NAS
Hall of Fame
Shouldn't it be Murray with most finals ( not winning the slam)
Deserving players who never won slam
- Thread starter Roads_to_tennis
- Start date
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
He was never close to winning in any of those finals. And the question was who should replace Murray as the most worthy.
NAS
Hall of Fame
May be because he ran into two hc goats, ok with pat cash
And Corretja
Musterrific
Hall of Fame
Pioline.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
His Miami title was a tougher draw than a lot of players' Slam titles. He beat Edberg and Lendl, and went through 3 top 5 players. That's the brutal part about this sport is that he will never be considered a Grand Slam champion although he's deserves to be.
Tennis_Freak99
Legend
Djokovic 2007
NAS
Hall of Fame
Apart from us Open where he can win slam?
skaj
Legend
Depends on a player.
skaj
Legend
Nalbandian
Rios
Mecir
Monfils
Okker
Tsonga
Coria
Dimitrov
All had what it takes.
Women like Dementieva, Jankovic, Cibulkova would win at least one slam, if they were to play their best tennis against the current field.
Radwanska had a great game, too bad that she played in an era where power was practically necessary. In the 20th century she would've been a slam champion for sure.
Rios
Mecir
Monfils
Okker
Tsonga
Coria
Dimitrov
All had what it takes.
Women like Dementieva, Jankovic, Cibulkova would win at least one slam, if they were to play their best tennis against the current field.
Radwanska had a great game, too bad that she played in an era where power was practically necessary. In the 20th century she would've been a slam champion for sure.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Soderling maybe. Injuries hit him but who else can say they bludgeoned Rafa in his prime on clay best of 5? He deserves 2 slams just for doing that. Not sure why he laid such a stinker in the finals though. You just destroyed prime Rafa but can't beat Fed on clay? Yeaaaaa. 
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
In absolutely no world did Monfils have what it takes to win a Slam
skaj
Legend
I meant the abilities, not the mentality.
recreationalplayer
Semi-Pro
"What can be the reason for this."
From 2003 to 2021: Federer won 20 grand slam titles from 2003 to 2018. Nadal won 20 grand slam titles from 2005 to 2020. Djokovic won 20 grand slam titles from 2008 to 2021. So during the past 18 years they've won a total of 60 slams. 18 years x 4 per year = 72 slams - 60 = 12 - 1 (no Wimbledon 2020) = 11 slams for everyone else during the past 18 years. Regardless of who might be "deserving" 11 aren't many opportunities for everyone else during a very long span of 18 years.
From 2003 to 2021: Federer won 20 grand slam titles from 2003 to 2018. Nadal won 20 grand slam titles from 2005 to 2020. Djokovic won 20 grand slam titles from 2008 to 2021. So during the past 18 years they've won a total of 60 slams. 18 years x 4 per year = 72 slams - 60 = 12 - 1 (no Wimbledon 2020) = 11 slams for everyone else during the past 18 years. Regardless of who might be "deserving" 11 aren't many opportunities for everyone else during a very long span of 18 years.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Neither does Dimitrov. Leconte and Pioline are far better examples.
skaj
Legend
I was talking about abilities. Leconte and Pioline are also good candidates.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
I think ability-wise that Dimitrov could win something big, yes. Monfils has a lot of interesting shots, but almost never delivers anything when it counts.
skaj
Legend
He's not just a trick-shot master, he has a big serve, cannon forehand, at the same time spectacular defense. What a waste...
Similar threads
