22 Inductees?

BGod

Legend
I know Hewitt was deferred but I personally need to know planning to attend.

Bruegera seems a lock now right? After him for the men it would seemingly be Ferrero based on previous voting. And the women?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
They still have some catching up to do with tennis history, Frank Kovacs should have been in the HOF years ago, a few others also fell through the cracks. Krajicek was a certainty to get in, didn't happen.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
For the women: Lisa Raymond, Cara Black (doubles) would be guesses. Raymond was just on the Ballot and didn't make it. Are Schiavone and Pennetta Eligible? I could see them both possibly getting in. I feel like the next few women inducted could all be on the basis of doubles.
 

BGod

Legend
They still have some catching up to do with tennis history, Frank Kovacs should have been in the HOF years ago, a few others also fell through the cracks. Krajicek was a certainty to get in, didn't happen.
How could Krajicek be in before Bruegera? You're talking 2>1 Slams, 3>1 Finals and even equal 4 SFs with Bruegera 2/5 Masters Finals and Krajicek 2/6 Masters Finals.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
How could Krajicek be in before Bruegera? You're talking 2>1 Slams, 3>1 Finals and even equal 4 SFs with Bruegera 2/5 Masters Finals and Krajicek 2/6 Masters Finals.
There are others already in before Krajicek with similar credentials, like Stich, Ivanisevic, McKinley, Falkenburg, Petra, Wood. And Kovacs should have been a cinch, but some of his greatest achievements were either underreported or misreported. Also Pat Cash should be there.

Which Wimbledon champions are not, or will not be, in the HOF? There is your answer.
 
Last edited:

tkramer15

Rookie
There are others already in before Krajicek with similar credentials, like Stich, Ivanisevic, McKinley, Falkenburg, Petra, Wood. And Kovacs should have been a cinch, but some of his greatest achievements were either underreported or misreported. Also Pat Cash should be there.

Which Wimbledon champions are not, or will not be, in the HOF? There is your answer.
Of the primarily 1990s top men who have not been inducted, Krajicek does not have better credentials than Muster, Bruguera or Moya. With that said, Krajicek, one of the greatest servers of his era, had an incredibly consistent career. I'm just not sure if it's quite Hall of Fame worthy.

In my view, Ivanisevic is clearly a notch above Krajicek in terms of achievements. Stich as well due to his two other slam finals and his victory in the ATP Tour World Championship in 1993. The committee shafted Kafelnikov by holding out on him for so long, but the committee does some odd things. There's a lot of favoritism and bias. Popularity with the fans and media and style of play clearly outweigh substance and achievements at times.
 

tkramer15

Rookie
I know Hewitt was deferred but I personally need to know planning to attend.

Bruegera seems a lock now right? After him for the men it would seemingly be Ferrero based on previous voting. And the women?
Who knows what the Hall of Fame committee is thinking. There isn't a lot of objectivity or logic involved. Muster, Bruguera and Ferrero have all appeared on that fan vote over the past couple of years, but I don't know what that means. Muster was on one year and off the next. Then Ferrero appeared.

I'm not really sure if Ferrero deserves induction ahead of Moya. Those two have extremely similar resumes. They each won Roland Garros. Ferrero was a bit better overall in terms of winning % at the slams and Masters events, and he had two slam runner-ups compared to Moya's one in Australia. But Moya had 96 more total match wins and was runner-up at the 1998 ATP World Tour Championship. Tough call.

Bruguera wasn't as well rounded as either of his Spanish successors or Muster, but he obviously gets in on his French Open resume alone. We'll see how the committee sorts everything out.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Of the primarily 1990s top men who have not been inducted, Krajicek does not have better credentials than Muster, Bruguera or Moya. With that said, Krajicek, one of the greatest servers of his era, had an incredibly consistent career. I'm just not sure if it's quite Hall of Fame worthy.

In my view, Ivanisevic is clearly a notch above Krajicek in terms of achievements. Stich as well due to his two other slam finals and his victory in the ATP Tour World Championship in 1993. The committee shafted Kafelnikov by holding out on him for so long, but the committee does some odd things. There's a lot of favoritism and bias. Popularity with the fans and media and style of play clearly outweigh substance and achievements at times.
How many Wimbledon champions are not in the HOF? Only two, Cash and Krajicek, and they have credentials equal to many players in the HOF. A slam-dunk.
Krajicek and Stich one major win, same or near same prize money and titles won. Nothing to choose. Cash with great Davis Cup record.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
There are others already in before Krajicek with similar credentials, like Stich, Ivanisevic, McKinley, Falkenburg, Petra, Wood. And Kovacs should have been a cinch, but some of his greatest achievements were either underreported or misreported. Also Pat Cash should be there.

