Deserving players who never won slam

goldengate14

Professional
Davydenko and Henman are in contention for that.

I'd probably pick Davy due to his impressive resume outside the slams.
Davydenk could not play best of fie though. I feel Nalbandian deserves tjis as he was cheated out of the USO Roddick won by the dodgiest line call of all time
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Best player to never win a slam by far.
Mecir made tennis look more simple than any player has managed. Mecir was capable of making the best players look silly when playing his best tennis. No coach, either. Wilander, in particular, had loads of demons in his mind about Mecir. Wilander the analyzer found Mecir almost impossible to understand at times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Ferrer for me. He wasn’t the best too watch and had no weapons to beat the big 3 but he always beat the rest of the tour then was spanked by the big 3.
 

TennisLurker

Semi-Pro
The best slamless players I've seen are Corretja and Nalbandian, after them Berdych.
The best chances for Corretja were the French opens that were won by Moya and Agassi. I never watched the Meligeni Corretja match, and find it hard to understand how Corretja could get trashed by a journeyman.

The best chance for Nalbandian was the Us Open of 2003, that 5 sets semifinal he lost to Roddick with some controversy, iirc, about some spectator yelling out and making Nalbandian think it was a linesman/woman. Nalbandian later that year trashed Ferrero very easily in RR of the masters.

I think Nalbandian would have won at least one slam, and he would have had a longer career, if he hadn't been overweight during his prime. I remember a lot of retirements with abdominal tears, bad stamina, and the extra weight is very bad on the joints. He only has himself to blame for that.
 

goldengate14

Professional
The best slamless players I've seen are Corretja and Nalbandian, after them Berdych.
The best chances for Corretja were the French opens that were won by Moya and Agassi. I never watched the Meligeni Corretja match, and find it hard to understand how Corretja could get trashed by a journeyman.

The best chance for Nalbandian was the Us Open of 2003, that 5 sets semifinal he lost to Roddick with some controversy, iirc, about some spectator yelling out and making Nalbandian think it was a linesman/woman. Nalbandian later that year trashed Ferrero very easily in RR of the masters.

I think Nalbandian would have won at least one slam, and he would have had a longer career, if he hadn't been overweight during his prime. I remember a lot of retirements with abdominal tears, bad stamina, and the extra weight is very bad on the joints. He only has himself to blame for that.
Nalbandian was cheated that USO. Still annoys me to this day
 

gadge

Hall of Fame
I definitely consider Dementieva, along with Sukova and Shriver, the best ladies to not have a major title. But its still a small list. Stretch the point and add potentially Safina, MJ Fernandez....Morozova? Its not like...a huge list no matter how you swing it out.
No definitely not a long list.
 

Kralingen

Legend
In terms of peak level shown at the tournament they ended up losing:

Soderling RG ‘09/10 & Tsonga AO ‘08

are ahead of the rest of the pile imo. Nalbandian never really did it at Slams for me. Mecir also seems to be a great choice.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
You could Davy could have won AO in 2006 without Fed.

And yes, I do blame peak Fed nor Nikolay not reaching a slam final while Nishikori has one.
You are assuming that he will going to beat Keifer and Nalbandian/ Baggy.
From that match Fed was tired so pretty sure Davy was also tired.
The only player from AO 06 hypothetical winner is Nalbandian, if he finish Baggy in three sets, he take out Fed or Nikolay or Keifer
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Many players like David ferrer, Tomáš Berdych, etc
never won slam. What can be the reason for this. They also had a good tennis. I am really curious to know
Many thanks
In their era, 4 players were consistently better than them. Unfortunately neither could catch a break where none of those 4 were in a position to stop them.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Radwanska comes to mind. She had great technique often won "the shot of the week/month" but never won a slam.
She came closest at 2012 Wimbledon where she took Serena to 3 sets in the final. Missed a golden opportunity the following year when she unexpectedly lost a close 3 setter to Lisicki in the semis. Might have beaten Bartoli in the final.
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Many that lost slams deserved them. And some that won deserved them not. Can you take them away? Then do not be too eager to deal out slams in judgement.
 

grinsidetennis

New User
Absolutely Tomas Berdych.. but after following him for many years i was almost convinced he didn't want to... Maybe i should open a thread abt this sometime. His behaviour was very suspicious in many crucial moments.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Nah, surely to be considered you have to at least make a slam final. ;)

On topic tho, it's very difficult to pick when you really think about it. Like from the big 3/4 era alone you've got Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer and then you've got classic picks like Nalbandian. Here's some food for thought tho, both Soderling and Anderson have made more slam finals than all previously mentioned players with 2 finals despite both having disappointing careers outside of that (for obviously different reasons) so where do they rank in comparison?
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
In terms of substantial chances AO 08 Tsonga. That was a legit great run with a quality final.
I guess the whole line AO 07 Gonzo - AO 08 Tsonga - AO 09 Verdasco played some ridiculous tennis.

The rest would be "deserving" more as a coronation of their career. (Mecir, Berdych, Corretja, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Davydenko)
 

spottishwood

Semi-Pro
In terms of substantial chances AO 08 Tsonga. That was a legit great run with a quality final.
I guess the whole line AO 07 Gonzo - AO 08 Tsonga - AO 09 Verdasco played some ridiculous tennis.

The rest would be "deserving" more as a coronation of their career. (Mecir, Berdych, Corretja, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Davydenko)
I still don't know what was Rafa up to in that tourney lol.

