Great 1-slam winner in the Open Era

[crimson87]

Del potro because if he wanted to win a slam or even a friggin masters series tournament he had to beat at least 2 of the greatest 3 players of all time + peak Murray in every single big tournament.

That, plus his injuries. Put 2017 2018 Del Potro on this era and he is a slam contender and number one candidate.

 

[TripleATeam]

I'd say there's 7 contenders. Stich, Roddick, Medvedev, Muster, Thiem, Gerulaitis, Delpo.

When considering 1-slam winners, you need to think about their finals (possibly semis), plus their opponents in their deep runs. Other considerations are their total trophy count, matchup history against their best competition, and the amount of Masters-level trophies they have (plus DC/YEC/Olympics).

In terms of slam statistics, Thiem/Roddick/Medvedev are all on the same level. 1 win, 4 finals, multiple semis. Roddick slightly ahead for his additional semis, not to mention playing all his finals (save the one he won) against a peak Roger Federer. I would then say Stich (very good win, but I'd argue his losses aren't fantastic and there are fewer of them to go off of). Slightly behind is Gerulaitis for me (simply for the weak 1977 AO), despite also having 2 finals and 5 SFs. Then Delpo then Muster. Muster really underperformed the French for how great he was in the premier clay tournaments.

In terms of non-slam stats, Medvedev and Muster have their own category. 6+ Master-level tourneys for both. Muster has 8 (+ a ton of lower level trophies), but Medvedev has 2 DCs and a YEC. I'd say Med first, Muster 2nd. Then Roddick (5 Masters, 1 DC), Gerulaitis/Stich, Thiem/Delpo. Everyone has roughly 20 titles other than Muster (44), Roddick (32), and then Gerulaitis (26).

At this point, Delpo probably falls off the list. Even a fantastic top-level matchup history wouldn't save him. I realize he got unlucky with injury, but that's life. We can only consider what he actually did do, not what he could have.

For matchup history:
Gerulaitis (vs Connors 20.8% out of 26, vs Borg 0% out of 18, McEnroe 21.4% out of 14). Tough to consider him, and with no stellar slam or non-slam stats, I wouldn't consider him further.

Muster held his own in matchups. (vs Bruguera 80% out of 15, vs Edberg 0% out of 11, vs Sampras 18% out of 9) are the standouts, went roughly even with Agassi, Moya, and was very positive against former #2s Corretja and Chang.

Stich was roughly even with almost everyone of note. Fell a bit behind Becker/Courier/Kafelnikov, but not massively (around 30% wr), even went positive against ATGs Edberg, Sampras. Just not against Lendl, who beat him 6/7 times. Still, very strong.

Roddick was terrible against Federer, far and away his greatest rival, but had mostly positive (or close to even H2Hs) against most others he went up against. Only pitfalls (30% or under) were Federer, Murray, Nadal, Agassi. Very strong people to be losing H2Hs to.

Medvedev is also generally positive with only really 3 tough matchups. Djokovic, Bautista Agut (?), and Nadal. Djokovic and Nadal are understandable, but most of that has been in their old age. And with no significant trend upward recently, that's a black mark. However, he is only underwater on 1 other matchup he has more than 5 matches in - Mannarino, with whom he's 3-4. Medvedev clearly doesn't have many bad matchups either.

Thiem had his good days and bad, clearly. He's near even with all of his 12 or more time rivalries, but it gets weird below that. He's 9-2 against Simon, 3-7 against Goffin, 2-7 against Anderson, 2-5 against Rublev, 5-2 against Federer, 2-3 against Murray, 1-4 against Verdasco. And ALL of those (save a loss against Murray) happened before Thiem's injury and rehabilitation. Very strange.

Conclusion:

I don't think Muster's fantastic non-slam results save his lack of additional slam finals and deep runs in general. He did great, really, but how many 250 wins is a slam final worth? It's tough to say but seeing Muster have no YECs, no DCs, a R1 Olympics, no slam finals except his win, I don't think it'd be fair to say he's the greatest 1 time winner.

Similar goes for Thiem. He held his own against the best, but went on walkabouts against the worse players. Fairly bad records there, and the other records weren't stellar to make up for it - they were also mostly even. Just being a decent speed bump for the top players doesn't mean much if you don't parlay it into more slam wins. Lack of consistency (save for RG) probably takes him down a peg, though he did face Nadal at RG several times to get his losses. He's still high, just not #1.

That leaves only Stich, Roddick, Medvedev. Roddick > Med > Stich in slams, Med > Roddick > Stich outside slams, Roddick > Stich >= Medvedev in H2Hs. You could also do a subjective ranking of their levels in general, but I don't think I will, seeing as I didn't watch Stich and would probably be biased against him in that regard.

I'd say Roddick is the greatest 1-slam winner ever, followed by Medvedev, then Stich, then Muster, then Thiem. Beyond those 5, I think it'd be fair to consider Chang and Orantes as well against Gerulaitis and Delpo.

TLDR: Roddick, Medvedev, Stich, Muster, Thiem.

 

[buscemi]

I'd say there's 7 contenders. Stich, Roddick, Medvedev, Muster, Thiem, Gerulaitis, Delpo.

When considering 1-slam winners, you need to think about their finals (possibly semis), plus their opponents in their deep runs. Other considerations are their total trophy count, matchup history against their best competition, and the amount of Masters-level trophies they have (plus DC/YEC/Olympics).

In terms of slam statistics, Thiem/Roddick/Medvedev are all on the same level. 1 win, 4 finals, multiple semis. Roddick slightly ahead for his additional semis, not to mention playing all his finals (save the one he won) against a peak Roger Federer. I would then say Stich (very good win, but I'd argue his losses aren't fantastic and there are fewer of them to go off of). Slightly behind is Gerulaitis for me (simply for the weak 1977 AO), despite also having 2 finals and 5 SFs. Then Delpo then Muster. Muster really underperformed the French for how great he was in the premier clay tournaments.

In terms of non-slam stats, Medvedev and Muster have their own category. 6+ Master-level tourneys for both. Muster has 8 (+ a ton of lower level trophies), but Medvedev has 2 DCs and a YEC. I'd say Med first, Muster 2nd. Then Roddick (5 Masters, 1 DC), Gerulaitis/Stich, Thiem/Delpo. Everyone has roughly 20 titles other than Muster (44), Roddick (32), and then Gerulaitis (26).

At this point, Delpo probably falls off the list. Even a fantastic top-level matchup history wouldn't save him. I realize he got unlucky with injury, but that's life. We can only consider what he actually did do, not what he could have.

