Best player to never...

[mike danny]

1)Win a slam

2)Reach a slam final

3)Reach a slam SF

4)Reach a slam QF

5)Become no.1

6)Win multiple slams

7)Become an all-time great

8)Reach the top 10

9)Win a masters

10)Win the WTF

I know it is a bit too much. But it can be interesting IMO. Place your players with the corresponding number of above near him.

 

[Russeljones]

Benneteau was a lock for this except for his 1 USO QF.

 

[mike danny]

Ok I will give it a try.

1)Nalbandian.

2)Davydenko

3)Robredo (7 QF!!!)

4)Tough one. I really have no idea.

5)Murray

6)Roddick

7)Murray

8)Another one I really don't know. As far as I know, everybody who was expected to reach the top 10 did so.

9)Del Potro or Kafelnikov

10)Nadal.

 

[Russeljones]

I thought it had to be one that fulfills all those criteria! Boring!

 

[Wynter]

Was going to say Santoro but made one QF in 2006

 

[ZiggyStardust]

I thought it had to be one that fulfills all those criteria! Boring!

If someone fails to ever reach a slam QF, he could hardly have done the other things.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I vote Rios for best to never win a slam

 

[Wynter]

1)Win a slam - Nalbandian

2)Reach a slam final - Davydenko

3)Reach a slam SF - Fognini

4)Reach a slam QF - Bahrami

5)Become no.1 - Murray

6)Win multiple slams - Roche

7)Become an all-time great - Hoad(?) Can't ever recall him getting much attention

8)Reach the top 10 - Santoro

9)Win a masters - Todd Martin

10)Win the WTF - Nadal

I know it is a bit too much. But it can be interesting IMO. Place your players with the corresponding number of above near him.

Off the top of my head and a little research

 

[Russeljones]

If someone fails to ever reach a slam QF, he could hardly have done the other things.

Which is why the thread is titled "to never", get it?

 

[encylopedia]

I vote Rios for best to never win a slam

Yes, by far the best choice so far... a guy who's baseline talent far exceeded Agassi's - as admitted by none other than Mike Agassi.

Also one of the biggest jerks the tour ever saw - was up there with Muster, Tarango, Rusedski, as least liked by the other players.....

Nalby had talent, but nowhere as near as much as Rios.....in fact, although Nalby had more success at his peak, I don't think his inherent talent was any higher than say.....Kiefer or Malisse (both of whom were very talented in their own right).

I would however, put Henri Leconte beyond Rios. Of course it all depends on how you define "best"....in terms of greatest ability for one match....even people like Flipper, and Gonzo, would be contenders then.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

Which is why the thread is titled "to never", get it?

I meant that if OP wanted a player that had never achieved all that he listed, he could just have asked for the best player to never reach a QF.
Him listing all of the others seems to say that he was interested in each criteria separately.

 

[Russeljones]

Yes, by far the best choice so far... a guy who's baseline talent far exceeded Agassi's - as admitted by none other than Mike Agassi.

Also one of the biggest jerks the tour ever saw - was up there with Muster, Tarango, Rusedski, as least liked by the other players.....

Nalby had talent, but nowhere as near as much as Rios.....in fact, although Nalby had more success at his peak, I don't think his inherent talent was any higher than say.....Kiefer or Malisse (both of whom were very talented in their own right).

I would however, put Henri Leconte beyond Rios. Of course it all depends on how you define "best"....in terms of greatest ability for one match....even people like Flipper, and Gonzo, would be contenders then.

I don't think it's that clear cut. Alex Metreveli and Mecir would make good claims on this count.

 

[Russeljones]

I meant that if OP wanted a player that had never achieved all that he listed, he could just have asked for the best player to never reach a QF.
Him listing all of the others seems to say that he was interested in each criteria separately.

Well spotted, but I missed it initially. I was hoping for a more interesting question, I suppose.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Yes, by far the best choice so far... a guy who's baseline talent far exceeded Agassi's - as admitted by none other than Mike Agassi.

Also one of the biggest jerks the tour ever saw - was up there with Muster, Tarango, Rusedski, as least liked by the other players.....

Nalby had talent, but nowhere as near as much as Rios.....in fact, although Nalby had more success at his peak, I don't think his inherent talent was any higher than say.....Kiefer or Malisse (both of whom were very talented in their own right).

I would however, put Henri Leconte beyond Rios. Of course it all depends on how you define "best"....in terms of greatest ability for one match....even people like Flipper, and Gonzo, would be contenders then.

Rios was talented but he was never close to win a slam. Only once in his career he went further than the QF, and it was through a nice draw, only to be destroyed 6-2 6-2 6-2 by Korda. Many players were closer than him to win a slam. Soderling and Corretja, Corretja, even Baghdatis!

