In the past 20 years, who had the toughest draw to win their first slam?

[drwood]

Thinking about the 09 US Open and was wondering who had the toughest draw to win their first slam? I'd love to hear what others think.

As always, no flaming, trolling, or hating, please. Thank you.

Candidates IMO:
Chang (89 French) -- beat Sampras, Lendl, Chesnokov and Edberg
Sampras (90 USO) -- beat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi
Courier (91 French) -- beat Ferreira, Todd Martin, Edberg, Stich, and Agassi
Agassi (92 Wimbledon) -- beat Becker, McEnroe, Ivanisevic
Kuerten (97 French) -- beat Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Bruguera
Safin (00 USO) -- beat Ferrero, Todd Martin, and Sampras
Hewitt (01 USO) -- beat Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras
Djokovic (08 Aus) -- beat Hewitt, Ferrer, Federer and Tsonga
Del Potro (09 USO) -- beat Ferrero, prime Nadal and prime Federer

 

[Claudius]

Honestly, I think it was Chang's 89 FO win.

 

[Blinkism]

Leaning towards Kuerten

all of those draws are tough for a first timer, though.

Djoko's looks like the easiest, actually..

 

[veroniquem]

Thinking about the 09 US Open and was wondering who had the toughest draw to win their first slam? I'd love to hear what others think.

As always, no flaming, trolling, or hating, please. Thank you.

Candidates IMO:
Chang (89 French) -- beat Sampras, Lendl, Chesnokov and Edberg
Sampras (90 USO) -- beat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi
Courier (91 French) -- beat Ferreira, Todd Martin, Edberg, Stich, and Agassi
Agassi (92 Wimbledon) -- beat Becker, McEnroe, Ivanisevic
Kuerten (97 French) -- beat Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Bruguera
Safin (00 USO) -- beat Ferrero, Todd Martin, and Sampras
Hewitt (01 USO) -- beat Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras
Djokovic (08 Aus) -- beat Hewitt, Ferrer, Federer and Tsonga
Del Potro (09 USO) -- beat Ferrero, prime Nadal and prime Federer

About USO 2009: Nadal just back from an extensive time out AND suffering from a stomach tear is prime Nadal? I hope you're joking. It's also arguable whether 28 year old Fed (even though he laboriously managed to pocket RG and W this year after his main rival went down) is an apt representation of "prime Fed".
Other than that, from the ones you quoted, I would have to say Kuerten in 1997, he had to go through a really impressive string of clay court monsters to get the title...
About Sampras in 1990, the names look impressive but McEnroe was way past his prime, Muster wasn' t very good yet (he would become a force in the mid 90s), even Agassi hadn't won a slam yet, he was still pretty green.

 

[Claudius]

About USO 2009: Nadal just back from an extensive time out AND suffering from a stomach tear is prime Nadal? I hope you're joking. It's also arguable whether 28 year old Fed (even though he laboriously managed to pocket RG and W this year after his main rival went down) is an apt representation of "prime Fed".
Other than that, from the ones you quoted, I would have to say Kuerten in 1997, he had to go through a really impressive string of clay court monsters to get the title...

Even if Nadal was 100%, I'd doubt he would've done any differently against Del Potro. Did Nadal really play poorly? No...he just played like he usually does, but was blown off the court.

 

[viduka0101]

Leaning towards Kuerten

all of those draws are tough for a first timer, though.

Djoko's looks like the easiest, actually..

dont know about that, safins looks to me like the easiest
i think its agassi or chang

 

[AAAA]

Who played the most sets?

 

[veroniquem]

Even if Nadal was 100%, I'd doubt he would've done any differently against Del Potro. Did Nadal really play poorly? No...he just played like he usually does, but was blown off the court.

He served extraordinarily more poorly than usual (than at AO for instance). All his shots in general had less power than he can muster if he's fine. I'm not saying Nadal would have won, he would probably have lost anyway, given his past records at USO, but regardless you cannot say Delpo DID play prime Nadal, that's simply not true.

 

[veroniquem]

He served extraordinarily more poorly than usual (than at AO for instance). All his shots in general had less power than he can muster if he's fine. I'm not saying Nadal would have won, he would probably have lost anyway, given his past records at USO, but regardless you cannot say Delpo DID play prime Nadal, that's simply not true.

