave them a much greater head start. Murray is now 25 with probably about 5 years left as a top player. He's admitted as much himself.
Not impossible, just very unlikely.
Click to expand...

In the next 16 slams, how do you think they will be divided given he says he might win 3
 
P

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
Rios's priority was having a good time ...which he did and likely still does ...Coria lost it during his RG final to Gaudio which I watched..classic lesson in convincing a crowd to get behind you by Gaudio..amazing match..basically watching an athlete crumbling before your eyes.....permanently as it turns out for Coria


I was fortunate enought to watch Rios when he lost l to Safin in Toronto...Rios had a back injury...


I doubt if Murray ever watched Rios play..not an original thought from him.
 
Crisstti

Crisstti

Legend
pound cat said:
Rios's priority was having a good time ...which he did and likely still does ...Coria lost it during his RG final to Gaudio which I watched..classic lesson in convincing a crowd to get behind you by Gaudio..amazing match..basically watching an athlete crumbling before your eyes.....permanently as it turns out for Coria


I was fortunate enought to watch Rios when he lost l to Safin in Toronto...Rios had a back injury...


I doubt if Murray ever watched Rios play..not an original thought from him.
Click to expand...

I don't see why he wouldn't have watched Ríos play.
 
r2473

r2473

G.O.A.T.
cork_screw said:
I mentioned Rios when a thread was started and everyone had murray's name. People need to look up stuff that isn't from your generation. Most people probably weren't alive during some presidential terms, yet they feel like they know all their policies based on what biases are floating around.
Click to expand...

George Washington is GOAT
 
nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
But



But could hit serves over 130mph when he wanted to. (I know this to be a fact).

Really for him, height was never an issue. What held him back was that we was frequently injured. The year that he had the least injuries was 1998 - when he got to number 1.
Click to expand...
Alcaraz is much taller than Rios and can hit 138 mph serve as well. But at least today even he is regarded as someone with weakness on the serve.
 
M

mental midget

Hall of Fame
in recent-ish times, fed/mac/rios are the three most 'gifted' players i've seen. rios obviously trails big-time relative to the others in career accomplishments...a combo of back issues and kind of not giving a s**t, i guess...and maybe, like a lot of outwardly arrogant players, who knows if he fought that same kind of self-doubt we see from kyrgios for example...but he did get to #1 which is not easy.

but if you play this game and are a fan, hard not to love watching him at his best...he had that same sort of effortless racket-face control and awareness, just exuded talent out there, made agassi look positively sweaty in those clashes.
 
a10best

a10best

Hall of Fame
syke said:
Is winning a grand slam more than being No. 1.
Being No. 1 means you were the best player on the planet over that period of time. Winning a grand slam but only playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle to someone else throughout your career, to me just says you were never the best.

what do you guys think?
Click to expand...
Gaston Gaudio, Ivanišević and Radacanu help your case.
Safina and Jankovic don't. They were not the best players on the planet ever.
So their career has to be looked at as a whole and during what era. Some years just have shallow depth so making it No. 1 is not spectacular by winning some 1000 events and making 2 major semis.

I cannot agree with the second or third fiddle comment. What they achieved is historic and remarkable.
 
M

mental midget

Hall of Fame
a10best said:
Gaston Gaudio, Ivanišević and Radacanu help your case.
Safina and Jankovic don't. They were not the best players on the planet ever.
So their career has to be looked at as a whole and during what era. Some years just have shallow depth so making it No. 1 is not spectacular by winning some 1000 events and making 2 major semis.

I cannot agree with the second or third fiddle comment. What they achieved is historic and remarkable.
Click to expand...
goran got to #2 briefly. i believe he had the game to be a #1 player, but sadly, was missing the other primary requisite attribute. honestly with raonic's brain he'd have been consistenly in the mix for #1 imo...he did a lot with that serve but could have done even more, it's amazing what a weapon it was. when you see guys like hurcacz, shelton sometimes rain down some bombs, you get just a taste of it, but goran was just on another level with the aces....really fun to watch.
 
a10best

a10best

Hall of Fame
mental midget said:
goran got to #2 briefly. i believe he had the game to be a #1 player, but sadly, was missing the other primary requisite attribute. honestly with raonic's brain he'd have been consistenly in the mix for #1 imo...he did a lot with that serve but could have done even more, it's amazing what a weapon it was. when you see guys like hurcacz, shelton sometimes rain down some bombs, you get just a taste of it, but goran was just on another level with the aces....really fun to watch.
Click to expand...
I remember Goran's disappointing finishes and it was usually just a tiebreak or service break away from winning the whole thing.
~ highlighted a typo you didn't mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

4sound
Best 5 men to never win a Singles Grand Slam?
Replies
49
Views
3K
fps
F
I
Best Player to Never Win One of the big 4 Tournaments
Replies
9
Views
1K
T1000
T1000
RiosTheGenius
Gaudio's Weakness
Replies
15
Views
1K
RiosTheGenius
RiosTheGenius
TennisProPaul
Rios downs McEnroe and vows to stay unbeaten
Replies
0
Views
624
TennisProPaul
TennisProPaul
tHotGates
More Sampras v Rios
Replies
1
Views
740
matchmaker
matchmaker
Top