Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Funny, but only one-time GS champions are eligible.Nadal USO2017.
Funny, but only one-time GS champions are eligible.Nadal USO2017.
Funny, but only one-time GS champions are eligible.
Interesting to note that there 22 one time GS winners (if I didn't miss any). 10 are from Roland Garros.
Cilic was playing out of his mind in those matches.
He dominated them though, even if they were tired you expect at least one competitive set from them.Cilic. Very very very very......................................................(a million times) very overrated performance. Both Federer and Nishikori were gassed in their matches, and I really have no idea why people praise Cilic for beating them. His results after that USO clearly prove it was just a fluke. He can win matches only until he has a to face a top player who is a bit in form.
Nadal destroyed Del Potro convincingly in the semis at least.Why ?
If a player wins a single slam GOATing for those two weeks facing a real difficult draw, you are going to call that undeserved compared to a player resting on past laurels getting lucky ?
Nadal destroyed Del Potro convincingly in the semis at least.
Didn't know OP used this one-time champ criterion. OP, see my post above.
Djokovic? Nope haha. Nobody would have beaten that Cilic. His shoulders are bigger in that tournament, seems pumped up.We both know very well that Djokovic would blow him in the final, most probably in straight sets. Cilic was very lucky to face a tired Nishikori who had the hard draw.
The guy had reached three Wimbledon finals prior to his win in 2001, it's not like he won out of nowhere.Ivanesavic - did he ever win anything else?
Why disgrace? I understand Korda and his testosterone issue.Each one deserves the title they won because they proved they were best in those two weeks. Can't take that away from them.
Having said that, if I had to choose, it would be Johansson in AO 2002. That joker should not be anywhere near a slam title. The most undeserving champion and a disgrace to our sport.
Yeah, with a 1st-serve percentage of 56% against Federer.![]()
Well I agree he should not be listed but he did kind of win out of nowhere. He was a wildcard and most thought his best days were gone.The guy had reached three Wimbledon finals prior to his win in 2001, it's not like he won out of nowhere.
I agree that nobody believed in him and that it was a surprise, but, in my opinion, it's never out of nowhere with a proven surface specialist, especially with the career as Goran's.Well I agree he should not be listed but he did kind of win out of nowhere. He was a wildcard and most thought his best days were gone.
Each one deserves the title they won because they proved they were best in those two weeks. Can't take that away from them.
Having said that, if I had to choose, it would be Johansson in AO 2002. That joker should not be anywhere near a slam title. The most undeserving champion and a disgrace to our sport.
I haven't bothered to look it up but my answer is any player who won their lone grand slam during a player boycott. There you've got a player who doesn't have the skill to warrant such a prestigious title, along with lacking the morals and integrity to stand alongside fellow players in protest.
Playing a tired Nishikori helped matters. That was a huge break that guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga and Raonic didn't get.Agree. I hate Cilic but even I would admit that in the Fed game he played like an absolute maniac. He shocked everyone, and held his head brilliantly for the subsequent final. Fully deserved the win imo.
Wimb 2016 was a similar performance. He just choked. Would have reached the final otherwise.My vote goes for Cilic as well. Of course he played some shocking tennis those 2 weeks.
The quality of his tennis in the 2 weeks was só increditble, that he never repeted such a performance. Never.
That is why I say it was a really odd result that one.
A player that in just the period of 2 weeks played amazingly well, a performance that he never had before those 2 weeks, and never after those 2 weeks.
And this is odd!
Especially in the last week Cilic would have beaten anyone, as he did and easely bated Berdych, Djoko and Nishi. His level of tennis was out of the normality that, as a matter of fact, he never repeated it.
What happened to Cilic during USO 2014, and how he has been able to bring the game at such a maniacal level, for me it's a mistery.
I've always considered Gaudio least deserving, won by the skin of his teeth against a superior opponent (Coria) who choked it away. Gaudio has a double bagel loss against Federer to his credit
Thomas Johansson is a close second, had a run to the final similar to Nadals US open run, then played Safin who had one of his off days.
That he won Beijing and reached finals in Shanghai was good. If he had lost 1 round in China, USO win would have looked not great.I think current Nadal would have gone through a tougher draw at USO.
But winning a slam without facing a top 27 had never happened in open era. Not once. Nor twice. Never.
Just for that, USO 2017 deserves a mention, 1 slam winner or not.