If you want to play the "if" game, I would say that if Delpo had played "prime Nadal", it would have been much tougher for him to win and he would have been less likely to have enough left in the tank to edge out Fed in a 5 setter in the final.
(sorry, answer to Claudius's post just above)

 

[35ft6]

I voted for Kuerten.

 

[flying24]

He served extraordinarily more poorly than usual (than at AO for instance). All his shots in general had less power than he can muster if he's fine. I'm not saying Nadal would have won, he would probably have lost anyway, given his past records at USO, but regardless you cannot say Delpo DID play prime Nadal, that's simply not true.

According to you in your excuse making charade last year Nadal wasnt even "prime Nadal" until the middle of 2008 in order to dismiss his blowout losses to Tsonga and Djokovic early in 2008 (the blowout loss to Djokovic in Cincinatti, and loss to Murray at the U.S Open, were both dimissed with tiredness of course). Now suddenly Nadal is "not in his prime" by late 2009. So what is this, did Nadal suddenly only have a one year prime? :lol: Or now will you retract and now have his prime suddenly start alot sooner than mid 2008 while you think up a new batch of excuses for all the one sided or big match losses (and on hard courts they are plentiful) too.

 

[veroniquem]

According to you in your excuse making charade last year Nadal wasnt even "prime Nadal" until the middle of 2008 in order to dismiss his blowout losses to Tsonga and Djokovic early in 2008 (the blowout loss to Djokovic in Cincinatti, and loss to Murray at the U.S Open, were both dimissed with tiredness of course). Now suddenly Nadal is "not in his prime" by late 2009. So what is this, did Nadal suddenly only have a one year prime? :lol: Or now will you retract and now have his prime suddenly start alot sooner than mid 2008 while you think up a new batch of excuses for all the one sided or big match losses (and on hard courts they are plentiful) too.

What do you mean "suddenly"? Has Nadal been out for more than 2 months to repair his knee, yes or no? Has Nadal contracted a stomach tear soon after he came back, yes or no? Has he withdrawn from the Thai tournament after USO in order to heal the stomach tear, yes or no?
Whoever said Nadal was not 100% vs Tsonga in AO 2008 was wrong and it was certainly not me! Whoever says Nadal was 100% at USO 2009 has to be joking.

 

[dincuss]

Tough one between Agassi and Chang.
Gonna say Chang

 

[Feña14]

Del Potro? I don't think so lol.

An injured Nadal in a US Open semi is something you'd take anyday of the week. Federer in the final is very hard no doubt, but if Federer put in the performance he did this year, in the previous two finals against Djokovic and Murray then they would of both beaten him aswell.

Kuertern it is for me.

 

[VivalaVida]

What do you mean "suddenly"? Has Nadal been out for more than 2 months to repair his knee, yes or no? Has Nadal contracted a stomach tear soon after he came back, yes or no? Has he withdrawn from the Thai tournament after USO in order to heal the stomach tear, yes or no?
Whoever said Nadal was not 100% vs Tsonga in AO 2008 was wrong and it was certainly not me! Whoever says Nadal was 100% at USO 2009 has to be joking.

Rafa showed up, played good tennis against his all his opponents up to the QF. The win against gonzo was impressive. Nadal ran into Del Potro who crushed Nadal mercilessly because Nadal's game of loopy high topspin shots will never cut it against a big hitter like del potro. Nadal wouldnt have won that match even if he was in his "prime". I agree that Nadal wasnt 100 percent but he wasnt exactly in agonizing pain either as you make it sound.

 

[35ft6]

Can't believe somebody voted for Courier.

 

[VivalaVida]

Andre's win at 92 was most impressive.

 

[drwood]

Can't believe somebody voted for Courier.

Why do you say that? Beating prime Edberg, prime Stich and Agassi back-to-back is an impressive feat to win your first slam.

Plus Ferreira as a perennial top-10 player who had a winning H2H against Sampras for most of his career.

Courier's 1991 French is very underrated IMO.