For matchup history:
Gerulaitis (vs Connors 20.8% out of 26, vs Borg 0% out of 18, McEnroe 21.4% out of 14). Tough to consider him, and with no stellar slam or non-slam stats, I wouldn't consider him further.

Muster held his own in matchups. (vs Bruguera 80% out of 15, vs Edberg 0% out of 11, vs Sampras 18% out of 9) are the standouts, went roughly even with Agassi, Moya, and was very positive against former #2s Corretja and Chang.

Stich was roughly even with almost everyone of note. Fell a bit behind Becker/Courier/Kafelnikov, but not massively (around 30% wr), even went positive against ATGs Edberg, Sampras. Just not against Lendl, who beat him 6/7 times. Still, very strong.

Roddick was terrible against Federer, far and away his greatest rival, but had mostly positive (or close to even H2Hs) against most others he went up against. Only pitfalls (30% or under) were Federer, Murray, Nadal, Agassi. Very strong people to be losing H2Hs to.

Medvedev is also generally positive with only really 3 tough matchups. Djokovic, Bautista Agut (?), and Nadal. Djokovic and Nadal are understandable, but most of that has been in their old age. And with no significant trend upward recently, that's a black mark. However, he is only underwater on 1 other matchup he has more than 5 matches in - Mannarino, with whom he's 3-4. Medvedev clearly doesn't have many bad matchups either.

Thiem had his good days and bad, clearly. He's near even with all of his 12 or more time rivalries, but it gets weird below that. He's 9-2 against Simon, 3-7 against Goffin, 2-7 against Anderson, 2-5 against Rublev, 5-2 against Federer, 2-3 against Murray, 1-4 against Verdasco. And ALL of those (save a loss against Murray) happened after Thiem's injury and rehabilitation. Very strange.

Conclusion:

I don't think Muster's fantastic non-slam results save his lack of additional slam finals and deep runs in general. He did great, really, but how many 250 wins is a slam final worth? It's tough to say but seeing Muster have no YECs, no DCs, a R1 Olympics, no slam finals except his win, I don't think it'd be fair to say he's the greatest 1 time winner.

Similar goes for Thiem. He held his own against the best, but went on walkabouts against the worse players. Fairly bad records there, and the other records weren't stellar to make up for it - they were also mostly even. Just being a decent speed bump for the top players doesn't mean much if you don't parlay it into more slam wins. Lack of consistency (save for RG) probably takes him down a peg, though he did face Nadal at RG several times to get his losses. He's still high, just not #1.

That leaves only Stich, Roddick, Medvedev. Roddick > Med > Stich in slams, Med > Roddick > Stich outside slams, Roddick > Stich >= Medvedev in H2Hs. You could also do a subjective ranking of their levels in general, but I don't think I will, seeing as I didn't watch Stich and would probably be biased against him in that regard.

I'd say Roddick is the greatest 1-slam winner ever, followed by Medvedev, then Stich, then Muster, then Thiem. Beyond those 5, I think it'd be fair to consider Chang and Orantes as well against Gerulaitis and Delpo.

TLDR: Roddick, Medvedev, Stich, Muster, Thiem.

Really fair and comprehensive analysis.

A big part of the reason that I have Stich ahead of the other four in your top five is that they each had a Major where they didn't have a winning record. Three also had/have losing records at WTF:

Roddick was 9-10 at the French Open. He was also 8-11 at WTF.​

Medvedev is currently 7-7 at the French Open.​

Muster was 0-4 at Wimbledon. He was also 2-8 at WTF.​

Thiem is currently 5-7 at Wimbledon. He is also 9-10 at WTF.​

Meanwhile, Stich's worst record at a Major was at the U.S. Open, where he had a 65.22% winning percentage and made a final. He also won WTF, beating Sampras in the final.

 

[Drob]

Argument against Midvedev is he's playing in a garbage era and would barely achieve half of what he has in other periods.

I don't get it, Nat. Garbage compared to what? 1990-91 maybe? Medvedev lost his four Slam finals to Djokovic and Nadal, twice each, and one each was a very very close five-setter. And he beat Djokovic for his one Slam title. ????? Beat peak Thiem for his YEC.

Alcaraz Garfia is already a two-time champ. Dani kind of took him apart at USO. That should be an interesting, back-and-forth rivalry with Carlos coming out on top, but not always.

Sinner, Rune? You don't think these guys are champions shortly? Legit champs?

You think, as examples, Zverev, Khachanov, Rublev, and 2018-21 Thiem are just bums? Compared to what other 6-12-ranked players in the Open Era are these players bums? W/o researching the rankings through the years, I can only say that 1969-70 and 1972-74 probably had stronger Nos. 6 to 12. There have been years with stonger Nos. 1-5, and years w equal or weaker. Again, first years of Open Era very strong 1-5; maybe late 70s-early 80s. And ca. 1988-93 was a little golden period. Then, 8-12 years ago, of course the top five was sizziling. If you are comparing current times to that unique period in tennis history when you might see a top-five of Nadal, Djokovic, Fed, Murray, Delpo (2013 more or less, no?), sure you can say the current lot are just chumps. But compared to first decade of this century? Compared to second half of 1990s? Compared to much of the 1980s? Compared to 1975-78? Based on 1-5 spots, it seems the current game holds up okay when you compare it to about 25 seasons of the Open Era, out of approx. 55 seasons. And on Nos. 6-12 it probably holds up a little better than that. And, if anything, going deeper, beyond No. 12, it looks to me like there are more competitive players who can upset the higher ranked players. I see it as a good thing that top-ranked players are not infrequently getting bounced early.

I know a lot of folks express the same opinion as you. But you are pretty knowledgeable guy, so i posed the question. I just don't get it. The dismissal of all these fine players.

 

[TripleATeam]

Really fair and comprehensive analysis.

A big part of the reason that I have Stich ahead of the other four in your top five is that they each had a Major where they didn't have a winning record. Three also had/have losing records at WTF:

Roddick was 9-10 at the French Open. He was also 8-11 at WTF.​

Medvedev is currently 7-7 at the French Open.​

Muster was 0-4 at Wimbledon. He was also 2-8 at WTF.​

Thiem is currently 5-7 at Wimbledon. He is also 9-10 at WTF.​

Meanwhile, Stich's worst record at a Major was at the U.S. Open, where he had a 65.22% winning percentage and made a final. He also won WTF, beating Sampras in the final.

