Best players never to win these Slams in the Open Era

Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Wimbledon:

Men: Andy Roddick: runner-up in most finals: 3.

Women: Justine Henin: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Hana Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario but ahead in other semi-finals reached : 3.


US Open:

Men: Bjorn Borg: runner-up in most finals: 4.

Women: Evonne Goolagong Cawley: runner-up in most finals: 4.


French Open:

Men: Novak Djokovic: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Alex Corretja and Robin Soderling but ahead in other semi-finals reached : 4.

Women: Martina Hingis: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Ann Jones*, Kim Clijsters and Dinara Safina but ahead in other semi-finals reached: 3.

* Some people might argue for Ann Jones given that she already won the tournament twice in the amateur era.


Australian Open:

Men: Andy Murray: runner-up in most finals: 3.

Women: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Helena Sukova and Mary Joe Fernandez but ahead in other semi-finals reached: 3.
 
Last edited:
Tim Henman merits some consideration in regards to Wimbledon, making it to at least the QFs (four times to the SFs) no fewer than eight times.
The player who has made the most runs to at least the QFs in all of the majors without winning a title (at least from 1990 on) is David Ferrer, with 13, but only once did he reach a final.
 
Indio said:
Tim Henman merits some consideration in regards to Wimbledon, making it to at least the QFs (four times to the SFs) no fewer than eight times.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that Tim was one of the better players at Wimbledon with a solid record as you pointed out but I doubt his 4 semi-final showings can outrank Roddick's 3 finals!

Indio said:
The player who has made the most runs to at least the QFs in all of the majors without winning a title (at least from 1990 on) is David Ferrer, with 13, but only once did he reach a final.
Click to expand...

Interesting stats that confirm Ferrer's consistent solidity at the Slams but I don't think they can make a case for Ferrer being better than any other player who never won a Slam.
 
Federator said:
French Open is still John McEnroe at this point.
Click to expand...

But is it? McEnroe is an overall Tier 1 player but his record at the French Open doesn't make him better than some of the other players who didn't win it. He reached only 1 final and 1 other semi-final. Even without their extra final showing, Djokovic and Corretja achieved at least the same results.
 
Mainad said:
Wimbledon:

Men: Andy Roddick: runner-up in most finals: 3.

Women: Justine Henin: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Hana Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario but ahead in other semi-finals reached : 3.


US Open:

Men: Bjorn Borg: runner-up in most finals: 4.

Women: Evonne Goolagong Cawley: runner-up in most finals: 4.


French Open:

Men: Novak Djokovic: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Alex Corretja and Robin Soderling but ahead in other semi-finals reached : 4.

Women: Martina Hingis: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Ann Jones*, Kim Clijsters and Dinara Safina but ahead in other semi-finals reached: 3.

* Some people might argue for Ann Jones given that she already won the tournament twice in the amateur era.


Australian Open:

Men: Andy Murray: runner-up in most finals: 3.

Women: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario: joint runner-up in most finals: 2, along with Helena Sukova and Mary Joe Fernandez but ahead in other semi-finals reached: 3.
Click to expand...

If Borg as good as everyone makes out home come he lost 4 US Open finals?
 
Mainad said:
I agree with you that Tim was one of the better players at Wimbledon with a solid record as you pointed out but I doubt his 4 semi-final showings can outrank Roddick's 3 finals!



Interesting stats that confirm Ferrer's consistent solidity at the Slams but I don't think they can make a case for Ferrer being better than any other player who never won a Slam.
Click to expand...

Another TIM, THIS ONE AN AMERICAN OF THE 80´S, NAMED MAYOTTE ALSO WENT TO THE FOURTH ROUND DURING 10 CONSECUTIVE TIMES.

In some years, he even went further, in 1982 he lost in the sf at Wimbledon and the Australian Open.

Steady S&V player as they come and steady ROS one handed Bh

And he also reached the WCT final in 1985...a very competitive fast court player who seldom ranked out of the top 10 for almost a whole decade
 
Mainad said:
But is it? McEnroe is an overall Tier 1 player but his record at the French Open doesn't make him better than some of the other players who didn't win it. He reached only 1 final and 1 other semi-final. Even without their extra final showing, Djokovic and Corretja achieved at least the same results.
Click to expand...

I would say that is in part owing to the wide disparity of surfaces during McEnroe's reign and therefore a greater presence of clay court specialists. You remember? Those guys who would completely disappear from the tour after the clay season was over. Mac had to deal with them and others. Djokovic has really no one to deal with until the final anymore (even Fed has no chance there against him now). So it's not really fair to compare Djokovic's extra FO finals against Mac's when Djoko plays in an extremely weak clay court era. This is why even Borg's ~half as many FOs as Nadal's is still as good an accomplishment.
 
