Greatest one slam winner in terms of talent...

Most talented one slam winner?

  • Richard Krajicek

    Votes: 10 9.5%

  • Goran Ivanišević

    Votes: 22 21.0%

  • Michael Stich

    Votes: 18 17.1%

  • Andy Roddick

    Votes: 27 25.7%

  • Michael Chang

    Votes: 8 7.6%

  • Petr Korda

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • Yannick Noah

    Votes: 6 5.7%

  • Roscoe Tanner

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • other

    Votes: 9 8.6%
  • Total voters
    105
Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises

Banned
I know this probably has been posting before somewhere but I can not find it. So all you pros and hall of famers out there don't b**ch too much at me please.

who is the greatest player not career accompaniment wise but pure talent wise to win only one slam? who has the biggest game of these guys?

I say, that Richard Krajicek has an awesome game and a ton of talent- to me he had it all. he also has the best assessment of WTA tennis that I have ever heard "Eighty percent of the top 100 women are fat pigs who don't deserve equal pay." Later, he jokingly clarified his comments, remarking, "What I meant to say was that only 75 percent are fat pigs."

Next i go with (in this order)

Goran Ivanišević
Michael Stich
Andy Roddick
adriano panatta
Michael Chang
thomas muster
Peter Korda
Pat Cash
juan carlos ferrera
Vitas Gerulaitis- if we are to consider the '77 AO as a grand slam
Yannick Noah
carlos moya
Alberto Costa
Andres Gomez
Manuel Orantes
Roscoe Tanner
gaston gaudio
Thomas Johansson
Brian Teacher-if we are to consider the '80 AO as a grand slam
Mark Edmondson-if we are to consider the'76 AO as a grand slam
 
Last edited:
Hmm this one is really tough. Panatta is a good pick. He was the only person to ever defeat Borg at RG (twice) yet only managed to win 1 slam, incidentally the FO.

Of course I wasn't around back then to have witnessed tennis back in those days but that one hit me first. In recent years (2000's) I'm gonna say Gaudio maybe.....
 
Semi-Pro said:
Hmm this one is really tough. Panatta is a good pick. He was the only person to ever defeat Borg at RG (twice) yet only managed to win 1 slam, incidentally the FO.

Of course I wasn't around back then to have witnessed tennis back in those days but that one hit me first. In recent years (2000's) I'm gonna say Gaudio maybe.....
Click to expand...

yes, i forgot about panatta- good one. but i think gaudio might be the least talented to win a gs. were you being sarcastic with that one, you sly fox?
 
Devilito said:
Krajicek is a good pick. He had a very well rounded and dangerous game.
Click to expand...
I agree. If they played at the peak of their ability I'd put him ahead of Ivanisevic, Stich and Korda.

Chang, Roddick not even close imo.

Don't know enough about Noah/Tanner to consider them.
 
Ludwig von Mises said:
he is definitely qualified to be on the list talent wise but i left him off because i think he will win at least 3 more slams while i think roddick will win zero more and the rest of the field is retired (lol except muster).
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough. I voted for Noah.
 
The Baseline said:
The more i study Muster, the more im convinced that Fernando Verdasco modeled his game around his. Its almost a mirror image.
Click to expand...

Hmm...

Muster vs Verdasco

Grinder vs Aggressive Baseliner

One-hander vs Two-hander

Volleys vs No-Volleys

Mental Beast vs Mental Midget

Yes, you're right, exact same game-style.
 
if stich doesn't win I've lost faith in everyone's tennis knowledge. Huge smooth server, good forehand, good backhand, great volleys. Could play on clay, hard, indoor, grass. Probably the only player to consistently win on ever surface year in year out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
I think Stich was the best player. Krajicek could have been, but had too many injuries. As far as talent, I'll vote for Korda because he had to be extremely talented to pull off his go-for-broke game and he didn't have the big serve of the other two. Plus, no one else voted for him, yet.
 
Jonny S&V said:
Hmm...

Muster vs Verdasco

Grinder vs Aggressive Baseliner

One-hander vs Two-hander

Volleys vs No-Volleys

Mental Beast vs Mental Midget

Yes, you're right, exact same game-style.
Click to expand...

why dont you just stay on topic, you goof? The Baseline starts reminiscing about Muster making a good point and makes a good contribution to this thread, then goes a little off topic with a verdasaco to muster comparison and then you come around with this nonsense. the thread is not about comparing these two; its about the best talent-wise 1 GS winner. You should replace yourself with vesdasco as a "mental midget". Answer my question, the question jerk!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j0eqZKTjpk
 
NLBwell said:
I think Stich was the best player. Krajicek could have been, but had too many injuries. As far as talent, I'll vote for Korda because he had to be extremely talented to pull off his go-for-broke game and he didn't have the big serve of the other two. Plus, no one else voted for him, yet.
Click to expand...