I see your reasoning. It does make sense, which is what makes these discussions interesting. Personally I'd view a 1-slam champ as greater based mostly on their late-stage performances rather than percentages at a slam. Even if Muster went say 4-4 at Wimbledon, that would've only meant he got at best a quarterfinal. Regardless of being 0-4, 4-4, or really even 7-4, chances are he wouldn't be in a Wimbledon semifinal and because of that he's no threat in that slam. Similar goes for Roddick and the French. Even if he were always making the R4, I don't think anyone would be scared of playing him there like they were at Wimbledon.

That's why I didn't take that into account in my analysis, personally, but I can see why someone else might.

 

[Drob]

Stich has 50% win record vs Top 5
Medvedev has 34% win record vs Top 5

Top 5 in Stich's era was stronger, remember Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg were all close to Stich in age and of that same early 90s era, unlike Med who plays in an era where his gen is filled with trash, the best player is Djokovic who is almost a decade older.... imagine Med in the presence of Big 3 who are close to him in age? How much would he win? That would be the equivalent of Stich facing his peers all the period when he won his slam. Stich defeated Becker-Edberg-Courier to win his wimbledon while Med defeated a CYGS pressure shivering 9 years older Novak whom Zverev had softened in the semis. Sampras himself rated Stich high, Stich had defeated Sampras at tour finals and grand slam cup to win the trophies.

Last but not the least, Stich has a 5-4 h2h on Sampras while Medvedev is a weak cuck against Novak & Nadal.

Top 5 was awfully good for most of Stich's career. Interestingly, in Medvedev's most recent 20 matches vs. a Top-5 player, his record is 14-6, per UTS.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Del potro because if he wanted to win a slam or even a friggin masters series tournament he had to beat at least 2 of the greatest 3 players of all time + peak Murray in every single big tournament.

That, plus his injuries. Put 2017 2018 Del Potro on this era and he is a slam contender and number one candidate.

2017 2018 Delpo lost to 2017 Rafa.

2018 Delpo reached final of USOpen once Rafa was taken out by injury.

He won't be number 1 candidate over even 36 year old Djokovic.

 

[NatF]

I don't get it, Nat. Garbage compared to what? 1990-91 maybe? Medvedev lost his four Slam finals to Djokovic and Nadal, twice each, and one each was a very very close five-setter. And he beat Djokovic for his one Slam title. ????? Beat peak Thiem for his YEC.

Alcaraz Garfia is already a two-time champ. Dani kind of took him apart at USO. That should be an interesting, back-and-forth rivalry with Carlos coming out on top, but not always.

Sinner, Rune? You don't think these guys are champions shortly? Legit champs?

You think, as examples, Zverev, Khachanov, Rublev, and 2018-21 Thiem are just bums? Compared to what other 6-12-ranked players in the Open Era are these players bums? W/o researching the rankings through the years, I can only say that 1969-70 and 1972-74 probably had stronger Nos. 6 to 12. There have been years with stonger Nos. 1-5, and years w equal or weaker. Again, first years of Open Era very strong 1-5; maybe late 70s-early 80s. And ca. 1988-93 was a little golden period. Then, 8-12 years ago, of course the top five was sizziling. If you are comparing current times to that unique period in tennis history when you might see a top-five of Nadal, Djokovic, Fed, Murray, Delpo (2013 more or less, no?), sure you can say the current lot are just chumps. But compared to first decade of this century? Compared to second half of 1990s? Compared to much of the 1980s? Compared to 1975-78? Based on 1-5 spots, it seems the current game holds up okay when you compare it to about 25 seasons of the Open Era, out of approx. 55 seasons. And on Nos. 6-12 it probably holds up a little better than that. And, if anything, going deeper, beyond No. 12, it looks to me like there are more competitive players who can upset the higher ranked players. I see it as a good thing that top-ranked players are not infrequently getting bounced early.

I know a lot of folks express the same opinion as you. But you are pretty knowledgeable guy, so i posed the question. I just don't get it. The dismissal of all these fine players.

Ruud was a match away from #1 last year man which kinda says it all about the players outside of Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). Long story short, no I don't rate those players you mentioned. All those guys just have don't have the upside compared to past crops of players.

 

[The Guru]

Think Goran not getting a shout here is pretty crazy. I think Goran is in my top 4 with Chang Roddick and Med. Roddick still on top of this group imo though I can see the case for others.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Ruud was a match away from #1 last year man which kinda says it all about the players outside of Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). Long story short, no I don't rate those players you mentioned. All those guys just have don't have the upside compared to past crops of players.

Bs you fedfan. I have you on ignore since your post quality is very low

Last year Djokovic wasn't there and Nadal was robbed off 720 pts from Wimbledon. That's how Ruud became number 2. Both Ruud and Raz didn't deserve to be ahead of Nole. Just like your favorites don't deserve to be ahead of Nole.

But this in no way speaks about level of Medvedev slam opponents. He played 5 and lost 4 to Rafole. And who will know about it more than a former Federer fan. Fed lost to Rafole in 11 slam finals. Just like Medvedev.

 

[Razer]

, in Medvedev's most recent 20 matches vs. a Top-5 player, his record is 14-6, per UTS.

Not really, Medvedev's last 20 matches vs Top 5 is 7-13 as per UTS

He is not that good to be 14-6 against Top 5 in any stretch, LOL

 

[RS]

Is any body here top 100 of all time for male players?

 

[Drob]

Is any body here top 100 of all time for male players?

Sure.

Stich, Gimeno, Muster are somewhere between 40 and 50 maybe. Delpo about 50 or in the 50s. Roddick w/in top 60-65, Ferrero close behind. Chang for sure, Ivanisevic for sure. Roche close to top 100. Gerulaitis and Krajicek might be doubtful, but close. Ditto Thiem, but he might make it. Orantes makes it, I think. In short, nearly all of these players are top-100, or at least measuring from 1919, after The Great War.

 

[Kralingen]

Is any body here top 100 of all time for male players?

I’d say almost all of them are no? Not a lot of great tennis players. Not a lot of Slam winners.

 

[RS]

I’d say almost all of them are no?

Dunno pre open era tennis had a heck a lot of players too since it's 1860s to 1968

 

[Drob]

Not really, Medvedev's last 20 matches vs Top 5 is 7-13 as per UTS

He is not that good to be 14-6 against Top 5 in any stretch, LOL

Oops. I was looking at Wikipedia tab by mistake.

