best to never win a major men & women

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
While trying to do some research for the thread in relation to players who have reached the semifinals at all the majors I came across an article that talked about the best players, male and female, to never win a major. Now of course I cannot refind the article to put it in this thread but I decided to make a thread anyway haha. Who do people think are the best players in the sport to not lift a major trophy?

I know the article mentioned players like Dementieva, Davydenko, Henman, Okker, Morozova...and others I cannot remember as I only skimmed it without saving it. But I remember certain ommissions that surprised me, like Sukova and Fernandez for the ladies.

So...it begs the question..who are the most talented players who never got to win a major trophy?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Nusslein in the 1930's who was one of the best players in the world but turned Pro and never won a classic major but he did win a number of Pro Majors.

How about Tom Okker also?
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
To start my thread off I'll name several for the ladies as those are names that come easiest to mind

Elena Dementieva
Helena Sukova
Rosie Casals
MJ Fernandez
Pam Shriver

Interesting I remember the article I found had both Jankovic and Safina on its list...and yet of those 5 only Dementieva made the cut...I can understand Safina she made 3 finals..but Jankovic over say Sukova..that to me was ridiculous. I don't remember the reason she was there...but when I get home from work I am really going to need to find the article.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Nusslein in the 1930's who was one of the best players in the world but turned Pro and never won a classic major but he did win a number of Pro Majors.

How about Tom Okker also?
Okker was mentioned in the article, as well as Davydenko, Henman, and I think Miroslav for the men...and of course Andy Murray. I think the women were Dementieva, Morozova, Safina, Jankovic...of course that only makes 9...and I cannot think of the remaining person it mentioned. I should have made the thread when I saw it.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Nusslein in the 1930's who was one of the best players in the world but turned Pro and never won a classic major but he did win a number of Pro Majors.

How about Tom Okker also?
Okker was great, but, he was never #1. Off the top, I can't think of a better player who never won a major than Marcelo Rios.
 

robow7

Professional
Yea, If Murray keeps up his run in the top 3 or 4 much longer without winning a major, he would definitely be a top contender.
 
Last edited:

pbeam

New User
Mentioning "talent and "never won major" brings Marcelo Rios to one's mind.

Watch some of his matches (or higlights of) on youtube vs. Agassi... or others...

Can't remember many others - how good was Gerulaitis (well, maybe not great) - did he ever win a major (not as I recall).

Rafter (well, I don't consider him to be in the rank of greatness, but sure he was darn good), Leconte - huge talent - but...

How many others?
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Mentioning "talent and "never won major" brings Marcelo Rios to one's mind.

Watch some of his matches (or higlights of) on youtube vs. Agassi... or others...

Can't remember many others - how good was Gerulaitis (well, maybe not great) - did he ever win a major (not as I recall).

Rafter (well, I don't consider him to be in the rank of greatness, but sure he was darn good), Leconte - huge talent - but...

How many others?
Rafter won 2 U.S. Opens.
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame
Mentioning "talent and "never won major" brings Marcelo Rios to one's mind.

Watch some of his matches (or higlights of) on youtube vs. Agassi... or others...

Can't remember many others - how good was Gerulaitis (well, maybe not great) - did he ever win a major (not as I recall).

Rafter (well, I don't consider him to be in the rank of greatness, but sure he was darn good), Leconte - huge talent - but...

How many others?
I thought of Gerulaitis too, even though he did win the AO in 1977, but that's kind of a nominal slam considering the status of the tournament in the late 70s.

Ríos certainly. Coria also (on clay). Maybe Leconte. Nalbandian too.

Kevin Curren at his peak around 83-86 was probably the best grass court player never to win a major on that surface.

Of the current players, Murray stands out.
 
E

elpolaco84

Guest
In category of most talented and excellent acomplishments to never win a mayor:

1.Mecir
2.Murray(he as well be first but Mecir gets the edge(for now) for the gold medal
3.Nalbandian (still some fuel in the tank)

and the others:
Rios, Okker,Henman Davydenko,etc...
 

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Mentioning "talent and "never won major" brings Marcelo Rios to one's mind.

Watch some of his matches (or higlights of) on youtube vs. Agassi... or others...

Can't remember many others - how good was Gerulaitis (well, maybe not great) - did he ever win a major (not as I recall).

