In the Open era, who was the best player to have won a single slam?

[Neptune]

Trophies: Med
Peak and competition: Delpo

RIP To Anyone Peaking In This Era

2008 – 16 vs Top5 T5 Weight vs Top10 T10 Weight vs T11+ T11+ Weight vs All Big Titles Points/Yr Nole 126 (80-46) 63.49% 17.17% 235 (170-65) 72.34% 32.02% 499 (460-39) 92.18% 67.98% 734 (630-104) 85.83% 45 11461 Rafa 94 (54-40) 57.45% 14.33% 170 (110-60) 64.71% 25.91% 486 (439-47) 90.33%...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[nolefam_2024]

Trophies: Med
Peak: Delpo

Delpo vs med in US open would be amazing. Meddy is octopus

 

[timnz]

Delpo then Medvedev

Andy roddick is distant third

Stich is clearly ahead of del potro

 

[nolefam_2024]

Stich is clearly ahead of del potro

Based on accomplishments Meddy is ahead of all.

 

[buscemi]

Based on accomplishments Meddy is ahead of all.

37-30 (55.2%) on clay and 10-8 (55.6%) at the French Open is a bit of an eyesore, though. I'm still taking Stich, who was proficient on all surfaces (including carpet), had a third big title (Grand Slam Cup), and had solid success in doubles (Wimbledon title, Olympic Gold, Masters Series title).

 

[nolefam_2024]

37-30 (55.2%) on clay and 10-8 (55.6%) at the French Open is a bit of an eyesore, though. I'm still taking Stich, who was proficient on all surfaces (including carpet), had a third big title (Grand Slam Cup), and had solid success in doubles (Wimbledon title, Olympic Gold, Masters Series title).

He has reached QF of RG and won Rome. Its not eyesore at all.

 

[buscemi]

He has reached QF of RG and won Rome. Its not eyesore at all.

First round losses 5/8 years at the French Open, which is why he's only 10-8 there, despite the QF. He still has time to build his resume there, but that certainly stands out vs. one Major winners who were good at all Majors like Stich and Čilić.

 

[nolefam_2024]

First round losses 5/8 years at the French Open, which is why he's only 10-8 there, despite the QF. He still has time to build his resume there, but that certainly stands out vs. one Major winners who were good at all Majors like Stich and Čilić.

Stitch has way too many holes if you are counting this way.

Never reached world number 1.
Lower win %
Lower top 5/top 10 wins
Low slam finals
Low masters count

I don't know about doubles record. That is not included in singles discussion. Doubles to me is a sideshow to singles tennis.

Meddy does have a bigger flaw you didn't add, his grass resume. He has 0 grass titles. Let's see if he can change that first. But he is much bigger player on grass and Hard than on clay I agree.

 

[buscemi]

Stitch has way too many holes if you are counting this way.

Never reached world number 1.
Lower win %
Lower top 5/top 10 wins
Low slam finals
Low masters count

I don't know about doubles record. That is not included in singles discussion. Doubles to me is a sideshow to singles tennis.

Meddy does have a bigger flaw you didn't add, his grass resume. He has 0 grass titles. Let's see if he can change that first. But he is much bigger player on grass and Hard than on clay I agree.

Medvedev actually did win Mallorca on grass, which actually helps your argument even more! It's a fun debat. You've certainly listed Stich's shortcomings, but I enjoy his surface versatility, the huge WTF and Grand Slam Cups titles w/wins over Sampras, and the overall winning record against Sampras, the top dog of his time. It feels to me like Medvedev is steadier while Stich had higher highs and better versatility, so I could see going either way.

 

[socallefty]

I think it is Medvedev, but he will disqualify himself from this thread premise by winning another Slam.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Roddick...he was very unlucky to have faced prime Federer in all 4 of his finals he lost, 3 times at the Wimbledon and once at the USO! Replace Roddick's opponent virtually with anyone else in all four of those finals and he is 5 times slam winner with 100% finals win rate!...with Medvedev...i'm not so sure...

Federer killed so many careers it's ridiculous