​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​
​								​
​								​
​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​
​	2020–23	8	6–2	75%	6–2	–	–	Lost (6–7(7–9), 6–4, 3–6) at 2023 Vienna Open F​
Kei Nishikori​	2018–21	5	3–2	60%	2–1	–	1–1	Won (6–2, 6–4) at 2021 ATP Cup RR​
Holger Rune​	2023	2	1–1	50%	–	–	1–1	Won (7–5, 7–5) at 2023 Italian Open F​
Number 5 ranked players​
Taylor Fritz​	2022	1	1–0	100%	1–0	–	–	Won (7–6(7–1), 6–3) at 2022 Cincinnati Masters QF​
Andrey Rublev​	2019–23	8	6–2	75%	6–2	–	–	Won (6–4, 6–3, 6–4) at 2023 US Open QF​
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga​	2017–19	3	2–1	67%	2–1	–	–	Won (6–4, 6–2) at 2019 Rotterdam Open QF​
Kevin Anderson​	2020	2	1–1	50%	1–1	–	–	Won (6–6,ret) at 2020 Paris Masters 2R​

Looks like you are right, per UTS. Thanks. He still has the best top-10 winning % of the candidates.

 

[TripleATeam]

Is any body here top 100 of all time for male players?

If I count right there's only 76 multi-slam winners in history. Even if you assume every single 2 time slam winner is greater than every 1 time winner, the 77th will be the greatest 1 time winner.

 

[Drob]

Record against top-10 players​

Medvedev's record against those who have been ranked in the top 10, with active players in boldface.

Player	Years	MP	Record	Win%	Hard	Grass	Clay	Last Match
Number 1 ranked players​
Andy Murray​	2019–23	3	3–0	100%	3–0	–	–	Won (6–4, 6–4) at 2023 Qatar ExxonMobil Open F​
Carlos Alcaraz​	2021–23	4	2–2	50%	1–1	1–1	–	Won (7–6(7–3), 6–1, 3–6, 6–3) at 2023 US Open SF​
Novak Djokovic​	2017–23	15	5–10	33%	4–9	0–1	1–0	Lost (3–6, 6–7(5–7), 3–6) at 2023 US Open F​
Rafael Nadal​	2019–22	6	1–5	17%	1–5	–	–	Lost (3–6, 3–6) at 2022 Mexican Open SF​
Roger Federer​	2018–19	3	0–3	0%	0–3	–	–	Lost (4–6, 2–6) at 2019 Miami Open 4R​
Number 2 ranked players​
Casper Ruud​	2017–21	3	3–0	100%	2–0	1–0	–	Won (6–4, 6–2) at 2021 ATP Finals SF​
Alexander Zverev​	2016–23	17	10–7	59%	8–7	–	2–0	Won (6–4, 6–3) at 2023 China Open SF​
​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​
​								​
​								​
​								​
​								​

 

[Drob]

Number 3 ranked players​
Milos Raonic​	2018–20	3	3–0	100%	3–0	–	–	Won (6–4, 7–6(7–4)) at 2020 Paris Masters SF​
Grigor Dimitrov​	2019–23	8	6–2	75%	6–1	0–1	–	Won (3–6, 6–2, 6–4) at 2023 Vienna Open 2R​
Marin Čilić​	2019–22	4	3–1	75%	2–0	1–0	0–1	Lost (2–6, 3–6, 2–6) at 2022 French Open 4R​
Stefanos Tsitsipas​	2017–23	13	9–4	69%	7–3	–	2–1	Won (6–4, 7–6(8–6)) at 2023 Vienna Open SF​
Dominic Thiem​	2018–22	6	3–3	50%	3–2	–	0–1	Won (6–3, 6–3) at 2022 Vienna Open 2R​
Stan Wawrinka​	2019–22	4	2–2	50%	1–2	1–0	–	Lost (4–6, 7–6(9–7), 3–6) at 2022 Moselle Open 2R​
Number 4 ranked players​
Jannik Sinner​	2020–23	8	6–2	75%	6–2	–	–	Lost (6–7(7–9), 6–4, 3–6) at 2023 Vienna Open F​
Kei Nishikori​	2018–21	5	3–2	60%	2–1	–	1–1	Won (6–2, 6–4) at 2021 ATP Cup RR​
Holger Rune​	2023	2	1–1	50%	–	–	1–1	Won (7–5, 7–5) at 2023 Italian Open F​
Number 5 ranked players​
Taylor Fritz​	2022	1	1–0	100%	1–0	–	–	Won (7–6(7–1), 6–3) at 2022 Cincinnati Masters QF​
Andrey Rublev​	2019–23	8	6–2	75%	6–2	–	–	Won (6–4, 6–3, 6–4) at 2023 US Open QF​
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga​	2017–19	3	2–1	67%	2–1	–	–	Won (6–4, 6–2) at 2019 Rotterdam Open QF​
Kevin Anderson​	2020	2	1–1	50%	1–1	–	–	Won (6–6,ret) at 2020 Paris Masters 2R​

 

[Drob]

Think Goran not getting a shout here is pretty crazy. I think Goran is in my top 4 with Chang Roddick and Med. Roddick still on top of this group imo though I can see the case for others.

Ivanisevic 60-76 = .441 vs. top-10. GSC, plus three other Big Titles - Stockholm, Paris, Stuttgart. Versatile enough to win three clay titles and finalist at Rome and Hamburg. 28-9 D.C. singles is not too shabby.

The Best Six for Top-10 % are:

Medvedev
Stich
Krajicek
Gimeno
Ivanisevic
Muster and Thiem effectively tied at %

The Best Six for other Slam finals and Big Titles are (Approximately):

Medvedev
Stich/Roddick
Orantes
Ivanisevic
Muster

 

[NatF]

Bs you fedfan. I have you on ignore since your post quality is very low

Last year Djokovic wasn't there and Nadal was robbed off 720 pts from Wimbledon. That's how Ruud became number 2. Both Ruud and Raz didn't deserve to be ahead of Nole. Just like your favorites don't deserve to be ahead of Nole.

But this in no way speaks about level of Medvedev slam opponents. He played 5 and lost 4 to Rafole. And who will know about it more than a former Federer fan. Fed lost to Rafole in 11 slam finals. Just like Medvedev.

LOL

 

[RS]

If I count right there's only 76 multi-slam winners in history. Even if you assume every single 2 time slam winner is greater than every 1 time winner, the 77th will be the greatest 1 time winner.

Sometimes 2 time winners are ranked below single digit winners even if very subjective (based on level of play) and at one point tennis wasn't really about slams as much as today but that's a fair take.

 

[Pheasant]

I'd say there's 7 contenders. Stich, Roddick, Medvedev, Muster, Thiem, Gerulaitis, Delpo.

When considering 1-slam winners, you need to think about their finals (possibly semis), plus their opponents in their deep runs. Other considerations are their total trophy count, matchup history against their best competition, and the amount of Masters-level trophies they have (plus DC/YEC/Olympics).