Rafter (well, I don't consider him to be in the rank of greatness, but sure he was darn good), Leconte - huge talent - but...

How many others?
Rafter won the US Open twice!
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
It's obviously Andy Murray. Others include Miloslav Mecir, Henri Leconte, David Nalbandian, Marcelo Rios, Nikolay Davydenko and Tom Okker.

Patrick Rafter won the 1997 and 1998 US Opens, and Vitas Gerulaitis won the December 1977 Australian Open. Todd Martin reached the finals of the 1994 Australian Open (losing to Sampras) and the 1999 US Open (losing to Agassi). Cedric Pioline reached the finals of the 1993 US Open and 1997 Wimbledon (losing both to Sampras).
 
Last edited:

jaggy

Talk Tennis Guru
What about Rusedski? Top 5 player, reached a US Open final and won 15 singles titles.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
to the best of my knowledge, Rios is the only no.1 never to win a major.
that wins him the title of the best to never win a major on the mens side.

Gerulaitis won the AO, and that was a major, albeit with weak competition
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Okker was great, but, he was never #1. Off the top, I can't think of a better player who never won a major than Marcelo Rios.
Yes but Okker played in a time with Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and later Borg, Connors and McEnroe. Okker won the Italian plus many other top tournaments. He also was strong on every surface, clay, grass, hardcourt and indoors.

Okker won over 50 tournaments in his career and Rios only won 18 according to the ATP website. That's a big difference.

Rios was extremely talented but players like Rod Laver thought Okker was super talented. To quote Laver from his book "The Education of a Tennis Player"--I think Tom (Okker) is going to be a great player who can mean as much to the game as Kenny (Rosewall) has. His phenomenal speed and reflexes would be enough to make him quite a good player even if his strokes weren't so sharp and his determination so firm. He's the best player to come out of Holland, faster than Hans Brinker on his silver skates, although he wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Later Laver writes--Tom's like me in that he can hit a big bounding topspin shot on the run for a winner, or pitch a topspin lob over the head of a man hanging at the net. He has these absolutely dazzling stretches, a wild man who makes you want to cry because everything he does is so utterly beyond you.


Arthur Ashe has written for certain stretches in any tennis year Tom Okker becomes the best player in the world.
 
Last edited:
E

elpolaco84

Guest
to the best of my knowledge, Rios is the only no.1 never to win a major.
that wins him the title of thebest to never win a major on the mens side.

Gerulaitis won the AO, and that was a major, albeit with weak competition
Doesn't mean a thing, the world ranking, Mecir, Murray never attained N°1 and they deserve or deserved a major,

Vilas won 4 major two of them in 1977 his best season and the best player of that year and ended N°2

Don't get me wrong i liked rios as a player, but he will always be remebered for reaching N°1 whitout a major and not for "the best player wihtout a major"
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
Doesn't mean a thing, the world ranking, Mecir, Murray never attained N°1 and they deserve or deserved a major,

Vilas won 4 major two of them in 1977 his best season and the best player of that year and ended N°2

Don't get me wrong i liked rios as a player, but he will always be remebered for reaching N°1 whitout a major and not for "the best player wihtout a major"
We can certainly agree to disagree:)
the question for me is, do we judge who is the best player never to win a major based on achievements or on other things like our personal preference.
who we think was the most talented for example.
if we look at achievements, i strongly believe that reaching no1 in the world means a lot. the fact that a great player like Vilas never reached the no1 spot actually strengthens my argument.

as a side note: Miloslav Mecir is one of my all-time favourite players. oh, and Andy Murray will hopefully win at least one major before he´s through:)
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
What about Rusedski? Top 5 player, reached a US Open final and won 15 singles titles.
Rusedski once got to world number 4, reached the 1997 US Open final, and won the 1998 Paris Indoors and the 1999 Grand Slam Cup. The negative thing is that only twice in his entire career did Rusedski get to the quarter finals or better at a major, 1997 Wimbledon, when he lost in the quarter finals to Pioline, and the 1997 US Open, when he lost in the final to Rafter. His collapse against Todd Martin in the R16 of the 1999 US Open must have been particularly mortifying. 2002 Wimbledon when he lost in the R16 to Malisse was another golden opportunity gone.

