Best One Slam Wonder

[vive le beau jeu !]

Andres - I think their rivals were different. Chang had Sampras, Agassi, and the boys; Krajicek's biggest rivals were injuries and fitness. Goran's biggest rival was The Bad Goran.

yes but on the other hand he had the 911 goran for helping him in emergency cases !
http://www.goranonline.com/articles/gi_wimb-03-04.html

PS: and i pick goran in the list... of course !

 

[jamumafa]

I cant say for sure, but it's whoever achoeved the most in the game outside of their One Slam. Which ould make it goran or Chang right, considering the GS finals?

 

[isbisthebest]

i think chang and goran are the best. no doubt. they had great potentials for winning GSs, but they failed to do so not because of their own lack of ability, but of superior skills from dominating players of their era, like Sampras and Agassi.

if anyone watched Goran's last wimbledon final, they would vote for him. given a wild card at an age about to retire but reaching the finals. and then beating rafter in sets. it was a spectacular performance.

chang also was a great 1 slam winner. winning the French and reaching the finals in the US and Australian open. this shows that he is of a greater player than Goran because he could cope with more surfaces, not just one. Besides, Chang won a lot of master shields, a lot more than Goran I believe.

By the way, just to mention Roddick for a bit. I think he is in a similar situation with Goran and Chang. They can't win more GSs only because of inhuman rivals. Everyone was complaining about Roddick's performance, but how could they? every year he reached a GS final and stayed in the top ten for a long time. Just like Sampras dominating in the 90s, Roddick is suffering from the great Federer.

 

[joe sch]

You are hard to please arent you. Muster only ever made one grand slam final anyway, compare that to 4 from Chang, Ivanisevic and Roddick, and 2 from Ferrero, and 1 sterling performance from Krajicek to beat Sampras at Wimbledon in straight sets.

Way to slam it back in his face.

Tough choices. How many slams would Chang, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek had if not for Sampras and Agassi. The same story may apply to Roddick (Federer) unless Jimbo can peform some miracles ... I sure hope Roddick will not be on this list after next year.

 

[superman1]

Roddick. If he played back in the 90's, there would still be a fab four, except it would probably be even more fab. His game is getting very, very good and I expect great things for him in the next few years.

 

[BreakPoint]

I said probably. I'm not going to arbitrarily rank them, but he falls somewhere in the 3rd to 5th range.

I'd say Muster being the 3rd best clay courter is about right. I'd put Borg and Nadal as being #1 and #2, respectively. Vilas #4. #5 is a toss-up: Kuerten? Lendl? Wilander? Bruguera? Courier?

 

[noeledmonds]

I'd say Muster being the 3rd best clay courter is about right. I'd put Borg and Nadal as being #1 and #2, respectively. Vilas #4. #5 is a toss-up: Kuerten? Lendl? Wilander? Bruguera? Courier?

Nadal can surely not be considered the 2nd greatest cley court player of all time. The likes of Kuerten and Lendl are surely above both Muster and Nadal on performances and tough competition as much as superior results

 

[araghava]

I'm surprised there only 1 mention of Stich. He won Wimbledon and reached the finals of the French and US Open. He had one of the most complete games of anyone on the tour. He's one of the few players to have won on all surfaces.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I'm surprised there only 1 mention of Stich. He won Wimbledon and reached the finals of the French and US Open. He had one of the most complete games of anyone on the tour. He's one of the few players to have won on all surfaces.

that's right...
... even if goran, krajicek and roddick did it too.
(winning titles on all surfaces)

cash could be mentionned too : despite having his career plagued with injuries, he managed to perform good in the slams (excepted the french where he never went beyong the 4R).

here is the list of the "1 slam winners" since 1981 :

cash
chang
costa
ferrero
gaudio
gomez
ivanisevic
johansson
korda
krajicek
moya
muster
noah
roddick
stich

(i hope i'm not forgetting anybody)

PS: if you want the list for the open era (since 1968 ), add :

edmonson
gerulaitis
gimeno
orantes
panatta
tanner
teacher

 

[BreakPoint]

Nadal can surely not be considered the 2nd greatest cley court player of all time. The likes of Kuerten and Lendl are surely above both Muster and Nadal on performances and tough competition as much as superior results

Huh? Nadal has already broken both Borg's and Vilas' records for consecutive wins on clay, and I'd bet Muster had more wins on clay than either Kuerten or Lendl.