In terms of slam statistics, Thiem/Roddick/Medvedev are all on the same level. 1 win, 4 finals, multiple semis. Roddick slightly ahead for his additional semis, not to mention playing all his finals (save the one he won) against a peak Roger Federer. I would then say Stich (very good win, but I'd argue his losses aren't fantastic and there are fewer of them to go off of). Slightly behind is Gerulaitis for me (simply for the weak 1977 AO), despite also having 2 finals and 5 SFs. Then Delpo then Muster. Muster really underperformed the French for how great he was in the premier clay tournaments.

In terms of non-slam stats, Medvedev and Muster have their own category. 6+ Master-level tourneys for both. Muster has 8 (+ a ton of lower level trophies), but Medvedev has 2 DCs and a YEC. I'd say Med first, Muster 2nd. Then Roddick (5 Masters, 1 DC), Gerulaitis/Stich, Thiem/Delpo. Everyone has roughly 20 titles other than Muster (44), Roddick (32), and then Gerulaitis (26).

At this point, Delpo probably falls off the list. Even a fantastic top-level matchup history wouldn't save him. I realize he got unlucky with injury, but that's life. We can only consider what he actually did do, not what he could have.

For matchup history:
Gerulaitis (vs Connors 20.8% out of 26, vs Borg 0% out of 18, McEnroe 21.4% out of 14). Tough to consider him, and with no stellar slam or non-slam stats, I wouldn't consider him further.

Muster held his own in matchups. (vs Bruguera 80% out of 15, vs Edberg 0% out of 11, vs Sampras 18% out of 9) are the standouts, went roughly even with Agassi, Moya, and was very positive against former #2s Corretja and Chang.

Stich was roughly even with almost everyone of note. Fell a bit behind Becker/Courier/Kafelnikov, but not massively (around 30% wr), even went positive against ATGs Edberg, Sampras. Just not against Lendl, who beat him 6/7 times. Still, very strong.

Roddick was terrible against Federer, far and away his greatest rival, but had mostly positive (or close to even H2Hs) against most others he went up against. Only pitfalls (30% or under) were Federer, Murray, Nadal, Agassi. Very strong people to be losing H2Hs to.

Medvedev is also generally positive with only really 3 tough matchups. Djokovic, Bautista Agut (?), and Nadal. Djokovic and Nadal are understandable, but most of that has been in their old age. And with no significant trend upward recently, that's a black mark. However, he is only underwater on 1 other matchup he has more than 5 matches in - Mannarino, with whom he's 3-4. Medvedev clearly doesn't have many bad matchups either.

Thiem had his good days and bad, clearly. He's near even with all of his 12 or more time rivalries, but it gets weird below that. He's 9-2 against Simon, 3-7 against Goffin, 2-7 against Anderson, 2-5 against Rublev, 5-2 against Federer, 2-3 against Murray, 1-4 against Verdasco. And ALL of those (save a loss against Murray) happened after Thiem's injury and rehabilitation. Very strange.

Conclusion:

I don't think Muster's fantastic non-slam results save his lack of additional slam finals and deep runs in general. He did great, really, but how many 250 wins is a slam final worth? It's tough to say but seeing Muster have no YECs, no DCs, a R1 Olympics, no slam finals except his win, I don't think it'd be fair to say he's the greatest 1 time winner.

Similar goes for Thiem. He held his own against the best, but went on walkabouts against the worse players. Fairly bad records there, and the other records weren't stellar to make up for it - they were also mostly even. Just being a decent speed bump for the top players doesn't mean much if you don't parlay it into more slam wins. Lack of consistency (save for RG) probably takes him down a peg, though he did face Nadal at RG several times to get his losses. He's still high, just not #1.

That leaves only Stich, Roddick, Medvedev. Roddick > Med > Stich in slams, Med > Roddick > Stich outside slams, Roddick > Stich >= Medvedev in H2Hs. You could also do a subjective ranking of their levels in general, but I don't think I will, seeing as I didn't watch Stich and would probably be biased against him in that regard.

I'd say Roddick is the greatest 1-slam winner ever, followed by Medvedev, then Stich, then Muster, then Thiem. Beyond those 5, I think it'd be fair to consider Chang and Orantes as well against Gerulaitis and Delpo.

TLDR: Roddick, Medvedev, Stich, Muster, Thiem.

Wow! Nice analysis. Nice work!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Michael Stich at the heart of Federer's peak in 2006 said that he would have defeated Federer on Grass

Michael Stich: I reckon I'd have beaten Federer on grass. Now no one has the right game

Michael Stich: What makes Federer the best is talent but also that he is the most professional in his set-up, in his scheduling of the tournaments.

www.theguardian.com

Stich was always arrogant and overestimated himself. He also said he was more talented than Becker.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Stich was always arrogant and overestimated himself. He also said he was more talented than Becker.

Yes the emptier the vessel the more it makes noise.

Safin was another such guy who never gave credit to Nole. These oldies have no sense about realities.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Not just poor grass results. Muster was 42-52 on carpet, going 2-8 at WTF (never making it past the RR stage in 4 attempts) and 0-5 at the Grand Slam Cup.

IMHO, Muster can't top this list with an 8-10 record on grass and a 42-52 record on carpet. At 3 of the 6 biggest events of his time, he was 0-4 at Wimbledon, 0-5 at the Grand Slam Cup, and 2-8 at WTF.

Meanwhile at those 6 biggest events, Stich won Wimbledon, won WTF, won the Grand Slam Cup, made the French final (beating peak Muster along the way), made the U.S. Open final, and made the Australian Open SF. As noted, he won titles on grass, clay, hard, and carpet in the same year twice.

To be fair he did win a masters on carpet beating Sampras along the way. But yea all in all his record on carpet is really bad.

You are completely right, being absolutely abysmal on two of the four surfaces in the 90s (almost on journeymen level) basically rules him out as the best here. He was solid on HC and great on clay but even here he underperformed when it mattered most. Also he has overall way worse slam performances than the others. Muster does not have even one additional slam final, while Stich and Vitas have two, Chang has three, Roddick and Med have four, all but Med spread over multiple surfaces. Even Orantes and Delpo have an additional final, so it is tough to sell Muster as the best here when most of his accolades are built on winning small clay tournaments all year long.

 

[Drob]

To be fair he did win a masters on carpet beating Sampras along the way. But yea all in all his record on carpet is really bad.