Another positive I should mention is that Rusedski once came from match point down and beat the world number 1 at a major, against Kuerten at the 2001 Australian Open, but Kuerten always had a very poor record in Melbourne for some reason.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
One of you say Mecir. But I believe Nalbandian, Davy, Tsonga and Soderling are better player.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
One of you say Mecir. But I believe Nalbandian, Davy, Tsonga and Soderling are better player.
I don't agree. Mecir was very enigmatic, never had a coach while on the tour, and could dish out a beating to any player on his day, even a bad matchup like Lendl. He had this ability to slowly rally back and forth, and then suddenly quicken the pace and end the point out of nowhere, hence his nickname, the big cat. If his opponent then tried to up the pace, they really were in big trouble, especially if they gave Mecir angles to work with. A very dangerous player, and Wilander in particular, hated playing against him.
 
E

elpolaco84

Guest
We can certainly agree to disagree:)
the question for me is, do we judge who is the best player never to win a major based on achievements or on other things like our personal preference.
who we think was the most talented for example.
if we look at achievements, i strongly believe that reaching no1 in the world means a lot. the fact that a great player like Vilas never reached the no1 spot actually strengthens my argument.

as a side note: Miloslav Mecir is one of my all-time favourite players. oh, and Andy Murray will hopefully win at least one major before he´s through:)
Interesting about Rios 97-98 period:'97=Won 1master Finals 1Master 3atp250 (current system)
'98=Won 3Masters 1 atp500 2atp250 Finals 1 AO

Sampras '97=Won 2GS AO and Wimby 2masters Cincy and Paris, 1WTFHannover 1atp500 Philadelphia 1atp250 sanjose Finals None
'98=Won 1GS Wimby 2atp500 Philadelphia,VIenna 1ATP250atlanta Finals 2Masters Cincy,Paris 1atp250 1san jose

based on that alone at the end of those years ranking points with current (2012) point system
Rios 97=2050pts
Sampras97= 8250pts
Ok,Sampras 97N°1 was ok

Rios 98= 5200pts.
Sampras 98=4600
AS well Rios could have been yer end N°1 counting only Wins and Runner-ups

to me it shows nothing more of a faulty ranking system
Don¿t tak this too serously i did this just for fun

i think rios was N°1 just because he was consistent enough in abrief period of time where the other number one contenders (1-5) weren't
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Women- Honestly nodody. I dont think any of the main candidates deserved a slam:

Fernandez- Something like 0-23 vs Graf and Seles excluding her 1 win over a 15 year old Seles. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Sukova- 21 losses in a row to Steffi Graf. Never ended a year ranked in the top 5. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Shriver- 17 losses in a row to Chris Evert. Still in her prime wins only 5 games combined in 4 sets in 2 Wimbledon semis with teenage Graf. No ground game, no movement. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Dementieva- Couldnt win a slam while arguably peaking in the worst WTA ever. Other peak was in mid 2000s and she got destroyed by Myskina and easily beaten by an upstart Kuznetsova in her other slam final. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Turnbull, Casals- too small, too underpowered, too easily crushed too often by best players. Dont deserve a slam.

Morozova- someone even mentioning her, that has to be a joke.

Jaeger- Maybe her brief career level of play kept up for 10 or more years would be enough to qualify her as best not to win a slam if she kept it up that long and still didnt win one. However as she retired at 18, does deserve a slam. Anyway Navratilova claims she played a bad match in the 83 Wimbledon final and still lost only 3 games, while at her peak could get only 2 games off Evert in the U.S Open semis, and was easily beaten by a pre dominant Navratilova on clay in her only other slam final.

Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki- No, no, no. Couldnt even scalp one off the worst WTA ever they all scalped their #1 rankings off of.

I guess if I had to pick one it would one it would be Jaeger since she is the only one who made me write more lines on. Really there should be no winner though. Everyone that deserved a slam got one, and even many who really didnt deserve one also did.



