Biggest 'gaping' hole in their career

Who has the biggest hole in his resume ?

  • Sampras - Never won the French Open, 0 final

    Votes: 48 64.9%

  • Nadal - Never won the WTF, only one surface dominant

    Votes: 15 20.3%

  • Borg - Never won the US Open, had chances on clay and hard court

    Votes: 11 14.9%
  • Total voters
    74
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Which of the following great players in the open era has the biggest hole in his resume?

Sampras - Never won the French Open, 0 final
Nadal - Never won the WTF, only one surface dominant
Borg - Never won the US Open, had chances on clay and hard court
 
Sampras for never winning the French while the Clay competition was nowhere near as tough as right now (Stitch, Muster, Bruguera, Corretja, Courier, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, etc...).

Let's face it, if there was no Nadal in the 90's and Federer or Djokovic would play in the 90's, either or would win every FO except for a couple of losses from Kuerten and maybe an on fire Muster.
 
TMF said:
Which of the following great players in the open era has the biggest hole in his resume?

Sampras - Never won the French Open, 0 final
Nadal - Never won the WTF, only one surface dominant
Borg - Never won the US Open, had chances on clay and hard court
Click to expand...
Hmm, I guess Sampras. Though in a sense, he was never expected to win it.
Borg was, I guess (he's before my time), expected to win the US at some point and came closer than anyone else on your shortlist by virtue of his 4 finals (2 losses to Connors, two to McEnroe iirc). So in that sense, it's a big hole, because he came that close. But the 4 finals also mitigate the hole.
Rafa is in between the 2 - not completely being expected to win it, but having a couple of chances. And it's not a slam though it's the 5th most important event.

All in all, it has to be Sampras.
 
Good thread. Those are som big tournaments that they have failed to win wich leaves a big hole in their resume.

But Sampras has the biggest hole. Not completing the career golden slam will put him down comparing him to other greats.
 
i think borg not winning the usopen is a bigger hole than sampras not winning the french. red clay is a pretty specialized surface so theres a reason why alot of americans didnt win it. borg couldnt win on har-tru or hardcourts. he said he was unlucky but i think the night playing under lights (he said it was hard to see) and the noisy crowds had something to do with it too. many europeans seem to have trouble adapting there at least at first.
 
Chanwan said:
Hmm, I guess Sampras. Though in a sense, he was never expected to win it.
Borg was, I guess (he's before my time), expected to win the US at some point and came closer than anyone else on your shortlist by virtue of his 4 finals (2 losses to Connors, two to McEnroe iirc). So in that sense, it's a big hole, because he came that close. But the 4 finals also mitigate the hole.
Rafa is in between the 2 - not completely being expected to win it, but having a couple of chances. And it's not a slam though it's the 5th most important event.

All in all, it has to be Sampras.
Click to expand...

RF-18 said:
Good thread. Those are som big tournaments that they have failed to win wich leaves a big hole in their resume.

But Sampras has the biggest hole. Not completing the career golden slam will put him down comparing him to other greats.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and those are good points.

Sampras was far from winning the FO while Borg and Nadal was very close to win the USO and WTF respectively. OTOH, Borg had a chance to win the USO on clay, not just on hard court since the USO change the surface to hard court in 1978. Nadal worst surface is indoor, but since the WTF conditions has changed...it isn't lighting fast anymore and the balls are less inflated, that gives Nadal a better chance.

Sampras's worst surface is clay but at least he should have made one final, so my vote goes to him too.
 
Federer not winning historic and prestigious Rome. Sampras is laughing at him, and he wasn't even that great on the surface, so we can't pick him!
 
Soul_Evisceration said:
Sampras for never winning the French while the Clay competition was nowhere near as tough as right now (Stitch, Muster, Bruguera, Corretja, Courier, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, etc...).

Let's face it, if there was no Nadal in the 90's and Federer or Djokovic would play in the 90's, either or would win every FO except for a couple of losses from Kuerten and maybe an on fire Muster.
Click to expand...

90s clay just exploded:D.
 
FanOfLu said:
What about Federer's failure at the Olympics Singles Event ?
Click to expand...

Silver medal is bad? Plus double's gold. That's two medals. Plus given that Nicolas "never heard of him" Massu won singles gold in 2004 which took all prestige away from it anyway. Also, if OG was important then Nadal would have played it instead of playing 2012 Halle singles and doubles on same surface. Finally, if OG was that important it would be worth more than 750 points. As it stands it is worth less than any ATP 1000 masters.
 