You are completely right, being absolutely abysmal on two of the four surfaces in the 90s (almost on journeymen level) basically rules him out as the best here. He was solid on HC and great on clay but even here he underperformed when it mattered most. Also he has overall way worse slam performances than the others. Muster does not have even one additional slam final, while Stich and Vitas have two, Chang has three, Roddick and Med have four, all but Med spread over multiple surfaces. Even Orantes and Delpo have an additional final, so it is tough to sell Muster as the best here when most of his accolades are built on winning small clay tournaments all year long.

Fair argument. And please, PLEASE remember this exact argument next time Guillermo Vilas comes up on a thread.

 

[Drob]

Ruud was a match away from #1 last year man which kinda says it all about the players outside of Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). Long story short, no I don't rate those players you mentioned. All those guys just have don't have the upside compared to past crops of players.

As dismissive of my earnest question as you are of the wonderful competitors on the current ATP Tour. I remembered you being sharp and well-grounded.

How about some simple analysis just to get a rough idea?

You don't "rate" any of the players I mentioned. Well, to determine relative strength you have to rate. For example, you have to compare Zverev with someone like Tom Okker or Miloslav Mecir, at the very least of regard for Sascha. Thiem merits appraisal against Noah or Ferrero at the bare minimum. "I don't rate those players"?

I can take 1968-95 and you take 1996-present and we use any reasonable listing of the top-12 by year (TB, UTS, Official). We can then discuss which years are the strongest. It is rudimentary, but seems like a good start.

My thesis is simple. I think the contemporary game (last six seasons) falls about in the middle somewhere in relative strength over the 56 seasons of the Open Era (I guess it is 56 seasons). Like any thesis I put it up to be proved wrong.

 

[Drob]

I'd say there's 7 contenders. Stich, Roddick, Medvedev, Muster, Thiem, Gerulaitis, Delpo.

When considering 1-slam winners, you need to think about their finals (possibly semis), plus their opponents in their deep runs. Other considerations are their total trophy count, matchup history against their best competition, and the amount of Masters-level trophies they have (plus DC/YEC/Olympics).

In terms of slam statistics, Thiem/Roddick/Medvedev are all on the same level. 1 win, 4 finals, multiple semis. Roddick slightly ahead for his additional semis, not to mention playing all his finals (save the one he won) against a peak Roger Federer. I would then say Stich (very good win, but I'd argue his losses aren't fantastic and there are fewer of them to go off of). Slightly behind is Gerulaitis for me (simply for the weak 1977 AO), despite also having 2 finals and 5 SFs. Then Delpo then Muster. Muster really underperformed the French for how great he was in the premier clay tournaments.

In terms of non-slam stats, Medvedev and Muster have their own category. 6+ Master-level tourneys for both. Muster has 8 (+ a ton of lower level trophies), but Medvedev has 2 DCs and a YEC. I'd say Med first, Muster 2nd. Then Roddick (5 Masters, 1 DC), Gerulaitis/Stich, Thiem/Delpo. Everyone has roughly 20 titles other than Muster (44), Roddick (32), and then Gerulaitis (26).

At this point, Delpo probably falls off the list. Even a fantastic top-level matchup history wouldn't save him. I realize he got unlucky with injury, but that's life. We can only consider what he actually did do, not what he could have.

For matchup history:
Gerulaitis (vs Connors 20.8% out of 26, vs Borg 0% out of 18, McEnroe 21.4% out of 14). Tough to consider him, and with no stellar slam or non-slam stats, I wouldn't consider him further.

Muster held his own in matchups. (vs Bruguera 80% out of 15, vs Edberg 0% out of 11, vs Sampras 18% out of 9) are the standouts, went roughly even with Agassi, Moya, and was very positive against former #2s Corretja and Chang.

Stich was roughly even with almost everyone of note. Fell a bit behind Becker/Courier/Kafelnikov, but not massively (around 30% wr), even went positive against ATGs Edberg, Sampras. Just not against Lendl, who beat him 6/7 times. Still, very strong.

Roddick was terrible against Federer, far and away his greatest rival, but had mostly positive (or close to even H2Hs) against most others he went up against. Only pitfalls (30% or under) were Federer, Murray, Nadal, Agassi. Very strong people to be losing H2Hs to.

Medvedev is also generally positive with only really 3 tough matchups. Djokovic, Bautista Agut (?), and Nadal. Djokovic and Nadal are understandable, but most of that has been in their old age. And with no significant trend upward recently, that's a black mark. However, he is only underwater on 1 other matchup he has more than 5 matches in - Mannarino, with whom he's 3-4. Medvedev clearly doesn't have many bad matchups either.

Thiem had his good days and bad, clearly. He's near even with all of his 12 or more time rivalries, but it gets weird below that. He's 9-2 against Simon, 3-7 against Goffin, 2-7 against Anderson, 2-5 against Rublev, 5-2 against Federer, 2-3 against Murray, 1-4 against Verdasco. And ALL of those (save a loss against Murray) happened after Thiem's injury and rehabilitation. Very strange.

Conclusion:

I don't think Muster's fantastic non-slam results save his lack of additional slam finals and deep runs in general. He did great, really, but how many 250 wins is a slam final worth? It's tough to say but seeing Muster have no YECs, no DCs, a R1 Olympics, no slam finals except his win, I don't think it'd be fair to say he's the greatest 1 time winner.

Similar goes for Thiem. He held his own against the best, but went on walkabouts against the worse players. Fairly bad records there, and the other records weren't stellar to make up for it - they were also mostly even. Just being a decent speed bump for the top players doesn't mean much if you don't parlay it into more slam wins. Lack of consistency (save for RG) probably takes him down a peg, though he did face Nadal at RG several times to get his losses. He's still high, just not #1.

That leaves only Stich, Roddick, Medvedev. Roddick > Med > Stich in slams, Med > Roddick > Stich outside slams, Roddick > Stich >= Medvedev in H2Hs. You could also do a subjective ranking of their levels in general, but I don't think I will, seeing as I didn't watch Stich and would probably be biased against him in that regard.

I'd say Roddick is the greatest 1-slam winner ever, followed by Medvedev, then Stich, then Muster, then Thiem. Beyond those 5, I think it'd be fair to consider Chang and Orantes as well against Gerulaitis and Delpo.

TLDR: Roddick, Medvedev, Stich, Muster, Thiem.

Good. You make me modify slightly my list. But as to accomplishments, let me add:

Stich: YEC, GSG, 3 M1000 or equivalent, arguably 4; Davis Cup heroics 1993

Roddick: Leader of Cup champions 2007 (6-0 singles); improbable "summer triple crown" of Rogers Cup, Cincy and USO (plus Indianapolis, which was an excellent tournament), this equaled only by Rafter. Closest anyone ever came to winning Wimbledon (since 1919 at least) - closer than Bromwich, Rosewall, Lendl, Rafter. 74% match wins at Slams.