Men there are many possabilities:

Henri LeConte
Alex Corretja (French Open)
Marcelo Rios
Todd Martin
Miloslav Mecir
David Nalbandian
Nikolay Davydenko
Tom Okker
Herbie Flam
Vinnie Richards

However the current winner is clearly Andy Murray. No it isnt CERTAIN he will win a slam, so until he does he is the only logical choice. With all his Masters titles, consistently top 4 ranking over many years, and many slam finals and semis, nobody comes close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

treblings

Hall of Fame
Interesting about Rios 97-98 period:'97=Won 1master Finals 1Master 3atp250 (current system)
'98=Won 3Masters 1 atp500 2atp250 Finals 1 AO

Sampras '97=Won 2GS AO and Wimby 2masters Cincy and Paris, 1WTFHannover 1atp500 Philadelphia 1atp250 sanjose Finals None
'98=Won 1GS Wimby 2atp500 Philadelphia,VIenna 1ATP250atlanta Finals 2Masters Cincy,Paris 1atp250 1san jose

based on that alone at the end of those years ranking points with current (2012) point system
Rios 97=2050pts
Sampras97= 8250pts
Ok,Sampras 97N°1 was ok

Rios 98= 5200pts.
Sampras 98=4600
AS well Rios could have been yer end N°1 counting only Wins and Runner-ups

to me it shows nothing more of a faulty ranking system
Don¿t tak this too serously i did this just for fun

i think rios was N°1 just because he was consistent enough in abrief period of time where the other number one contenders (1-5) weren't
he might be the male wozniacki:)
 

timnz

Legend
Vitas and Rafter

Mentioning "talent and "never won major" brings Marcelo Rios to one's mind.

Watch some of his matches (or higlights of) on youtube vs. Agassi... or others...

Can't remember many others - how good was Gerulaitis (well, maybe not great) - did he ever win a major (not as I recall).

Rafter (well, I don't consider him to be in the rank of greatness, but sure he was darn good), Leconte - huge talent - but...

How many others?
Vitas won the Australian Open and he also won the WCT finals (which was regarded as a major by many in the 1970's).

Rafter won 2 US Opens in 1997, 1998
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I don't agree. Mecir was very enigmatic, never had a coach while on the tour, and could dish out a beating to any player on his day, even a bad matchup like Lendl. He had this ability to slowly rally back and forth, and then suddenly quicken the pace and end the point out of nowhere, hence his nickname, the big cat. If his opponent then tried to up the pace, they really were in big trouble, especially if they gave Mecir angles to work with. A very dangerous player, and Wilander in particular, hated playing against him.
One of you say Mecir. But I believe Nalbandian, Davy, Tsonga and Soderling are better player.
Well, if those four ganged up on Mecir and played as one "player", then yes.
Talent is subjective of course but Miloslav Mecir is one of the most talented players I've ever seen.
 

BTURNER

Legend
First, Boredon, this is the first thread in a long time to that has openly invited input on both genders from the OP on. I don't have to wonder if bringing up the women is actually viewed as a welcome contribution by the author of the thread, or just an unavoidable distraction to the discussion.

In my view, Sukova with two or more wins over both Evert and Navratilova is the best bet. She was the best of a generation of players that had the misfortune to play spanning the eras' of three potential GOAT players, who's prime was just as Evert and Navratilova began to subside, and Graf's was blossoming. By the time, Graf and Seles were hogging both sides of the draw after Evert and Martina were done doing the same, her confidence as a major player had been sapped for good.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
For the women...a little more in depth on my opinion.

Dementieva- Certainly a talented player who sadly had one of the worst serves in the history of womens tennis. It was hideous...and her 2nd serve was worse. But at the same time she had an immensely powerful return and booming groundstrokes. She made 2 major finals and looking back its sad she wasn't able to win one of them. The 2004 French was a total embarassment..she imploded in what should have been a winnable match. She is talent wise better then Myskina was at the time..she just couldn't keep her head under control. The 2004 US Open she wasn't totally herself in the final and really couldn't capitilize due to injury..Kuzzy bullied her but considering things Dementieva didn't play horribly. The 2010 French was sad..injured early she still made the SF and gave Schiavone all she could handle in the one set she was able to play before retiring. Wimbledon in 2009 was sort of disappointing..had a match point in the SF...although she wouldn't have won the title anyway. She was talented. She had all the tools...except the guts in some big moments. Despite her weaknesses she won over 500 matches, spent many years in the top 10, and set records with her return.