A slam win always looks great, no matter what happens in the subsequent tournaments.That he won Beijing and reached finals in Shanghai was good. If he had lost 1 round in China, USO win would have looked not great.
Wimb 2016 was a similar performance. He just choked. Would have reached the final otherwise.
That he won Beijing and reached finals in Shanghai was good. If he had lost 1 round in China, USO win would have looked not great.
In Wimb 2017 not. But in 2016 he was awesome. Dropped only 1 set on his way to the QF. I would say that level was close to USO 2014.Desagree, not even half close in 2016. And not even in Wimby 2017, totally another player.
Yeah. An extremely difficult draw is more rare IMO.Luckily Pouille missed a sitter on MP and saved Nadal's USOI do agree Nadal's USO looks better in hindsight (in terms of his playing level) because after that 1R match in Bejing he went from strength to strength until that QF with Dimitrov in Shanghai really - around that match it looked like his level was dipping a bit.
It's still the easiest slam draw for quite some time. But when you compete at this level for over a decade you're bound to get some easier draws. It's impossible to win so many majors without the odd weaker draw.
Yeah. An extremely difficult draw is more rare IMO.
For winners an extremely difficult draw is more rare. Even the big 3 have had only 1 or 2 extremely difficult ones (like Federer AO 2017, Nadal AO 2009, Djokovic AO 2012).What would be an extremely difficult draw? I can name extremely difficult draws where a player has lost in the final but not so much for winners. I'm thinking quality opponents playing at their top level and depth here.
For winners an extremely difficult draw is more rare. Even the big 3 have had only 1 or 2 extremely difficult ones (like Federer AO 2017, Nadal AO 2009, Djokovic AO 2012).
The notion that you win 7 best of 5 matches in a field where the best of the world enter the tournament is ridiculous
Ban thread.
Lock OP.
We both know very well that Djokovic would blow him in the final, most probably in straight sets. Cilic was very lucky to face a tired Nishikori who had the hard draw.
Nishikori beat in-form Raonic and Wawrinka in five set thrillers, and then beat Djokovic who wasn't at his best, but still not easy.Cilic played with well during that US Open and both had to navigate a hard draw. Nishikori is no more deserving than Cilic.
Playing a tired Nishikori helped matters. That was a huge break that guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga and Raonic didn't get.
Cilic. Very very very very......................................................(a million times) very overrated performance. Both Federer and Nishikori were gassed in their matches, and I really have no idea why people praise Cilic for beating them. His results after that USO clearly prove it was just a fluke. He can win matches only until he has a to face a top player who is a bit in form.
Nishikori beat in-form Raonic and Wawrinka in five set thrillers, and then beat Djokovic who wasn't at his best, but still not easy.
Cilic on the other hand had to beat only Federer who was clearly tired in the semifinal. And please, don't even mention Berdych in the 1/4 finals. Don't make me laugh.![]()
For people that is not that into tennis, like most of the peopleA slam win always looks great, no matter what happens in the subsequent tournaments.
Who cares if he had lost in the 1st round of China? He would have always had the USO![]()
I know. But sometimes circumstances help when you're not a great player. Who's to say Bahgdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga and Raonic wouldn't have won their slam finals if they had faced someone like tired Nishikori instead of a peaking Big 4 player?That’s not Cilic’s fault that he succeeded while those players failed. No one deserves a GS title, it is earned.
Nadal USO2017.
you guys are too harsh with the nadal... his slam titles are as deserved as lance's toursEvery one, undeserved
Well we had a thread of players who would have deserved at least to be one time a GS champion.
How about seeing it from another angle. Who would be the GS champion that less deserved it?
I guess we have to look into the players that have won a GS just once, and there is a bunch of them.
Below a list in cronological time since open era.
Choose your favorite GS champ intruder!
-Andrés Gimeno
-Manuel Orantes
-Marc Edmondson
-Adriano Panatta
-Roscoe Tanner
-Vitas Gerulaitis
-Brian Teacher
-Yannick Noah
-Pat Cash
-Michael Chang
-Andrés Gomez
-MIchael Stich
-Thomas Muster
-Richard Krajicek
-Goran Ivanisevic
-Petr Korda
-Carlos Moya
-Thomas Johansonn
-Albert Costa
-Juan Carlos Ferrero
-Andy Roddick
-Gaston Gaudio
-Juan Martin del Potro
-Marin Cilic