 

[Terenigma]

1)Win a slam
2)Reach a slam final
3)Reach a slam SF
4)Reach a slam QF
5)Become no.1
6)Win multiple slams
7)Become an all-time great
8}Reach the top 10
9)Win a masters
10)Win the WTF

1) Nalbandian
2) Henman
3) Robredo (Cant fault Mike's logic)
4) Llodra or possibly Anderson
5) Murray easily
6) Roddick
7) Not sure what qualifies as an "all time great" so i dont know here
8} I have no idea. Karlović has never been top 10 so ill say him
9) Del potro without a doubt
10) Nadal obviously

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

1)Win a slam - Rios

2)Reach a slam final - Davydenko

3)Reach a slam SF - maybe Kohlschreiber

4)Reach a slam QF - tough one, maybe Garcia-Lopez

5)Become no.1 - Vilas (this one is a lock)

6)Win multiple slams - Rios or Coria (Ok they won none but is it a condition to have won 1?)... if winning 1 is a condition, then Krajicek

7)Become an all-time great - Murray

8) Reach the top 10 - Santoro (honorable mention to Kohlschreiber, Malisse, Hrbaty)

9)Win a masters - Del Potro

10)Win the WTF - Nadal


Sorry for mentioning only recent players but my knowledge of the 60's, 70's, 80's is very bad

 

[mike danny]

1) Nalbandian
2) Henman
3) Robredo (Cant fault Mike's logic)
4) Llodra or possibly Anderson
5) Murray easily
6) Roddick
7) Not sure what qualifies as an "all time great" so i dont know here
8} I have no idea. Karlović has never been top 10 so ill say him
9) Del potro without a doubt
10) Nadal obviously

By all-time great I meant a guy who despite not winning enough slams did very well in them, reaching plenty of finals, won pleny of masters, was a to player for very long an at his best was equal to his better peers.

Murray was the only to qualify here. But I haven't watched decades of tennis like others on this board so maybe they can think of someone else.

 

[mike danny]

1)Win a slam - Rios

2)Reach a slam final - Davydenko

3)Reach a slam SF - maybe Kohlschreiber

4)Reach a slam QF - tough one, maybe Garcia-Lopez

5)Become no.1 - Vilas (this one is a lock)

6)Win multiple slams - Rios or Coria (Ok they won none but is it a condition to have won 1?)... if winning 1 is a condition, then Krajicek

7)Become an all-time great - Murray

8) Reach the top 10 - Santoro (honorable mention to Kohlschreiber, Malisse, Hrbaty)

9)Win a masters - Del Potro

10)Win the WTF - Nadal


Sorry for mentioning only recent players but my knowledge of the 60's, 70's, 80's is very bad

Hey picking a player for a criteria is your personal choice. If you consider Rios or Coria to be part of that criteria then you have your own reasons for considering this and they are not entirely bad choices.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

why is everyone saying Murray as the best number 2 ever? seems obvious to me that Vilas is above

 

[Feather]

I think the question number seven doesn't make any sense

 

[accidental]

The answer to all those questions is Ryan Harrison

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I think the question number seven doesn't make any sense

Yes it's a strange one and I expect many people to pick Safin here

 

[Terenigma]

By all-time great I meant a guy who despite not winning enough slams did very well in them, reaching plenty of finals, won pleny of masters, was a to player for very long an at his best was equal to his better peers.

Murray was the only to qualify here. But I haven't watched decades of tennis like others on this board so maybe they can think of someone else.

Fair enough well ill say Murray too. Also im the same way, i only grew up in the late 80s and 90s watching tennis so i didnt see the prime era of many players other board members will mention.

why is everyone saying Murray as the best number 2 ever? seems obvious to me that Vilas is above

Looking at the achievements, Vilas does look above him but i think the reason is alot of people are young and didnt grow up seing him or knowing about him. Plus you have to remember that Murray is playing in an era containing 3 of the best players to ever play tennis so thats a pretty big factor imo

 

[mike danny]

I think the question number seven doesn't make any sense

Ok let me put it this way: by question 7 I meant a player who impressed you a lot, won enough to convince you that he is not a flash in the pan and also generally did very well in terms of big titles and ranking.

Check my response to Terenigma above for better clarification.

 

[jean pierre]

why is everyone saying Murray as the best number 2 ever? seems obvious to me that Vilas is above

Vilas is above, of course, but Vilas was :
- the world champion in 1977.
- number one in ATP ranking during a few weeks in 1975-1976, even if ATP doesn't recognize this fact.
So, in fact, Vilas was number one, and Murray is the best number 2 ever.

 

[Thetouch]

1)Win a slam - M. Mecir

2)Reach a slam final - A. Krickstein

3) Reach a slam SF - Guy Forget

5)Become no.1 - Michael Stich

6)Win multiple slams - Rafter/Stich/Krajicek/Muster/Chang

7)Become an all-time great - Jim Courier

10)Win the WTF - Nadal

 

[mike danny]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Ferrer at question 1.

 

[Russeljones]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Ferrer at question 1.

People are more knowledgeable than we give them credit for. As much as Ferrer has been an integral part of the who's-who of the ATP in the last 8-9 years, he isn't near players like Metreveli and Mecir.