Last edited:
TMF said:
Then Wilander should also be mention since he never went beyond the QF at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Which indicates he probably wasn't good enough on British summertime grass to win it. Lendl patently was with five semi berths & being the losing finalist twice.
 
dudeski said:
Silver medal is bad? Plus double's gold. That's two medals. Plus given that Nicolas "never heard of him" Massu won singles gold in 2004 which took all prestige away from it anyway. Also, if OG was important then Nadal would have played it instead of playing 2012 Halle singles and doubles on same surface. Finally, if OG was that important it would be worth more than 750 points. As it stands it is worth less than any ATP 1000 masters.
Click to expand...
People like to bring up Massu as a way to play down the Olympics but he and Gonzales were playing out of their minds during it and were extremely motivated to win Gold for the first (and last) time ever for Chile. I haven't seen such intense single-mindedness since
 
1. Sampras - I mean he was the slam record holder but without a career slam on all surfaces.

2. Nadal - While the title itself is a huge hole the reasons and story behind why he does not have one are what make the bigger hole. Nadal has a history of terrible end of seasons after USO riddled with sitting out or losing early. Nadal has a terrible indoor hard court record. Nadal lobbies about how unfair it is to always play it on hard court and to move it to clay (this says a lot about his belief that he can win the tournament as it is but needs it moved to his specialized surface to win it.)

3. Borg - could not over come Johnny Mac on his home turf when it counted.
 
Nadal: Never lost a match without claiming to have been injured.

Djokovic: Never argued entertainingly with an umpire.

Roddick: Aimed the injury bashing at the wrong player (Djokovic instead of Nadal)

Murray: Never lost a point without whining to himself about it.

Federer: Never admitted he hates Djokovic.
 
MatsPhilander said:
Which indicates he probably wasn't good enough on British summertime grass to win it. Lendl patently was with five semi berths & being the losing finalist twice.
Click to expand...

Wilander was too good a player elsewhere to just be poor at Wimbledon. I feel like I remember Wilander giving his own interpretation of why he did poorly was because he associated Wimbledon with it being this sanctuary of Borg's triumphs that was far removed from the clay courts that they both grew up on, like a sacred place to him, and he felt unworthy to play there which made him nervous and underplay.
 
Sampras, not even a final. Borg at least had to deal with McEnroe and Connors in multiple finals.
 
jelle v said:
LOL!!!! :lol:

One indeed should not google "gaping hole" when at the office.. I'm not even gonna try it, but I can;t help wondering what the results would be.. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Stereo MC'S-Connected-unless you have safe search off in which case there is some crazy stuff out there.
 
FanOfLu said:
What about Federer's failure at the Olympics Singles Event ?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is comparable to the three mentioned due to the rarity of the event. The Olympics only takes place once every 4 years and, unlike other sports where athletes prepare to peak for it as it is that sport's zenith, tennis has its own big 4 events every year that players try to peak for. So the rarity of the Olympics means that there is definite fortune involved. Nadal is the prime example - 2008 Olympics happened during the peakiest peak of his career, 2012 Olympics he missed through injury.

Having said that, Federer should have won it in 2004 easily. He was killing everyone at the time, but something about the Olympics gets to him like no other event. Near-inexplicable performances and losses to Berdych in 2004 and Blake in 2008. Started choking against Falla in 2012 before sorting himself. The Olympic singles gold means too much to him I think. He entered three Olympics, seeded #1, #2 and #1, and failed to win any of them. He will not win in 2016 and one of his very, very few regrets will be 2004 I think, since it clearly means a lot to him.

TMF said:
OTOH, Borg had a chance to win the USO on clay, not just on hard court since the USO change the surface to hard court in 1978.
Click to expand...

It was har tru clay as opposed to red clay. I am not particularly knowledgeable about this, but they apparently do play a bit differently.
 
1. Sampras never winning the FO or his poor record on clay in general.
2. Borg- no hard court slam.
3. Nadal- No WTF yet. Federer- no Olympic gold despite getting his best surface to play on.
 
zep said:
2. Borg- no hard court slam.
Click to expand...

It is not winning a US Open that is the hole, not no hard court Major.

Borg only ever played 4 Majors on hard court and reached the final of 3 of them. For comparison, it took Federer and Nadal until their 11th Major on clay and hard respectively to win one. Sampras played 13 Majors on clay without a final.

This is not the modern world with 2 Majors a year on hard court.

Borg played 8 US Opens as a current holder of a Major, reached 4 finals, but failed to pull one off. The closest he got was 1980 where he and McEnroe went 5 sets (having both gone 5 sets the day before) and were at 3-3 in the 5th when McEnroe broke.
 