Thiem: Two YEC finals. Four clay wins over Rafa must be second most after Novak. 16-18 collectively versus the Big Three is EXTRAORDINARY. And BTW, 10 of these 34 matches took place in 2014 or 2016, with six in 2017, the Big Three were still at prime or better. As for Djokovic, he still is in prime, and facing him in 2018-2020 (six times) is not facing a player past his peak. Thiem deserves a lot of credit for this. So, maybe he is kind of a Lew Hoad (or was - we shall see). Did not beat players he should have beat. Has by far the best record against Big Three of any player who has been around for 10 years.

Krajicek. Five M 1000 or equivalent. Good top-10 percentage

Ivanisevic. Similar: GSC and three M 1000 or equivalent and good top-10 %. Also much more consistent going deep at Slams than Richard K, and Goran has creditable D.C. record.

Gimeno: Besides what I mentioned, Gimeno has 10-12 Big Titles (M1000 equivalents) from amateur, Pro and Open. Remarkable head-to-head records. Better than .300 collectively versus Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez. Same age as Emerson, he beat Roy 16-10 beginning in late 1967. 17-7 versus Sedgman; 46-24 versus Hoad; 6-6 vs. Newcombe; 9-6 versus Trabert (and he is so old, he even has a 2-3 record vs. Drobny).

but Medvedev has 2 DCs

Personally, I would not cite any DC after 2019. It's over. IMO.

And ALL of those (save a loss against Murray) happened after Thiem's injury and rehabilitation.

Guess you meant "before".

 

[Drob]

At this point, Delpo probably falls off the list. Even a fantastic top-level matchup history wouldn't save him. I realize he got unlucky with injury, but that's life. We can only consider what he actually did do, not what he could have.

Can't really argue, but I want to. The Olympic Medals matter. The 2013 Wimbledon SF and 2018 Wimbledon QF mean something, and so too the 2009 RG SF. 2016 DC heroics in CAPITAL letters. Two-time ATP Comeback Player of the Year. It is rare to win that award once.

I notice Juan Martin leads the voting by a fairly comfortable margin. Is that on popularity, or is there a strong argument that he is the greatest of the one-slammers? I don't see it. I think the comebacks count for something, but not enough to make delThor the Number One of this group.

If someone has a strong argument for Juan Martin, I would love to read it.

 

[TripleATeam]

Can't really argue, but I want to. The Olympic Medals matter. The 2013 Wimbledon SF and 2018 Wimbledon QF mean something, and so too the 2009 RG SF. 2016 DC heroics in CAPITAL letters. Two-time ATP Comeback Player of the Year. It is rare to win that award once.

I notice Juan Martin leads the voting by a fairly comfortable margin. Is that on popularity, or is there a strong argument that he is the greatest of the one-slammers? I don't see it. I think the comebacks count for something, but not enough to make delThor the Number One of this group.

If someone has a strong argument for Juan Martin, I would love to read it.

He's a brilliant player, no doubt. But I believe any argument you provide there's someone more deserving.

Slam wins and close calls? Roddick wins out on those. Outside of slam performance? Medvedev and Muster way ahead. But also Roddick.

Performance against top players? 20% against Novak, 28% against Fed, 35% against Nadal, 30% against Murray. Held his own everywhere else. Pretty much exactly like Roddick.

The main argument you could make for Delpo is his injuries stunted what could've been a much better career. If that's valuable for you, you'll value Delpo more. But again, I can't rate someone on hypotheticals. I think that's what most people did here though.

 

[Neptune]

Think Goran not getting a shout here is pretty crazy. I think Goran is in my top 4 with Chang Roddick and Med. Roddick still on top of this group imo though I can see the case for others.

I shout in post #7, also had him 4th spot

 

[Neptune]

I notice Juan Martin leads the voting by a fairly comfortable margin. Is that on popularity

Delpo played in big 3 era, 17 wins against them alone is very impressive, but he did not score enough, then who scored enough except the big4? Even Wawrinka not much outside the 3 slams.
If consider competition strength, Delpo has a case.

 

[crimson87]

2017 2018 Delpo lost to 2017 Rafa.

2018 Delpo reached final of USOpen once Rafa was taken out by injury.

He won't be number 1 candidate over even 36 year old Djokovic.

Lots of players lost to 2017 Rafa. He ended the year as world number one and won 2 majors other titles. There is a significant gap in level between Djokovic/Alcaraz and the rest.

 

[Drob]

Lots of players lost to 2017 Rafa. He ended the year as world number one and won 2 majors other titles. There is a significant gap in level between Djokovic/Alcaraz and the rest.

Rafa was beaten when he quit match - he does that occasionally, like vs. Cilic at AO and other times. Rafa was down 2 sets to love.

 

[Drob]

thetennisbase.com is great, but its conclusions are just opinions, albeit thought-out opinions based on certain weighting of results. I don't agree with TB's conclusions but it is an authoritative source.

Leave out Medvedev and Thiem because TB, although still on-line and extremely useful, stopped "keeping score" in early 2020.

Nevertheless interesting how TB ranks these one-slammers we have been talking about.


Roddick (45 all-time)
Gimeno (48)
Roche (52)

Gerulaitis (60)
Chang (68)
Orantes (70)

Ivanisevic (83)
Muster (89)
del Potro (90)

Stich (91)
Ferrero (92)
Tanner (99) - AO champion 1977

Moya (105)
Krajicek (107)
Noah (109)

Gomez (128)
Cilic (143)
Panatta (183)


Cash (191)
Costa (202)
Gaudio (214)

 

[The Sinner]

Overall, I'm going with Roddick. If it were over one surface, it's hard to go past Muster: on clay.

 

[RS]

In tennis being a top 70 all time player gets you just a slam.

 

[Bender]

Roddick for sure. Delpo perhaps is fresher in our memory while Roddick is remembered for his latter career of being a puff baller with a big serve, hence the skew IMHO.

Medvedev is #2 in my opinion and will likely end his career with a much better resume than either of these guys but at this stage has fewer total matches under his belt which is why I have voted Roddick. Whether Medvedev deserves the titles he’s won given the competition is not something I have included in this particular case for simplicity’s sake.

 

[Subway Tennis]

It’s absolutely insane to me that Roddick is a single major winner.