Oh sorry, you did answer the question:), yeah Korda is pretty awesome, great shotmaker, I have said it time and again on these boards but IMO his game just wasn't as big as Kraijcek, Goran, or Stich and he wasnt as steady as Muster, Roddick and chang. But talent wise maybe 5th or so.
 
2ndServe said:
if stich doesn't win I've lost faith in everyone's tennis knowledge. Huge smooth server, good forehand, good backhand, great volleys. Could play on clay, hard, indoor, grass. Probably the only player to consistently win on ever surface year in year out.
Click to expand...

this is a good opinion; I really like Stich. Great, complete game but dont you think Kraijcek is like a bigger more powerful version of him? And Goran is just Goran- not as complete as Stich but close and more talented in wild, explosive way?
 
Ludwig von Mises said:
he also has the best assessment of WTA tennis that I have ever heard "Eighty percent of the top 100 women are fat pigs who don't deserve equal pay." Later, he jokingly clarified his comments, remarking, "What I meant to say was that only 75 percent are fat pigs."
Click to expand...

Oh man, this quip is a classic. Sure, it might have been an incredibly sexist remark, but if anyone says that they weren't terribly offended by it but didn't find it at least somewhat funny, they're lying. :)

As to the original topic, Krajicek is indeed a good pick. Stich was probably more well-rounded, but perhaps lacked an ounce of Krajicek's massive firepower. It's a close call.

P.S. Yes, Goran is up there, too.
 
I note an edit at 3:08, and wonder if the OP has added Pat Cash to his list?

He would be my nomination, injury plagued for virtually his entire career but managed wins over pretty much all his contemporaries on most surfaces. (I have no idea what his record was like on clay and I cbf looking it up!)

Only won that one slam, but was painfully close at the AO on both grass and hardcourt. Beautiful game, best bh smash and 1hbh topspin lob I ever saw. Also a fabulous volleyer.
 
I guess I see Roddick as a bit one dimensional compared to a Stich or a Pat Cash. Sure, he's a great player, but in a very mechanical and athletic way. You won't see Andy play the creative angle or the amzing touch shot very often.

Opinions, though, y'know?
 
It's true at times he's seemed that way, yet he's had some flexibility and learn-ability, enough to take Fed all the way at Wimbledon. His approach shots are the worst of all time, he tends to just get the ball back, but he's got a real fighting mentality and ... well he's just more enjoyable for me to watch for some reason.
 
Timbo's hopeless slice said:
I note an edit at 3:08, and wonder if the OP has added Pat Cash to his list?

He would be my nomination, injury plagued for virtually his entire career but managed wins over pretty much all his contemporaries on most surfaces. (I have no idea what his record was like on clay and I cbf looking it up!)

Only won that one slam, but was painfully close at the AO on both grass and hardcourt. Beautiful game, best bh smash and 1hbh topspin lob I ever saw. Also a fabulous volleyer.
Click to expand...


Yes, I did add Cash a bit late and I wish I could edit the poll and put him and Muster up there. I liked Cash a lot and rooted for him big time against Lendl in the '87 Wimby final. I think he could get down lower than anyone to hit volleys, his knees were on the ground. But I think his ground game was just to weak to put at the top of the list with Kraijcek, Stich, Goran, even Muster, maybe panatta, dont know if I would even take him over chang and korda. Agassi said in his book "Open" that he remembers playing Cash in 1987 at Straton Mountain when Agassi was 16 and Cash was coming off the Wimby win; he beat Cash that day. He said that Cash looked great, super athletic with those huge legs, real intimidating when rushing the net; but that Agassi noticed that Cash's groundies had very little top on them so Agassi just stepped in and hit winner after winner against a net rushing Cash. Cash was irritated and shocked that a little 16 year old was doing this to the reigning Wimby champ and instead of adapting he just continued with his strategy which ended in his defeat. This story tells me that Cash's game was severely limited in some ways, and when the net rushing didn't work he has no other game to resort to. But still Cash's game is way cooler than roddick's game.

Btw: does anyone have that Straton Mountain Agassi/Cash (1987) match recorded or any of the early Straton Mountain matches involving Agassi. 1987 or 1986 Agassi v Mcenroe, agassi v Lendl, Agassi v. Tim Mayotte, Agassi v. Scott Davis?
 
Last edited:
Timbo's hopeless slice said:
I guess I see Roddick as a bit one dimensional compared to a Stich or a Pat Cash. Sure, he's a great player, but in a very mechanical and athletic way. You won't see Andy play the creative angle or the amzing touch shot very often.

Opinions, though, y'know?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I think of Roddick, no touch, no creativity. I still put him like 4th on my list just because he has won so many matches and been in the top 10 for ever. But really I like Kraijcek, Goran, Stich, Muster, Cash, Korda, even Chang better and I might say that in a way they are all more talented in a way than roddick.
 
F-T-S said:
It's true at times he's seemed that way, yet he's had some flexibility and learn-ability, enough to take Fed all the way at Wimbledon. His approach shots are the worst of all time, he tends to just get the ball back, but he's got a real fighting mentality and ... well he's just more enjoyable for me to watch for some reason.
Click to expand...