 

[noeledmonds]

Huh? Nadal has already broken both Borg's and Vilas' records for consecutive wins on clay, and I'd bet Muster had more wins on clay than either Kuerten or Lendl.

Number of consescutive wins on cley is not the only criteria, as you say Villas is ahead of Borg, but that does not make Villas the greater cley courter. Borg being behind Nadal does not make him a lesser cley courter. I do not know the stats for Muster's cley court streak vs. Lendl's or Kueren's, but your speculative guess does not prove anything. If anyone does know the figures for the top 10 longest clay streaks I would be interested to know them.

 

[BreakPoint]

Number of consescutive wins on cley is not the only criteria, as you say Villas is ahead of Borg, but that does not make Villas the greater cley courter. Borg being behind Nadal does not make him a lesser cley courter. I do not know the stats for Muster's cley court streak vs. Lendl's or Kueren's, but your speculative guess does not prove anything. If anyone does know the figures for the top 10 longest clay streaks I would be interested to know them.

No, it's not ALL about winning streaks. I never said that's all that I considered. Nadal has also been absolutely dominant on clay for the past two years. Not even the most dominant player of all time, Roger Federer, has been able to beat Nadal on clay - not even ONCE! And Nadal has won two straight French Opens. How many did Vilas and Muster win? One!

And when did I say Borg was behind Nadal? As I said, Borg is #1, the best clay court player ever. No one else has dominated the field on clay to the degree that Borg and Nadal have. Vilas and Muster were close. Kuerten, Lendl, and Wilander were also up there but not as close. To be considered "dominant", you pretty much have to win EVERY clay court tournament that you enter.

 

[Grigollif1]

No, it's not ALL about winning streaks. I never said that's all that I considered. Nadal has also been absolutely dominant on clay for the past two years. Not even the most dominant player of all time, Roger Federer, has been able to beat Nadal on clay - not even ONCE! And Nadal has won two straight French Opens. How many did Vilas and Muster win? One!

And when did I say Borg was behind Nadal? As I said, Borg is #1, the best clay court player ever. No one else has dominated the field on clay to the degree that Borg and Nadal have. Vilas and Muster were close. Kuerten, Lendl, and Wilander were also up there but not as close. To be considered "dominant", you pretty much have to win EVERY clay court tournament that you enter.

How can you put Gustavo Kuerten behind Muster and a bunch of ohter guys, if the Brazilian won 3 French Open titles, got to 1 one in the world, won a MC Cup. Muster only won one RG ?
It doesn't add up to me...

Also Kuerten is 3-0 H2h with Muster including, beating him on the way to winning his 1 french open in 1997, where Gustavo was ranked outside the top70....

 

[BreakPoint]

How can you put Gustavo Kuerten behind Muster and a bunch of ohter guys, if the Brazilian won 3 French Open titles, got to 1 one in the world, won a MC Cup. Muster only won one RG ?
It doesn't add up to me...

Also Kuerten is 3-0 H2h with Muster including, beating him on the way to winning his 1 french open in 1997, where Gustavo was ranked outside the top70....

Muster was also ranked #1 in the world (in early '96). He also had 44 singles titles versus only 20 for Kuerten. You also have to look at how dominating they were on clay. For a couple of years, Muster won EVERYTHING on clay. In 1995 alone, he won 12 singles titles! That's as many titles as Federer won this year! Kuerten was never that dominant on clay. And we are talking about the best clay courters here.

BTW, head-to-head is not all that meaningful. If it were, Nadal would be by far the most dominant player in pro tennis, and not Federer, and we all know that in fact, Federer is far and away the most dominant player in pro tennis right now. Besides, Kuerten's wins over Muster were all when Muster was already well past his peak and on his way downward. It's extremely difficult to dominate on clay for very long because of the toll all the grinding takes on your body. (And Kuerten barely beat Muster in the '97 French Open in 5 sets anyway, 6-4 in the 5th.)