I always thought the same about Muster, even with his shocking career-threatening injury. Someone on here (I believe @urban ?) wrote an amazing run down of all Muster’s French open years and it was amazing to see the quirks of circumstance that kept him from winning additional French opens.

 

[mike danny]

Changing my vote to Medvedev. He has played some strong finals in slams, the 2022 AO was his bad luck otherwise he would have won back to back slams.

Just like Roddick, he has made 5 finals. But he has won every hard court big title apart from IW and AO. He would probably win both of those. His hc peak is considerably higher than everyone.

Only muster on clay would come close. But he didn't have numbers.

LOL.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick has 135 weeks in top 3. Medvedev already has 110 and he would soon surpass Roddick.

Much easier to do when there is no Big 3 + Murray in Med's era.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick in terms of achievements, del Potro in terms of potential.

Medvedev might be soon the best here (though he might end up actually winning a 2nd slam).

Which proves that numbers devoid of context are pretty useless.

 

[mike danny]

Medvedev lost his four Slam finals to Djokovic and Nadal, twice each, and one each was a very very close five-setter. And he beat Djokovic for his one Slam title. ????? Beat peak Thiem for his YEC.

More like their old versions and 3 of his 4 finals were pretty bad performances. Roddick lost all 4 of his slam finals to prime Roger Federer, a better player than old Djokodal.

 

[mike danny]

It's funny how Med has reached 5 major finals in an era in which Ruud has reached 3.

 

[NatF]

As dismissive of my earnest question as you are of the wonderful competitors on the current ATP Tour. I remembered you being sharp and well-grounded.

How about some simple analysis just to get a rough idea?

You don't "rate" any of the players I mentioned. Well, to determine relative strength you have to rate. For example, you have to compare Zverev with someone like Tom Okker or Miloslav Mecir, at the very least of regard for Sascha. Thiem merits appraisal against Noah or Ferrero at the bare minimum. "I don't rate those players"?

I can take 1968-95 and you take 1996-present and we use any reasonable listing of the top-12 by year (TB, UTS, Official). We can then discuss which years are the strongest. It is rudimentary, but seems like a good start.

My thesis is simple. I think the contemporary game (last six seasons) falls about in the middle somewhere in relative strength over the 56 seasons of the Open Era (I guess it is 56 seasons). Like any thesis I put it up to be proved wrong.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive, apologies.

The likes of Noah and Okker were well before by time, though I know Okker is one of the best to not winner a slam. Of course the same can be said for Mecir who won arguably the fifth major (Miami) over Lendl.

Zverev is basically a pusher with a big but inconsistent serve who has a habit for choking. His second serve can be downright awful at times and his forehand technique isn't up to par with elite players. He can hit some decent heights when he's on because of his first serve and long levers but considering he's the second best of his generation, that's a very low bar. It's fine to compare him favourably with say Okker or Mecir, but in many crops of players he'd be like the fifth or six best rather than the second.

I consider Ferrero better than Thiem as well yes, I don't see why that should be controversial either. He's clearly achieved more than Thiem on clay and showed his mettle in five set battles with prime Kuerten, even at the USO I consider downing Hewitt and Agassi better than requiring a choke from Zverev to win what is regarded as the worst slam final in a decade and a half. Thiem had a big game but his serve and return were pretty mediocre for a top guy which held him back. IMO Ferrero did pretty much all the basics better, Thiem hit the ball harder but Ferrero took the ball earlier. I do consider Thiem better than Med and Zverev for its worth...

One of the players you mentioned is Rublev, I can't take him seriously no. He's won a single set in how many slam QF's? He's consistent but I don't see how he's even a better opponent than someone like Blake who at least competed very hard at the USO in back to back QF's. This year even up against an injured Djokovic he was completely embarrassed. I think these players just have too many fundamental weaknesses and not the strengths to make up for them.

For me the last 6 years have been pitiful so we're unlikely to agree here. The last six years, particularly the last couple, have seen large numbers of bans, withdrawals etc...because of covid, war etc...Don't see how on any relative scale it could be near the middle. Those types of analysis nearly always favour a stable group of players doing well everywhere versus a more diverse and specialised field. They also only care about the result and not the standard of play so for me they're not worth much. I also don't think Elo is a good fit for tennis which UTS and TA use a lot.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Just quick non-stat capsules:

Roddick - Great competitor, a power player who was often stopped by Fed. A fixture in the top 5 to 10.

Chang - Fast, savvy, smart, developed some pop for a little guy. Overshadowed by three other great Americans, Pete, Andre and Courier, his one slam win was legendary.

Muster - a clay beast, very physical player.

Orantes - I recall him from my childhood...strong lefty baseliner, terrific on clay.

Med - Controversial, quirky and better than many give him credit for.

Delpo - tempted to vote for him...very, very good, and would've probably won another 1-3 slams if healthy.

Vitas - Quick, exciting, flashy. Trying to find a good, more modern comparison. Not Grigor, but all that's coming to mind somehow as to not seeming to fulfill his considerable talent.

Stich - Very talented, and solid resume, but I feel that I didn't watch him that often.
Smooth power, and good athlete...also should've won even more(?)

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you didn’t see stich that often? He played at the same time as muster and chang so did you not see much of them either?

 

[The Sinner]

It’s absolutely insane to me that Roddick is a single major winner.

I always thought the same about Muster, even with his shocking career-threatening injury. Someone on here (I believe @urban ?) wrote an amazing run down of all Muster’s French open years and it was amazing to see the quirks of circumstance that kept him from winning additional French opens.

I’d be interested to read that, re the bolded. Do you remember the heading of the thread, by any chance?

 

[RaulRamirez]

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you didn’t see stich that often? He played at the same time as muster and chang so did you not see much of them either?

It's a good question.
As it wasn't by choice, I'm guessing it might have been that both Chang and Muster had slightly longer careers than Stich.

As an American, Chang probably was shown more often as well, as I'd be a little at the mercy of who was televised.

Also, for whatever reason, I just have much more of a mental picture of the other two. Chang with his winning RG at age 17, the underarm serve, the sheer speed. Muster's dominance on clay, very physical style, battling back from a car accident (?) and serious knee injury. Stich was just as good if not better, but I just don't have those pictures or narratives with him.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It is Stich imho. He reached slam finals on three different surfaces (no other in the list did that) and his YEC/GSC easily even out the lack of masters imho. In the 90s when he played the YEC and GSC were way more prestigious than today while masters were way less (not even mandatory) and second only to slams. On top, all stich’s wins were against tough comp (beating Sampras on carpet or Edberg/Becker on grass). Sure he was never No.1, but all the others also have at best only few weeks so it is not such a big argument for them either.