Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by NadalAgassi, Sep 25, 2012.
At this point who do you think consider the best player with only 1 slam.
Gerulaitis should be up there.
I was gonna say Rios since he was #1..but then again
2003-2009 Roddick was very dominant in his day
Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.
Still if you think it is him just vote "other".
Murray or Roddick. Everyone else is miles behind.
Murray might not stay part of this group for long though.
I think he deserves to be in the discussion, though I myself wouldn't necessarily put him at the top among players in this category. Gerulaitis was kind of like the Murray of that day, losing to the two best players (who also happen to be all-time greats). Although it is true the Australian wasn't quite a full-fledged slam back then, if we do admit it as a slam win, then I think Gerulaitis is near the top of the players you list above in terms of pure skill.
Right now, gun to my head I would pick Murray, since he has (as far as I'm aware) the best Grand Slam record among all 1-slam winners, and has the potential to win more. At a close second I would take Chang, his run to the '89 French Open title (slaying two giants of the game Lendl and Edberg along the way) all at the age of 17 definitely deserves major kudos, and he remained a legitimate top competitor for much of the 90's.
Stich. Really talented, very classic game.
Obviously Murray. He's just on his way to winning multiple slam titles. So in a way, you're comparing 1-time slam winners to a future multiple slam winner.
Multiple slams for Murray. Just like picking plums from a tree for him.
These things are extremely difficult events to win especially with players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal around.
A big hitter like Raonic, Isner or Berdych can also take you out.
Someone else could do a Rosol.
And look at the effort and skill Murray had to display to beat Djokovic at USO. And he still only won by a whisker.
Certainly no guarantee Murray will win even another.
If he loses AO he could pick up an injury afterwards affecting future slams. Anything can happen.
There is certainly no guarantees that Murray can win multiple slams going forward but winning the first will give him a ton of confidence and now he has secured 1 GS in this golden era, I look forward to see him play with the freedom knowing his place is secured in history.
How many big hitters has taken Murray out in the last 7 slams who is not Fed/Djokovic/Nadal? With the exception of Ferrer at RG '12 - none.
Regarding your point on injuries, the same could happen to Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. Ferrer can't possibly run around like an energizer bunny into his 40's. Berdych and Tsonga is older than Andy so will pick up injuries as they are big men.
I think the above points to Murray being in good position to add more GS wins to his resume in the future. Once Murray won his first MS1000 in Cincy '08, he won another 7 so the same could apply for him in slams.
I'm tempted to go with roddick as he was world number 1. Murray has lots more MS wins, but if pushed, I'd still go with ARod at this time.
My view would probably change if Murray won the WTF this year, but as of right now - Roddick for me.
Why is Murray so obviously that much better than Roddick, according to people. Consistency in more minor tournaments? I'm sorry, but he isn't a naturally great tennis player, or even a better one than Roddick. He has capitalised on the field waning, when Roddick won with folks at their best. He also pushed Federer all the way at damn near Fed's prime, at Wimbledon 2009, and made successive finals against him there.
OK - I just went for Roddick in this poll, but your statement in bold is utter tripe.
Roddick's record against Federer is pisspoor. Murray has a winning head to head. Roddick's record against Murray is p1sspoor too.
As for Murray capitalising on the field waning - are you having a laugh? Need I remind you that Roddick beat the mighty Juan Carlos Ferrero to win his one and only slam?
Finally, 2009 was not 'prime Fed' - he won only 4 titles that year - one of his worst years since entering the the top 5. He won >10 titles in 04,05,and 06 - about the same time he was utterly owning ARod.
Since yoy never watched tennis before 2005 or so I will remind you that Vitas won WCT finals and played 2 Masters finals which, before you were born, were muuuuuuch more impoetant than Australian Open
Stich, he could have won a couple more slams but he couldn't care less, he went for his degree and came back to play and be competitive.
Well, he does hold a H2H of 8-3 against him for starters.
That's part of it, yes. He has 8 Masters titles v Roddick's 5. Roddick of course has more overall titles, 32 v 24, but he's had a longer career.
Come again? He just beat the world #2, a 5 time Slam winner, defending champion and 4 time finalist at the USO! Roddick beat the world #3 who had just won his only Slam at the FO and was in his only ever USO final.
2009 was not exactly Fed's prime (see 2005-7) but nevertheless Roddick pushed him to the brink in that Wimbledon final and came closer to beating him there than any other player bar Nadal. Kudos to him for that.
As a former world #1, Roddick probably still has the edge over Murray at this point in time. But of course, Murray still has time to make an attempt on the #1 ranking and/or win another Slam.
Flaming members with nonsense does not make a point.
Still not a major, and loses when judging the career/historical importance of titles. For that reason alone, VG's WCT finals are inapplicable here.
Best player as in what? Best career achievements or best game when playing at peak level?
In terms of career achievements it would probably be either Murray, Chang, Ivanisevic or Roddick... probably Roddick considering he reached no1.