 

[slice bh compliment]

Hi, I'm a huge fan of Guga's and even I will say that Muster is the better claycourt player. The titles, the streaks, the claycourt dominance, the fearsome consistency and the sheer offort. Muster was just amazing.

And in this thread about one-slammers, the comparison to Guga is only ancillary.

It's just nice that Guga rose to the occasion at Roland Garros those three amazing years ... and did pretty well in other aspects of the game as well.

 

[Dark Victory]

Out of those choices,

The best: Richard Krajicek

The greatest: Michael Chang

 

[Grigollif1]

Muster was also ranked #1 in the world (in early '96). He also had 44 singles titles versus only 20 for Kuerten. You also have to look at how dominating they were on clay. For a couple of years, Muster won EVERYTHING on clay. In 1995 alone, he won 12 singles titles! That's as many titles as Federer won this year! Kuerten was never that dominant on clay. And we are talking about the best clay courters here.

BTW, head-to-head is not all that meaningful. If it were, Nadal would be by far the most dominant player in pro tennis, and not Federer, and we all know that in fact, Federer is far and away the most dominant player in pro tennis right now. Besides, Kuerten's wins over Muster were all when Muster was already well past his peak and on his way downward. It's extremely difficult to dominate on clay for very long because of the toll all the grinding takes on your body. (And Kuerten barely beat Muster in the '97 French Open in 5 sets anyway, 6-4 in the 5th.)

I don't know.. Total number of titles is not that meaningful in my view. If so, Jimmy Connors Would be considered a certain case for the GOAT every time the debate comes along, and it is not the case. You have to see that the Brazilian career was cut short pretty quickly, due to a serious injury, pratically at 26 years of age. where Muster although had a very serious car accident, managed to have a very long circulation on the tour
(well over 10 years).

I Think in comparing Clay courters, the French Open titles are a very important factor, if not the most, and the 3 from Guga to only one from Muster are very compelling in my opinion. Also, The head to head status from Federer and Nadal can't be used, because they both have not finished their career yet. Guga never lost to Muster. Including on clay , the surface in question, beating him in 97 and 98. let's face it if the guy (Muster) was at his peak in 95 being numer 1 in early 96, he could not be that far off in 97...

But, I wasn't really around watching the game when Muster was dominant and I am Brazilian, which may make me a bite biased.. So on clay, the Austrian may have the edge in the consistantancy but, I think Kuerten is a more complete player..

 

[Moose Malloy]

Hi, I'm a huge fan of Guga's and even I will say that Muster is the better claycourt player. The titles, the streaks, the claycourt dominance, the fearsome consistency and the sheer offort. Muster was just amazing.

I'd take quality over quantity. Kuerten won 3 FOs(beating Muster there once)
Muster won 1. That Muster won more "minor" clay titles(umag, kitzbuhl, etc) than Kuerten doesn't make him a better clay player.

Vilas has many more clay titles than Borg & longer clay win streaks, but I don't think Vilas is better than Borg on clay, do you?

Kuerten also won 4 masters series on clay.

Muster has 5.

So Kuerten has 7 total important clay titles, Muster has 6. This even though Muster had a much longer career, & played many more clay events than Kuerten, while Kuerten played on all surfaces, not just clay, year round.

Plus Muster in 13 appearances at the French, only made the semis twice! And look at the some of the guys that beat him there-Forget, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Stich? How can an alltime claycourt great lose that many big claycourt matches to S&V players?

Guga played the French 10 times, won it 3 times. He's the only player to ever beat 3 former champs en route to the title('97).

Guga is 9-1 vs former or future FO champs at the French.

Muster is 4-3.

If I had to bet on one of these guys winning a big match on clay, my money would go on Guga.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I'd say Muster being the 3rd best clay courter is about right. I'd put Borg and Nadal as being #1 and #2, respectively. Vilas #4. #5 is a toss-up: Kuerten? Lendl? Wilander? Bruguera? Courier?

ok, now I'll deal with Lendl(though I can't believe anyone could think Muster is a better claycourter than Lendl, though I can sort of understand why one would think Muster was better than Guga. A well past his prime Lendl beat Muster in straight sets at Barcelona '92)

1986-
at this point in his career Lendl has already racked up many minor clay titles, Muster style. Now he's more concerned with being #1 & winning Wimbledon.
Still he's not neglecting his best surface, clay:
He plays only 3 clay events, winning 2-Rome & Roland Garros-the 2 biggest clay events on tour at the time, losing only 1 set at the French, 2 in Rome.
He leaves the Emilio Sanchez's & Perez-Roldans of the tour to get some meaningless stat like "most clay court wins" for 1986, which I guess is important under your criteria. makes the finals of Wimbledon, by the way.