Sukova- She was gifted, but way way to erratic in her delivery. She scored several big grass wins over Navratilova, including spoiling her bid for the true grand slam, sadly after doing it she couldn't keep her form against Evert. She had the horrible luck to peak against Evert and Martina, then Steffi came along. She still made 4 major finals, 1 YEC final and won several big tournaments during her career. She could play..just not consistently. One of a handful of people to defeat both Navratilova and Evert at the same tournament. 6 Viriginia Slims Titles...and of course arguably the Greatest Doubles player of the 80's. After Nav/Shriver.

Shriver- Made her lone final at what? 16? She actually played Evert close even though she lost in straight sets. She didn't just rollover for Chris and actually made her earn both of the sets. Before losing to Evert she had straight setted Navratilova...the reigning Wimbledon Champion...in the SF. Not like she couldn't play.She had great set up, amazing volleys. Her forehand was well...weird, but it was functional. She won 17 Virginia Slims titles. From 1981-1983 she entrered 10 majors and made the SF at 5. Like Sukova had the problem of peaking with Martina and Chris. By the time Steffi came along Pam was pretty much winding down from her best. After 1987 she only made the SF of Wimbledon once..then even further down she went. But she was still tricky.

Those would probably be my top 3 choices for the women. With maybe an Honorable mention to MJ Fernandez just because she made 3 major finals...but since she had such little success compared to the 3 above outside the majors I can't really say much about her.
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Now for the men- excluding Andy Murray who is the obvious choice at this point....other notable mentions

Henman- I have to at least mention him because of Wimbledon. He wanted it, he made all those SF's there, he put his heart on the court whenever he stepped onto it there...it just never happened for him.

Rios- Talented, capable...sadly erratic in the big moment. Had all the tools just not able to capitilize on them. Kafelnikov won several and Rios never did...always kind of a shame to me as he was just as talented/more so in some aspects yet he never got the breaks.

Nalbandian- Insanely, Insanely Talented...sadly often always Insanely Insanely injured! SF's at all the majors shows an all surface ability. He is a fighter, and despite everything he has gone up and down through he refuses to quit. Have to admire his grit.

Okker- Don't know a ton about him, but his record seems to speak for itself.

Haas- Ok I might be in a minority here, but prior to the poisoning/illness/injury he was a solid player. Maybe not the best to not win a major outright but has to be considered...at least in my opinion.

Todd Martin- 2 Major finals, memorable 5 setter in the 1999 US Open final against Agassi. 8 titles. His style was in my opinion sometimes to conservative, but he made the most of what he had.
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
In terms of open eara players, for sure Nalbandian. Arguably the best backhand in the history of the game, a phenom who oozes boatloads of natural talent higher then even some of the semi greats like Edberg or Becker but was sidelined from injuries, lack of good coaching and never achieved a fraction of his potential greatness.

Rios 2nd and Murray 3rd.
 
Last edited:

Juan Ma Del Pony

Professional
Women: Safina. 3 GS finals, at least 2 of which she had a real shot in -- against Ivanovic, seeking her first GS at the time and no mental giant herself, and against Kuznetsova, a notorious choker/fellow headcase Russian, although my favorite Russian. Also I find Safina to have been the best of the 3 recent Slamless No. 1's that we've had on the women's side.

Men: Nalbandian. Got screwed by officials at USO 2003 SF but screwed himself over in AO 2006, losing to Baghdatis, and FO 2006, retiring against Federer with some abdominal injury or some such. Never the same player at Slams again.

Pending acceptance to this list:
Women: Wozniacki
Men: Murray

^^These two above still have a chance to get off the list and it's too soon to critique their careers anyway IMO.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Women: Safina. 3 GS finals, at least 2 of which she had a real shot in -- against Ivanovic, seeking her first GS at the time and no mental giant herself, and against Kuznetsova, a notorious choker/fellow headcase Russian, although my favorite Russian.
While in theory she had a decent shot in both matches, she did actually play well in the 2008 RG final and still lost fairly comfortably in the end. The 2009 RG final she did not play well but Kuznetsova is a more talented player than she is and was in top form that day, so whether she would have won even with her typical 2009 clay performance is questionable.

Really Safina was an overachiever IMO. She was much more hard work and willpower than natural talent. Her back injury was tragic however in that it kept her from doing even more. She was definitely a better player than Wozniacki is today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
First, Boredon, this is the first thread in a long time to that has openly invited input on both genders from the OP on. I don't have to wonder if bringing up the women is actually viewed as a welcome contribution by the author of the thread, or just an unavoidable distraction to the discussion.