In terms of peak level I'd say Del Potro, or Stich. Attacking games with no glaring weaknesses.
Del Potro. Had he not broken his wrist, he would have been #1 since mid 2010, and would have had multiple slams
Maybe multiple slams, and that is a maybe, but no way would he have been #1 since mid 2010
That is the kind of talk that shows how insanely overrated Del Potro is on this forum. Even staying fully healthy he never would have put together the kind of years or tennis over a whole year that Nadal in 2010 or Djokovic in 2011 did. The guy at his peak didnt even win a freaking Masters title, even with further improvement he would be hard pressed to ever be #1 amongst this group of players, and if he ever did it would be for a blip in a year like this when nobody is dominant (but hugely unlikely even then as the overall years Federer, Djokovic, and Murray have had overall are hard to imagine DP ever reaching even in years he were to win a slam).
I say Murray or Muster
Best clay courter with only 1 slam: Muster. Best hard courter with only 1 slam: Murray (But I suspect Murray will win at least one more, I don't think he will stop at 1, so maybe it will be Chang or Roddick in the end).
9. Del Potro
Murray on top seems an obvious choice.
I give Stich the edge on the others since he both won the ATP World Championships (over Sampras at his peak in the final) and made a slam final on all 3 surfaces. That is an incredible feat. The guy could play on anything when his brain was screwed on right.
I debated between Ivanisevic and Roddick. Roddick was a contender to win 3 of the 4 slams (Aus, Wim, U.S Open), Ivanisevic really only 1 of the 4 (apart from the 96 U.S Open). Ivanisevic was better than Roddick on 3 of 4 major surfaces (grass, carpet/indoors, clay) with Roddick only better on hard courts. In the end I went with Ivanisevic since if his head was remotedly screwed on straight, which like Stich was infrequent at times, he was just the better player. Overall the better and more dominant serve (and this like Ivanisevic is by far Roddick's forte), better groundies, better movement and athletic ability, better return, better volleys, cant think of any technical thing Roddick did better except the forehand when really firing which was only 20% of his career. Roddick really should be commended in the sense he made the most out of very little, especialy once he lost his forehand. His fighting heart and consistency were well beyond Ivanisevic which is what makes it close.
I also debated between Muster and Chang. I was going to initially go with Chang since Muster is predominantly just based on clay court greatness. However come to think of it Chang is predominantly just based on hard court greatness too, he is nearly as much a hard court specialist as Muster is a clay court one. Yes I know Chang won a French but on the whole I dont even think he is much better on clay or indoor/carpet than Muster is on hard courts or indoor/carpet, and Muster on clay far eclipses Chang on hard courts. Muster also owns their H2H, regularly beating Chang even on Chang's preferred courts.
Cash and Roche have various slam finals, and lost some tough matches to legends which prevented them from winning an addition slam themselves.
I am giving DP some brownie points for beating Nadal and Federer back to back to win a slam, since his credentials are actually well below someone like Carlos Moya, and even below someone like Tomas Johansson who comes up in worst slam winner debates. Just on credentials alone he would probably be about 20th. However I believe his peak playing level would be amongst the top 4 or 5 amongst this group, so figure he deserves top 10.
By no means is Delpo overrated. Had he remained healthy, he would have dominated. Nadal had no answer to Delpo's attack, getting beaten 2-2-2, and then Delpo coming back in the finals and beat Fed at the US Open. His power was too much to handle, and he moves really well for a guy so tall.
I give Roddick a very slight edge over Murray, what shades it for me is the fact he was a year end number one and although Roddick and Murray have and identical win loss ratio in slam finals right now (w1 l4) I think the fact Roddick took Federer to 16-14 in one of those finals loses needs to be considered!
With all that said I don't think Murray will be part of this discussion for long as now he has won a major I expect him to win a few more!
roddick without a doubt.
Yet before his major wrist injury he played the rest of the year and couldnt even win another tournament, and couldnt even beat Murray in the RR or Davydenko in the final of the WTF. Furthermore he retired from 2 tournaments mid match with smaller injuries, he was always going to be physically fragile.
Crushing Nadal once in a hard court slam is not a superhuman task, such icons of tennis like Jo Wilfried Tsonga and Fernando Gonzalez have managed the same feat. Especialy coming in the midst of a period Nadal was something like 2-12 vs top 10 opponents, and would go 0-6 in sets at the WTF. Tsonga did it at the start of Nadal's best ever year of tennis, at a time and in a match Nadal was actually playing twice as well as the 2010 U.S Open, but it was no prelude to World domination.
To be World #1 in this era you have to play all year round, have virtually no periods or slumps caused by minor injuries, win 3 or more Masters usually (Del Potro has not even won one), make semis or better of virtually all slams, winning atleast 1, often more. Sorry there is no way Del Potro with durability issues, mostly specializing on hard courts, not even having won a Masters title at his original peak, and very poor records vs all the top 4 (especialy Djokovic and Murray) was ever going to manage this. Just winning a slam here or there isnt even close to enough to be #1 in this era.