1987-
plays 3 clay events, wins 2-Hamburg & the French. What I wrote for 1986 summs this year up as well. Again makes finals of Wimbledon.

going back to 1985-
plays 3 clay events, wins 2-Forest Hills, Monte Carlo(guy won a lot of the big claycourt titles it seems) finals at the French

so to summarize:

wins hamburg twice
wins rome twice
wins monte carlo twice
wins the french 3 times
9 important clay titles for Lendl. 6 for Muster.
But Muster has 40 total clay titles, while Lendl has "only 28"(Borg has 29)

and this was all done while not skipping the grass/hardcourt season(& doing quite well in them), like the Moo Man so often did.
too bad Lendl didn't concentrate on that clay court win streak stuff, not sure he loses sleep over not being on some list with nadal, vilas, & muster.
Guess he should have concentrated more on playing those summer clay events, instead of preparing for winning 3 US Opens, during the 80s.

maybe I'll do Wilander next...

 

[noeledmonds]

Moose Malloy, nice to hear some solid logical aruments here. I completely agree that Lendl is far superiorto Muster on Cley, and Kuerten is also superior.

This thread has drifted rather from my original intention, but is still interesting. Lets also here some more opnions on the one slam wonder stuff as well though.

 

[Moose Malloy]

This thread has drifted rather from my original intention, but is still interesting. Lets also here some more opnions on the one slam wonder stuff as well though.

Sorry for the hijack.
I agree with tennis guy, Roddick is the best out of your list, unfortunate he wasn't on tour 5+ years earlier, I don't think multiple slam winners Rafter or Kafelnikov would have fared well against him on a hardcourt.

I also think Pat Cash is up there, phenomenal record in slams, despite being injured so often(his ranking was low much of the time, yet he still made multiple slam semis & finals, beating much higher ranked players)

 

[BreakPoint]

Plus Muster in 13 appearances at the French, only made the semis twice! And look at the some of the guys that beat him there-Forget, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Stich? How can an alltime claycourt great lose that many big claycourt matches to S&V players?

If you ask that question, then you also have to ask how Lendl was only a couple of points away from defeat to McEnroe in the '84 French Open final, if Lendl was a greater clay court player than Muster as you say, and McEnroe was, of course, a pure S&V player?

(BTW, Lendl also lost to another S&V player, Yannick Noah, the year before ('83) in the QF at the French.)

 

[noeledmonds]

Sorry for the hijack.
I agree with tennis guy, Roddick is the best out of your list, unfortunate he wasn't on tour 5+ years earlier, I don't think multiple slam winners Rafter or Kafelnikov would have fared well against him on a hardcourt.

I also think Pat Cash is up there, phenomenal record in slams, despite being injured so often(his ranking was low much of the time, yet he still made multiple slam semis & finals, beating much higher ranked players)

I am not sure that I rate Roddick above Rafter. I always considered Rafter a very tallented player, with a complete game and one of the best vollyers. His weakness was more mental. I would rate Rafter's chances against Roddick at SW19 or the USO actually. I just think Roddick is not a consistant enough performer, too dependnt on his serve, and mentally not that great either. I do agree about Kafelnikov though, i never rated him at all. I not sure whats so great about Cash. He only reached 3 slam finals, and 2 of these were the AO which many big players did not turn up to at the time. (for example agassi turned pro in 1986, but did not play until 1995)

Chang was my choice, surely his all round performances make him the best. Finals at the AO, USO and the French, with players such as Sampras and Becker to compete with in finals. Chang's game was not asphetically pleasing or impressive, much like Davydenko i think, but it was effective

 

[slice bh compliment]

Who's the first two greatest clay courter? Muster the third? You are kidding, he's not even in the top five and maybe in the top ten.

Well Bruguera is up there above Muster. Two Roland Garros titles, sort of like Raf.