I mean he's a good player, he has accomplished a lot in his career, he's been to what- 3 wimby finals, and 2 or 3 U.S. open (cant remember) finals, so I guess he's proven his talent. He just seems so limited to me, and it seems that he's just giving everything he has, and its still so hard for him to win points. Even the serve is so not-smooth, like it's muscled- his forehand was once the same way when he could hit winners with it; now its just spinny.
 
Ludwig von Mises said:
why dont you just stay on topic, you goof? The Baseline starts reminiscing about Muster making a good point and makes a good contribution to this thread, then goes a little off topic with a verdasaco to muster comparison and then you come around with this nonsense. the thread is not about comparing these two; its about the best talent-wise 1 GS winner. You should replace yourself with vesdasco as a "mental midget". Answer my question, the question jerk!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j0eqZKTjpk
Click to expand...

I voted, therefore I took part in your (argued-to-death) thread.

This is a public forum. The argument was related to the topic. Suck it up buttercup.
 
Stich might not be the greatest but maybe the most talented. he was very unconsistent and often played like crap, but when he was on he was really good. great touch for the ball.

boris becker once said that he could not beat stich if stich had a really good day.

best career I think had roddick. not extremely talented and kinda limited player but the best serve in tennis history. He is extremely consistent and had a long career. I think he really maxed out his potential and rarely had a bad day. kinda the opposite to stich.
 
Last edited:
dominikk1985 said:
Stich might not be the greatest but maybe the most talented. he was very unconsistent and often played like crap, but when he was on he was really good. great touch for the ball.

boris becker once said that he could not beat stich if stich had a really good day.

best career I think had roddick. not extremely talented and kinda limited player but the best serve in tennis history. He is extremely consistent and had a long career. I think he really maxed out his potential and rarely had a bad day. kinda the opposite to stich.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I didn't ask for; as to your Roddick comments- the thread is about most talented not most consistent; did you read the thread? And to say that Roddick has the best serve in the history of tennis is silly. I mean he doesn't even have the best serve of the players on this poll; Goran is better on serve, Krajicek is better on the serve and Stich is close.
 
Stitch, Cash and Vitas always struck me as the most talented. Del Po if he manages to not win another major is up there.
 
It's far and away Stich with 2 other slam finals appearances + a Grand Slam Cup and Year End Championship to boot. His "A" game was about as good as it got on tour from ~ 1991-1995. Had some injuries and tough slam losses. It's just had to imagine he never punched his slam ticket again after that Wimbledon title
 
Ludwig von Mises said:
I know this probably has been posting before somewhere but I can not find it. So all you pros and hall of famers out there don't b**ch too much at me please.

who is the greatest player not career accompaniment wise but pure talent wise to win only one slam? who has the biggest game of these guys?

I say, that Richard Krajicek has an awesome game and a ton of talent- to me he had it all. he also has the best assessment of WTA tennis that I have ever heard "Eighty percent of the top 100 women are fat pigs who don't deserve equal pay." Later, he jokingly clarified his comments, remarking, "What I meant to say was that only 75 percent are fat pigs."

Next i go with (in this order)

Goran Ivanišević
Michael Stich
Andy Roddick
adriano panatta
Michael Chang
thomas muster
Peter Korda
Pat Cash
juan carlos ferrera
Vitas Gerulaitis- if we are to consider the '77 AO as a grand slam
Yannick Noah
carlos moya
Alberto Costa
Andres Gomez
Manuel Orantes
Roscoe Tanner
gaston gaudio
Thomas Johansson
Brian Teacher-if we are to consider the '80 AO as a grand slam
Mark Edmondson-if we are to consider the'76 AO as a grand slam
Click to expand...

Not sure about Talent but Roddick is possibly the best 1 slam winner ever in terms of ability.
 
rick kerr said:
Not sure about Talent but Roddick is possibly the best 1 slam winner ever in terms of ability.
Click to expand...
Was this a 12-year bump?
At this point, probably Delpo.
While the slam he won gets crucified around here, Thiem (if he stays at one), is another good candidate.
Otherwise, hard to say, but Krajicek and Stich are good names here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

money_ball
Worst players ever to win a Grand Slam title, a statistical approach
Replies
44
Views
7K
falkenburg
F
Smecz
  • Poll Poll
NextGen Tennis Players with only 1 Grand Slam
Replies
7
Views
497
Smecz
Smecz
UnderratedSlam
Ranking the greatest SLAM RUNS - in terms of number of defeated slam champs.
Replies
26
Views
862
UnderratedSlam
UnderratedSlam
Fabresque
List of notable players Carlos Alcaraz is already better than
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
WildRevolver
WildRevolver
RF-18
David Ferrer, the greatest non-slam winner?
2
Replies
81
Views
3K
spinovic
S
Back
Top