Last edited:
Considering Jimmy Connors did win a clay court Slam in his career and missed or didn't play the French Open for 5 years during his prime, I think he deserves a mention for Roland Garros, even if he never played in a French Open final.
 
Mainad said:
I agree with you that Tim was one of the better players at Wimbledon with a solid record as you pointed out but I doubt his 4 semi-final showings can outrank Roddick's 3 finals!

I agree.

Interesting stats that confirm Ferrer's consistent solidity at the Slams but I don't think they can make a case for Ferrer being better than any other player who never won a Slam.
Click to expand...

I hadn't actually considered Ferrer as the best of the no-major winners, but upon giving it some consideration after you made the comment, I believe a good case can be made for him (at least from 1990 on). His strongest competitors for that honor (based upon achievements at majors) would be Todd Martin 2-4-4 (Fs-SFs-QFs), Cedric Pioline 2-2-4, Alex Corretja 2-1-3, Mark Philippoussis 2-0-3, Robin Soderling 2-0-4 and the still active Jo-Wilfred Tsonga 1-4-5. If you believe that two final appearances trumps one, regardless of Ferrer's other runs, then Martin is probably the man. I, however, believe other results and year-end rankings are just as important, and in that respect, Ferrer probably comes out the best. He's had the following year-end rankings: 2013--#3 (admittedly, he would probably have been #4 had Murray played more), 2007, 2011 and 2012--#5. The best that Martin was able to achieve was #7 in 1999. Corretja finished #3 in 1998, with his only other Top 10 finish being #8 in 2000. Pioline's best was #10 and Philippoussis's, #9. Soderling? Too little time as a contender, in my opinion. Tsonga? His story is still being written.
 
Apart from the folks who knocked on the door the most at each slam:

Pat Rafter at Wimbledon - hard to believe he didn't come away with at least 1 title given the level of play he hit in the '99-'01 range. (then you remember who he had to go through - Andre, Pete, Goran). I remember a decently entertaining match with Henman he lost one year as well.

Murray in Australia - losses to the titlist 4x years from '10-'13.

As mentioned by others, lots of what-ifs for the 70s guys - Borg on Australian grass, Connors at RG, etc.

Vitas G. at the US Open - would've been an epic party afterward had he broken through there once.

Sabatini at RG/SW19 - tough to break through during the Evert/Martina and Graf/Seles eras. Lots of final weekends at both slams.
 
Wimbledon: Lendl

Roddick has 1 more finals appearance, but he didn't have to deal with several all time great wimbledon players all at once, just 1. Lendl's 2 finals with 5 SF in the 80s is more impressive to me:

SF loss to 83 McEnroe = won title that year
SF loss to 84 Connors
SF loss to 88 Becker
SF loss to 89 Becker = won title that year
SF loss to 90 Edberg = won title that year

5 SF losses to guys who all won 2+ Wimbledons and 3+ grass court majors, three times in years they won the title. That plus the 2 Wimbledon finals>Roddick.

FO: Connors

If we are talking strictly FO results, Djokovic is probably the best as Connors has 4 SF and 0 F while Nole has 4 SF and 2 F. But Connors also reached 2 clay court major finals at the USO and won a clay court major at the USO, so in terms of all clay it would have to be Connors.

USO: Borg

4 Finals loses to Mac/Connors, two of the top 4 USO players.

AO: Murray

3 Finals loses to Fed/Djok and another SF loss to Djok in a year he won the title and Fed/Djok are two of the top 3 AO players.
 
NatF said:
He lost to a 4 and 5 time USO champ every time. Does Nadal make it through Connors and McEnroe at the USO in their peaks? I don't think so personally.
Click to expand...

It would be tough for any player. McEnroe and Connors were the only players Borg lost to in major finals and back then the hard courts were faster than they are today. Strange circumstances as well. The pain injection before the '78 final and he plays with a numb playing hand. Loses in straight sets to Connors after having won that Wimbledon final in straight sets. It took some very odd things to happen to keep him from winning there. He didn't have early round losses at the U.S Open though, or really at any of the three majors he played. Plus, he won the biggest indoor titles, with wins over McEnroe and Connors there.
 
borg number one said:
It would be tough for any player. McEnroe and Connors were the only players Borg lost to in major finals and back then the hard courts were faster than they are today. Strange circumstances as well. The pain injection before the '78 final and he plays with a numb playing hand. Loses in straight sets to Connors after having won that Wimbledon final in straight sets. It took some very odd things to happen to keep him from winning there. He didn't have early round losses at the U.S Open though, or really at any of the three majors he played. Plus, he won the biggest indoor titles, with wins over McEnroe and Connors there.
Click to expand...