Which Wimbledon champions are not, or will not be, in the HOF? There is your answer.
Why not let everyone in? The Tennis HOF is a Joke, as there are too many undeserving players in it.
 
How could Krajicek be in before Bruegera? You're talking 2>1 Slams, 3>1 Finals and even equal 4 SFs with Bruegera 2/5 Masters Finals and Krajicek 2/6 Masters Finals.
Since Wimbledon is the granddaddy of tennis still to many. And since Krajiceck is connected somewhat in the tennis and administration side of the sport. He is friends with a lot of legendary Dutch athletes too. Bruguera has dissapeared from public eye.
 

tkramer15

Rookie
Why not let everyone in? The Tennis HOF is a Joke, as there are too many undeserving players in it.
I'm not a big fan of the Tennis HoF either, although not for the same reason. I find the induction process extremely biased and based too greatly on popularity, playing style and apparent "talent" instead of a player's entire body of work/accomplishments. Because it's affiliated with the ITF and not connected to the ATP or WTA, the HoF appears to go out of its way to put an overwhelming emphasis on Grand Slams and Davis/Fed Cup at the near exclusion of everything else. We all understand that the slams are the pillars of the sport, but they make up a very small percentage of a player's actual career. They should weigh heavily but not so much that nothing else matters.

Yes, there's always going to be subjectivity involved with so many various factors to consider, but some of the committee's decisions have been perplexing. Rafter being inducted in 2006 while Kafelnikov had to wait until 2019 illustrates exactly what I described above.

It's understood that not all Hall of Famers are created equal. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have essentially rendered everyone from the past vastly inferior. The 1990s and early 2000s featured tremendous depth and a variety of champions who won many important tournaments. If inclusion was limited to only the top tier legends of the sport, there'd be no one left to add.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Since Wimbledon is the granddaddy of tennis still to many. And since Krajiceck is connected somewhat in the tennis and administration side of the sport. He is friends with a lot of legendary Dutch athletes too. Bruguera has dissapeared from public eye.
Still, that is no reason for Richard K to be in the HOF. That Wimbledon was his only slam, how many weeks and YE at #1, other tournaments, or WTF did he win?
 
Still, that is no reason for Richard K to be in the HOF. That Wimbledon was his only slam, how many weeks and YE at #1, other tournaments, or WTF did he win?
I never said he deserved it, I was saying I could see predicting it. HOF does not always make the best or most prudent choices. I could see him getting in before Brugeura, even if undeservedly.
 

BGod

Legend
How many Wimbledon champions are not in the HOF? Only two, Cash and Krajicek, and they have credentials equal to many players in the HOF. A slam-dunk.
Krajicek and Stich one major win, same or near same prize money and titles won. Nothing to choose. Cash with great Davis Cup record.
Cash with 2 five set epics at the Australian Open.

I've asked this in another thread if not made one I can't find, but Johan Kriek eventually appears to have a shot no?

Sure 2 weak draw Slams is an asterisk but he made a French SF, two Wimbledon QFs and QF-QF-SF run at USO. That USO SF btw he was famously up 2-0 against Borg before triple breadstick.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Still, that is no reason for Richard K to be in the HOF. That Wimbledon was his only slam, how many weeks and YE at #1, other tournaments, or WTF did he win?
What about Frank Kovacs? Twice ranked world No. 1 professional, one major won, seven U.S. national titles, a pro series hth win over Riggs indoor, 41 tournaments won.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of the Tennis HoF either, although not for the same reason. I find the induction process extremely biased and based too greatly on popularity, playing style and apparent "talent" instead of a player's entire body of work/accomplishments. Because it's affiliated with the ITF and not connected to the ATP or WTA, the HoF appears to go out of its way to put an overwhelming emphasis on Grand Slams and Davis/Fed Cup at the near exclusion of everything else. We all understand that the slams are the pillars of the sport, but they make up a very small percentage of a player's actual career. They should weigh heavily but not so much that nothing else matters.

Yes, there's always going to be subjectivity involved with so many various factors to consider, but some of the committee's decisions have been perplexing. Rafter being inducted in 2006 while Kafelnikov had to wait until 2019 illustrates exactly what I described above.

It's understood that not all Hall of Famers are created equal. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have essentially rendered everyone from the past vastly inferior. The 1990s and early 2000s featured tremendous depth and a variety of champions who won many important tournaments. If inclusion was limited to only the top tier legends of the sport, there'd be no one left to add.
Pretty much any HOF is a popularity contest.
 
Top