LOL at some of the rubbish that goes on here these days.

How can not winning a YEC/WTF title be worse than not having a major like RG or the USO?

I guess these are the intelligent Fed fans you speak of aren't they NatF? :lol:
 
Nadal. Not so much not winning the WTC, which is a big hole indeed, but the fact that he can claim dominance only on one single surface.
 
TMF said:
Thanks, and those are good points.

Sampras was far from winning the FO while Borg and Nadal was very close to win the USO and WTF respectively. OTOH, Borg had a chance to win the USO on clay, not just on hard court since the USO change the surface to hard court in 1978. Nadal worst surface is indoor, but since the WTF conditions has changed...it isn't lighting fast anymore and the balls are less inflated, that gives Nadal a better chance.

Sampras's worst surface is clay but at least he should have made one final, so my vote goes to him too.
Click to expand...

You forget that Sampras does have a SF FO to his name, only one level less than Nadal and WTF. And an Italian Open title
 
An exo a gaping hole. ROFLMAO. Borg wins. Sampras never had chance in Paris. Borg tried and tried and was close, but couldn't do it.

The biggest gaping hole in tennis right now is Nole in Paris. He knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. If he wants a chance to be up there with Sampras, Fed, and Nadal, he needs it.
 
dudeski said:
Silver medal is bad? Plus double's gold. That's two medals. Plus given that Nicolas "never heard of him" Massu won singles gold in 2004 which took all prestige away from it anyway.
Click to expand...

Gaston "never heard of him" Gaudio won the French Open in the same year. Did that take all prestige away from it too?

dudeski said:
Also, if OG was important then Nadal would have played it instead of playing 2012 Halle singles and doubles on same surface.
Click to expand...

Nadal withdrew from the tour with injury following his first round exit at Wimbledon. That's why he didn't play the Olympics!

dudeski said:
Finally, if OG was that important it would be worth more than 750 points. As it stands it is worth less than any ATP 1000 masters.
Click to expand...

Here, you raise a good point. IMO the ATP are too stingy with the points awarded. Given its growing prestige, it should be at least worth the equivalent of a Masters if not a bit more.
 
This was barely an issue when Sampras played. He was just not as good on clay. He didn't need to, he won enough of the rest, there was no one around good enough he could be compared with.
I don't remember people saying "Sampras' unsuccessful FO appearances are really a gap in his career".
This thing actually started only when Federer & Nadal started to dominate (Nadal on clay, Federer on hard & grass). It was about winning a title on the opponents main surface. Having something more than the other. I would never call Nadals missing WTF a "big gap" in his career.

Whereas Borg was many times so close winning the US Open that it can be considerer as a "gap" - because he was so close and still didn't manage it. Being close to something and still failing makes a bigger "gap".

(I don't think anyone is considering Nadal to close his other "gap" - Paris...)
 
coloskier said:
You forget that Sampras does have a SF FO to his name, only one level less than Nadal and WTF. And an Italian Open title
Click to expand...

I didn't forget, it's just that he didn't make a single final say how far he was away from winning the FO while Nadal and Borg have made multiple finals on their worst tournament.

Sampras winning Rome is the same as Nadal winning Madrid(indoor). Both have only 1 Master Shield on their worst surface.
 
Lendl not getting his Wimbledon win is a major hole in his career.

Wilander at Wimbledon....he did win the double title there (an achievement he rates as one of his very best).
 
galain said:
Lendl not getting his Wimbledon win is a major hole in his career.

Wilander at Wimbledon....he did win the double title there (an achievement he rates as one of his very best).
Click to expand...

If Lendl was in the same tier great as Sampras/Nadal/Borg, then I would have included him in the poll. Lendl gaping hole is comparable to Connors, who is in the same tier great and his hole is that he never won the FO. Not even made 1 final.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Biggest hole in a players resume?
3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
12K
Deleted member 716271
D
G
  • Poll Poll
Does Alcaraz surpass Nadal in the all-time rankings if he wins the WTF?
2
Replies
64
Views
1K
The Blond Blur
The Blond Blur
clout
  • Poll Poll
Besides Rafa at Roland Garros, which player has dominated their "pet slam" the most?
2 3
Replies
107
Views
5K
NoleFam
NoleFam
D
Biggest hole in All-time Great Resumes
2
Replies
74
Views
7K
Anti-Fedal
A
T
Great Players - what are their biggest achievements and biggest gaps in their Resumes?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Smasher08
Smasher08
Back
Top