In my view, Sukova with two or more wins over both Evert and Navratilova is the best bet. She was the best of a generation of players that had the misfortune to play spanning the eras' of three potential GOAT players, who's prime was just as Evert and Navratilova began to subside, and Graf's was blossoming. By the time, Graf and Seles were hogging both sides of the draw after Evert and Martina were done doing the same, her confidence as a major player had been sapped for good.
I would pick Sukova except for some glaring flaws:

1. She was 0-21 vs Graf, excluding her win over Graf when Graf was only 14.

2. She never ended a year ranked higher than #6 I believe (correct me if I am wrong).

3. She was consistently ranked behind Shriver while both were in their primes, so the theory she was a better player than Shriver is questionable at best.

4. She was 3-9 lifetime against Shriver, which goes back to point #3 as well.


Not to mention she was so easily dropped as a top player at a relatively young age once the more modern racquets came and more depth in the womens game came in the early 90s. This shouldnt have happened if she were really that good.
 

Juan Ma Del Pony

Professional
Honestly I'm just glad my favorite women's player of all time, Amelie Mauresmo, finally got off of this list in 2006. It used to be like a Greek tragedy watching her in the early 2000's, listening to commentators drool over game, only for her to collapse mentally again and again in the later stages of Slams.
 

ark_28

Legend
Mark Philippoussis to me is very underrated the guy won a masters title and reached the final of two majors and beat both Sampras and Agassi in the majors he was also instrumental on more than one occasion to Australia winning the Davis Cup
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Mark Philippoussis to me is very underrated the guy won a masters title and reached the final of two majors and beat both Sampras and Agassi in the majors he was also instrumental on more than one occasion to Australia winning the Davis Cup
Yes, Philippoussis was very dangerous on his day.
 
E

elpolaco84

Guest
Women: Safina. 3 GS finals, at least 2 of which she had a real shot in -- against Ivanovic, seeking her first GS at the time and no mental giant herself, and against Kuznetsova, a notorious choker/fellow headcase Russian, although my favorite Russian. Also I find Safina to have been the best of the 3 recent Slamless No. 1's that we've had on the women's side.

Men: Nalbandian. Got screwed by officials at USO 2003 SF but screwed himself over in AO 2006, losing to Baghdatis, and FO 2006, retiring against Federer with some abdominal injury or some such. Never the same player at Slams again.

Pending acceptance to this list:
Women: Wozniacki
Men: Murray

^^These two above still have a chance to get off the list and it's too soon to critique their careers anyway IMO.
Agreed.2003 SF was clearly screwed for the local boy and last american hope
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Women- Honestly nodody. I dont think any of the main candidates deserved a slam:

Fernandez- Something like 0-23 vs Graf and Seles excluding her 1 win over a 15 year old Seles. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Sukova- 21 losses in a row to Steffi Graf. Never ended a year ranked in the top 5. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Shriver- 17 losses in a row to Chris Evert. Still in her prime wins only 5 games combined in 4 sets in 2 Wimbledon semis with teenage Graf. No ground game, no movement. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Dementieva- Couldnt win a slam while arguably peaking in the worst WTA ever. Other peak was in mid 2000s and she got destroyed by Myskina and easily beaten by an upstart Kuznetsova in her other slam final. Doesnt deserve a slam.

Turnbull, Casals- too small, too underpowered, too easily crushed too often by best players. Dont deserve a slam.

Morozova- someone even mentioning her, that has to be a joke.

Jaeger- Maybe her brief career level of play kept up for 10 or more years would be enough to qualify her as best not to win a slam if she kept it up that long and still didnt win one. However as she retired at 18, does deserve a slam. Anyway Navratilova claims she played a bad match in the 83 Wimbledon final and still lost only 3 games, while at her peak could get only 2 games off Evert in the U.S Open semis, and was easily beaten by a pre dominant Navratilova on clay in her only other slam final.

Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki- No, no, no. Couldnt even scalp one off the worst WTA ever they all scalped their #1 rankings off of.