Borg himself very graciously said after the final that with the level Connors hit that match, his thumb issues wouldn't have mattered. Similar to Connors not blaming his '77 Wimbledon five set final loss to Borg on the fact that he played the match (and tournament) with a fractured left thumb in a splint, not taking his hand off the racket the whole time during matches.

I think Borg had a real shot in the 1980 final - that was his big chance for a HC slam.
 
eldanger25 said:
Borg himself very graciously said after the final that with the level Connors hit that match, his thumb issues wouldn't have mattered. Similar to Connors not blaming his '77 Wimbledon five set final loss to Borg on the fact that he played the match (and tournament) with a fractured left thumb in a splint, not taking his hand off the racket the whole time during matches.

I think Borg had a real shot in the 1980 final - that was his big chance for a HC slam.
Click to expand...

Yes Connors and Borg would never give excuses. Full credit always given. Yes 1980 was a great match too. I wonder about shot spot and some of that fifth set in 1980 when Borg was up a break. This is a funny moment from that 1980 match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK45lDHc8yw
 
SpicyCurry1990 said:
Wimbledon: Lendl

Roddick has 1 more finals appearance, but he didn't have to deal with several all time great wimbledon players all at once, just 1. Lendl's 2 finals with 5 SF in the 80s is more impressive to me:

SF loss to 83 McEnroe = won title that year
SF loss to 84 Connors
SF loss to 88 Becker
SF loss to 89 Becker = won title that year
SF loss to 90 Edberg = won title that year

5 SF losses to guys who all won 2+ Wimbledons and 3+ grass court majors, three times in years they won the title. That plus the 2 Wimbledon finals>Roddick.

FO: Connors

If we are talking strictly FO results, Djokovic is probably the best as Connors has 4 SF and 0 F while Nole has 4 SF and 2 F. But Connors also reached 2 clay court major finals at the USO and won a clay court major at the USO, so in terms of all clay it would have to be Connors.

USO: Borg

4 Finals loses to Mac/Connors, two of the top 4 USO players.

AO: Murray

3 Finals loses to Fed/Djok and another SF loss to Djok in a year he won the title and Fed/Djok are two of the top 3 AO players.
Click to expand...

Pretty much how I'd go.

US - Lendl Did win Queens and grass was not his natural surface but he was completely dominant in later 80's when he lost to Becker so he was definitely top 4 grass for 3 years.

FO - I'd go with Noel then Connors, Noles game is perfect for clay, Connors prefers pace as a flat hitter.

US - Borg this was his favorite surface, grass, clay and HC. Unlike the rubbish that some people stated about his in ability to play fast HC, Borg won many carpet and grass comns. USO was green clay which aslo suited him. He wasn't the best grass court player when it was grass so that's undersrandable. I'd say he disliked the comp and didn't care about it at all. He has said similar, he left the 81 final before the ceramony as he hated the environment.

AO - Murray, surface is made for him, but its made for the Big 3 as well.
 
uliks said:
Best player never to win Grand Slam altogether is probably Marcelo Rios :-| :(
Click to expand...

Given that Rios actually held the number #1 ranking, that may well be true!

On the other hand, Rios' stats at any of the Slams was surprisingly unimpressive for a player who achieved the top ranking. It's not just that he never actually won a Slam (which many people are fond of pointing out) but that he never really came even close to winning one!

He only ever reached 1 semi-final and 1 final (both at 1998 AO) and he was heavily beaten in straight sets in the final.

Other than that, his best showing at the Slams was 5 quarter-finals (2 more at the AO, 2 at the FO and 1 at the USO).
 
Mainad said:
Given that Rios actually held the number #1 ranking, that may well be true!

On the other hand, Rios' stats at any of the Slams was surprisingly unimpressive for a player who achieved the top ranking. It's not just that he never actually won a Slam (which many people are fond of pointing out) but that he never really came even close to winning one!

He only ever reached 1 semi-final and 1 final (both at 1998 AO) and he was heavily beaten in straight sets in the final.

Other than that, his best showing at the Slams was 5 quarter-finals (2 more at the AO, 2 at the FO and 1 at the USO).
Click to expand...

Rios is a loser both on and off the court. Especially off the court. Just an all-around terrible person. I would definitely nominate Rios for Unpleasant Personality GOAT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Open era leaders in the top 14 events
2
Replies
68
Views
4K
Dead Mosquito
Dead Mosquito
JennyS
Best Player Not to Win Each Slam
Replies
31
Views
3K
crackbillionair
C
T
Who is the Australian Open GOAT
2
Replies
91
Views
4K
DismalFuture
DismalFuture
D
Most Dominant Years based on Number of Big Titles?
Replies
29
Views
2K
timnz
T
PCXL-Fan
Who is the Greatest player on clay never to win the French Open?
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
veroniquem
veroniquem
Back
Top