Also, Tommy Haas deserves a mention for attempting numerous comebacks.
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
How are we defining "deserving"? like got there should have honestly won but got injured, choked or something? or had the game and just ran into GOAT/ATG competition?
When Berdych beat Novak (admittedly the dodgy serve 2010 version) in the QF of Wimbledon he didn't get Jason Stoltenberg in the semi-final he got Federer. When he beat Federer he didn't get MaliVai Washington in the final he got Rafa Nadal.

Berdych might've ended his career looking out of ideas against the top guys and moving like a laden JCB but that he never won a slam and someone such as Krajicek did doesn't seem entirely fair, does it?

The reality is that if a player isn't the, or at least a match for the, elite player of a given era on a particular surface, or at a given slam, then they're not in charge of what they can achieve in their career. The question is as much about if the likes of Krajicek, Stich, Cilic, Moya, Korda, et-al were deserving of their one as it is about the likes of Berdych, Anderson, Tsonga, Ferrer, et-al being deserving of at least one themselves.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Clerc, Forget, Leconte
Philippouis did de serve in the final against Rafter but he didn’t win de slam
Scud (Mark Philippoussis) has to be in there
In the last 40 years or so Leconte is the correct answer, followed by Scud who wasn't quite as creative, versatile or mobile but almost makes up for it in power.

When Berdych beat Novak (admittedly the dodgy serve 2010 version) in the QF of Wimbledon he didn't get Jason Stoltenberg in the semi-final he got Federer. When he beat Federer he didn't get MaliVai Washington in the final he got Rafa Nadal.

Berdych might've ended his career looking out of ideas against the top guys and moving like a laden JCB but that he never won a slam and someone such as Krajicek did doesn't seem entirely fair, does it?

The reality is that if a player isn't the, or at least a match for the, elite player of a given era on a particular surface, or at a given slam, then they're not in charge of what they can achieve in their career. The question is as much about if the likes of Krajicek, Stich, Cilic, Moya, Korda, et-al were deserving of their one as it is about the likes of Berdych, Anderson, Tsonga, Ferrer, et-al being deserving of at least one themselves.
You keep pushing this fallacious compuhtishion rationale but it's ultimately useless if the player in question doesn't conquer the same draws of those 1-Slammers. Berdych ain't winning any of those Slams at a similar stage in his career.

In fact it's quite comical to see Cilic in there when he thrashed Birdman in straights at the very Slam he won. I mean fantasizing about the "weak" '90s is one thing, but this? JFC
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Enough of this Mecir (or Rios or Nalby) worship. Barring an extraordinary set of circumstances no man without a serve wins a major in any era. Period.

Miami was considered the fifth major in those years.
That's marketing. It's fair to say the AO then wasn't on par with the other 3 but Miami? A hard HELL NO. There's more to a Slam than a stacked draw (at least on paper) or the best-of-5 format.

lol no he wasn't.
That call was bad, but yeah to call it cheating is just sour grapes.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Enough of this Mecir (or Rios or Nalby) worship. Barring an extraordinary set of circumstances no man without a serve wins a major in any era. Period.



That's marketing. It's fair to say the AO then wasn't on par with the other 3 but Miami? A hard HELL NO. There's more to a Slam than a stacked draw (at least on paper) or the best-of-5 format.



That call was bad, but yeah to call it cheating is just sour grapes.
Didn't say it was on par with the other three, don't think it has to be in order to be considered the fifth major.
 

Frenchy-Player

Professional
Deserving ? tennis is a sport, you have the capacity/talent or not to win a slam on two weeks,.,like in life, we don’t always get what we deserve.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Enough of this Mecir (or Rios or Nalby) worship. Barring an extraordinary set of circumstances no man without a serve wins a major in any era. Period.



That's marketing. It's fair to say the AO then wasn't on par with the other 3 but Miami? A hard HELL NO. There's more to a Slam than a stacked draw (at least on paper) or the best-of-5 format.



That call was bad, but yeah to call it cheating is just sour grapes.
It was cheating but not because of point but by us open organization deliberat bad scheduling in favour of Agassi and Roddick
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Unfortunately one of many great players who just couldn't bring it to the Slams. Made 2 finals (86 USO, 89 AO) but got destroyed each time by his (then) compatriot, Lendl.
But Mecir embarrassed Lendl in the 1987 Miami final, including winding him up and playing to the crowd.
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
You keep pushing this fallacious compuhtishion rationale but it's ultimately useless if the player in question doesn't conquer the same draws of those 1-Slammers. Berdych ain't winning any of those Slams at a similar stage in his career.
It's a shame that you actually had a point in saying that ultimately any discussion of such a nature is useless unless two players literally played the same draw (and I'm adding that it matters that they're in the same kind of form) but then blew it by proclaiming Berdych wouldn't win any slam anyway.

The point is we don't know. We're speculating. Knock-out tournaments are not like league seasons where the occasional outlying result doesn't really matter to the outcome of the season, once a player is out of the tournament it doesn't matter how well they might have played two days later, they're out and a player can only beat who's in front of him.

There are a number of factors we can look into when speculating why one player picked up a slam during their career and another player of similar (or greater...) stature within the game didn't. One of those factors is quality of opposition faced. The strength of that argument might be debatable but that's rather the point of a discussion forum, isn't it?
 
Top