Reached FO and USO final and wom twice Rome which was huge then I just see Stich and Murray above him and Chang being his equal but he played in golden age and Muurrey in weak era........
Muster. Show me a guy who won 21 tournaments in his 25 month peak, which included a major and 6 masters series titles? Show me a guy with 1 major who went 111-5 on his best surface over 2 calendar years? Show me a guy with 1 major who's won 44 career titles in all?
Overall achievement wise it's Murray, having been in 5 major finals, won the same number of masters series titles as Muster (eight), as well as having Olympic gold.
Imo, Delpo has no place in this discussion. At all. For now. Right now, he's not even as good as Nalbandian (or Rios for that matter, much less Roddick and Chang) overall despite Nalby having no slam title. Delpo has 0 master, 0 WTF, not even a second slam final. He was never in the top 3 either. He probably is the only player in the history of open era who has 1 big title and absolutely nothing else besides that. Hopefully for his sake, it doesn't remain that way.
I forgot Ferrero. I wouldnt pick him as the best but would have definitely included him on my poll and he would probably be about #6 or #7 on my list.
There's Gaston Gaudio. Gaudio has a French Open, which was the only time he managed even a quarter final at a major in his career. Gaudio never reached a master series final either. He won a 500 event at 2005 Kitzbuhel, while all his other career titles were 250 events. He got as high as number 5 in the world, though.
Some people might mention Thomas Johansson, but Johansson did win a masters series (1999 Montreal).
Why would Murray not be the best? The only thing he's missing from his resume is the #1 ranking, but I'm sure all of those masters more than make up for it.
You're right Mustard, Gaudio is worse. At least Delpo has a master final... and he made it to #4.
People have said Johansson is the worst but for me that is pure BS. He has made a Wimbledon semifinal, won a Masters, almost single handedly won them a Davis Cup by outplaying Moya and Corretja at their peaks in their semifinal with Spain. He owns Kafelnikov, a 2 time slam winner, in head to head. Heck in some ways you could even argue he is better than Del Potro, he is way better than Gaudio. The only positive for Gaudio in the comparision is he would probably win if they played on clay.
Muster had the more formidable aura at his peak, more so than Murray.
Incidentally, Muster currently has the same # of master titles as Murray: 8. Even though I have no doubt Murray is gonna win more in the end. What's striking about Muster is his fitness and determination. It was hard coming back from his injury problems but he did and he had his best season at 27, which is quite remarkable.
Murray is he best 1 slam winner, but he'll win multiple slams soon, so he'll be out of this circle.
I think Murray is the 'best', even if he isn't yet the most accomplished of these players. Special shout outs to Roche and Roddick.
I was tempted to go with Muster but Murray has more I think
I voted for Stich because of him being the most talented not because he had the best career. Best career would have to be Roddick at this point. Unfortunately Murray will eclipse him soon. Though maybe my disdain for Murray clouding my judgement as the poll suggests most already think he has or at least expect him to. Not that really like Roddick either.
Don't agree why Murray is already above Roddick.
Chang was good, wasn't he? I'm too young to remember, but he's meant to be one of the better players up there, I believe.
The fact that Roddick briefly held the number # 1 ranking is the only thing that gives him the edge at the moment. If Murray ever gets that or wins another Slam, then it will be case closed in his favour.
A good topic is who really deserved the year end #1 of 2003. That is the whole key here since Roddick didnt just rank #1 briefly, he ended a year ranked #1 so officaly was #1 for a whole year. That is a big thing on the ATP (unlike the WTA where its relevance is almost squat now). However it was a very close year where 4 players arguably had the case:
Roddick vs Federer- Roddick had much better slam showings with win, two semis, and a 1st round loss vs Federer win, two 4th rounds, and a 1st round loss. Roddick won 2 Masters, Federer won 0. However Federer won the WTF, and won the most titles of anyone that year 7 (vs 6 for Roddick). Federer was also 2-1 vs Roddick that year, and drubbed him in their 2 more important meetings.
Ferrero- The only player to reach 2 slam finals this year, a slam title on clay in Paris, and a slam runner up on hard courts in New York. Won a Masters title on both clay and fast indoor court, showing great versatility. Consistent slam results of quarters, win, 4th round, runner up. Only 4 titles for overall year however.
Agassi- Consistent performer in slams with a win, quarters, 4th round, and semis, no truly poor slams unlike the other 3. A final at the WTF. One Masters title in Miami.
Looking back it is very close between Roddick, Federer, and Ferrero.
To be honest, Delpo and Murray should not be in this poll since both have a long way to go to change this one Slam wonder title.
I only included Del Potro in the poll for the lolz at how many votes I knew he would inexplicably get.
Ahhh, ok. But if we take Murray and Delpo out, I'd take Muster.
Separate names with a comma.