I guess if I had to pick one it would one it would be Jaeger since she is the only one who made me write more lines on. Really there should be no winner though. Everyone that deserved a slam got one, and even many who really didnt deserve one also did.



Men there are many possabilities:

Henri LeConte
Alex Corretja (French Open)
Marcelo Rios
Todd Martin
Miloslav Mecir
David Nalbandian
Nikolay Davydenko
Tom Okker
Herbie Flam
Vinnie Richards

However the current winner is clearly Andy Murray. No it isnt CERTAIN he will win a slam, so until he does he is the only logical choice. With all his Masters titles, consistently top 4 ranking over many years, and many slam finals and semis, nobody comes close.
Excellent post.

In a way Dementieva won a major in the Olympics.

Elizabeth "Bunny" Ryan is a possibility for the women.

How about Raul Ramirez and Gene Mayer on the men's side?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Also true of Pancho Segura.
True. I forgot about Pancho Segura. He's now number one on my list. He beat many greats, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Frank Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, Cooper, Anderson, Frank Parker. He also won a lot of tournaments and a number of Pro Majors like Nusslein did.

Can't believe I forgot about the legendary Segura.

Thanks for reminding me.:)
 
Last edited:

jaggy

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes Gene Mayer was a great player, never got it done in slams really for some reason, more a best of 3 type guy?
 

krosero

Legend
True. I forgot about Pancho Segura. He's now number one on my list. He beat many greats, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Frank Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, Cooper, Anderson, Frank Parker. He also won a lot of tournaments and a number of Pro Majors like Nusslein did.

Can't believe I forgot about the legendary Segura.

Thanks for reminding me.:)
Now if we could only find some good footage of that forehand.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I would pick Sukova except for some glaring flaws:

1. She was 0-21 vs Graf, excluding her win over Graf when Graf was only 14.

2. She never ended a year ranked higher than #6 I believe (correct me if I am wrong).

3. She was consistently ranked behind Shriver while both were in their primes, so the theory she was a better player than Shriver is questionable at best.

4. She was 3-9 lifetime against Shriver, which goes back to point #3 as well.


Not to mention she was so easily dropped as a top player at a relatively young age once the more modern racquets came and more depth in the womens game came in the early 90s. This shouldnt have happened if she were really that good.
Movement was a weakness in Sukova. She simply could not run down that forehand nor could she read it. The Graf slice was perfect against the tall Helena, forcing her to bend low and volley up over and over. It was a terrible match-up.

Shriver is barely in the running here, with only that lone final at 16 because she could hardly ever perform in majors . Shriver was better when it mattered least, at smaller venues and more consistently beat those lower ranked but was 0-14 vs Evert before she got a single win with Evert at 32 years old. Sukova could at least beat one GOAT to get to a major final! Mostly the difference between the two, was that Sukova had enough power off both wings from the ground to penetrate Evert's groundstroke fortress or pass Martina with speed of shot. Shriver was steadier but had no weapons from the back beyond accurate placement of her underspin.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
How is going 0-21 vs Graf any worse than going 0-14 vs Evert? One is as bad as the other, even if you feel Graf is better than Evert. Both were owned by one of their GOAT contemporaries to the point of complete ineptitude. Shriver atleast showed she could beat Graf, doing it in 1988 at the biggest non slam event, during Graf's Grand Slam year no less. Sukova didnt get her first ever win over Chris until she was 31 as well, it might well be if she was Shriver's age she would have a similar streak of futility against her as Pam, in addition to failing to match Pam's mild success vs Graf. Both showed they could beat Navratilova in big matches, no difference there really.

OK Sukova did better making all those slam finals, but her prime spilled over into the Graf era where for awhile there was only Graf on top, then made another one after the Seles stabbing. Shriver had to deal with atleast 2 of Navratilova, Evert, Graf, at the very top during all her prime playing years.

I agree Sukova had more talent and a better game but Pam had a better mind and superior nerve. She also exploited what she did well very well, Helena didnt seem to understand what game style she wanted to incorporate often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
True. I forgot about Pancho Segura. He's now number one on my list. He beat many greats, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Frank Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, Cooper, Anderson, Frank Parker. He also won a lot of tournaments and a number of Pro Majors like Nusslein did.

Can't believe I forgot about the legendary Segura.

Thanks for reminding me.:)
OK, I change my vote to Segura!
 
Top