 

[viduka0101]

Rafa showed up, played good tennis against his all his opponents up to the QF. The win against gonzo was impressive. Nadal ran into Del Potro who crushed Nadal mercilessly because Nadal's game of loopy high topspin shots will never cut it against a big hitter like del potro. Nadal wouldnt have won that match even if he was in his "prime". I agree that Nadal wasnt 100 percent but he wasnt exactly in agonizing pain either as you make it sound.

he wasn't in agonizing pain but let's just say that federers crappy performance deserved about 20 threads and nadals maybe one or two
i honestly didnt see a good thread that talked about some of nadals poor tactical choices(for example his ridiculous overuse of the slice which was poorly executed and wasnt doing the job, i suppose the nadal camp expected the tall guy to feel uncomfortable with those shots )

 

[viduka0101]

Can't believe somebody voted for Courier.

why is that so hard to believe? :-?

 

[tacou]

depends what you mean by draw. drawing Nadal and Fed back to back is the worst imaginable I think, but unlike your poll I disagree either were in their prime. so I'll go with Sampras or Chang

 

[tacou]

According to you in your excuse making charade last year Nadal wasnt even "prime Nadal" until the middle of 2008 in order to dismiss his blowout losses to Tsonga and Djokovic early in 2008 (the blowout loss to Djokovic in Cincinatti, and loss to Murray at the U.S Open, were both dimissed with tiredness of course). Now suddenly Nadal is "not in his prime" by late 2009. So what is this, did Nadal suddenly only have a one year prime? :lol: Or now will you retract and now have his prime suddenly start alot sooner than mid 2008 while you think up a new batch of excuses for all the one sided or big match losses (and on hard courts they are plentiful) too.

veroniquem is a Nadal radical for sure, and I'd say Nadal is in his prime, but at the USO he clearly was still recovering from his lay off AND dealing with the abdominal strain. I don't think Rafa would have beaten Delp at all, but he could have pushed it to 5 and out lasted him. Either way, to say that was "prime" Rafa is a bit of a stretch no matter who you're a fan of.

 

[FedSampras1]

Kuerten by far



then Courier and Agassi

 

[TheFifthSet]

Kuerten IMO was by far the toughest.

Although Ivanisevic's draw in '01 was pretty tough . . . . Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman, and Rafter on grass is pretty sick.

 

[drwood]

Kuerten IMO was by far the toughest.

Although Ivanisevic's draw in '01 was pretty tough . . . . Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman, and Rafter on grass is pretty sick.

Great point...I forgot about Ivanisevic; I also forgot to include Stich 91 Wimbledon (beating Courier, Edberg and Becker back-to-back)

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Kuerten 97

This is considering injuries and age of their opponents etc.

Del Potro probably had the easiest opponents. His only tough opponent was Federer since Nadal was injured.

 

[federerfanatic]

Thinking about the 09 US Open and was wondering who had the toughest draw to win their first slam? I'd love to hear what others think.

As always, no flaming, trolling, or hating, please. Thank you.

Candidates IMO:
Chang (89 French) -- beat Sampras, Lendl, Chesnokov and Edberg
Sampras (90 USO) -- beat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi
Courier (91 French) -- beat Ferreira, Todd Martin, Edberg, Stich, and Agassi
Agassi (92 Wimbledon) -- beat Becker, McEnroe, Ivanisevic
Kuerten (97 French) -- beat Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Bruguera
Safin (00 USO) -- beat Ferrero, Todd Martin, and Sampras
Hewitt (01 USO) -- beat Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras
Djokovic (08 Aus) -- beat Hewitt, Ferrer, Federer and Tsonga
Del Potro (09 USO) -- beat Ferrero, prime Nadal and prime Federer

Beating Sampras in 89 on clay is not even worth noting really. Still Chang's overall draw to the French Open title in 89 is very tough (didnt he also beat LeConte in the quarters which is much more noteable than 89 Sampras on clay).

My pick would probably be Edberg at the 92 U.S Open which you didnt even include. He beat Krajicek, an aging but still formidable Lendl, Chang on his best surface, and then Sampras in the final.

 

[drwood]

Beating Sampras in 89 on clay is not even worth noting really. Still Chang's overall draw to the French Open title in 89 is very tough (didnt he also beat LeConte in the quarters which is much more noteable than 89 Sampras on clay).

My pick would probably be Edberg at the 92 U.S Open which you didnt even include. He beat Krajicek, an aging but still formidable Lendl, Chang on his best surface, and then Sampras in the final.

1992 wasn't Edberg's first slam.

 

[federerfanatic]

1992 wasn't Edberg's first slam.

Sorry my bad. OK Chang in 1989 easily then.

Kuerten's draw at the 97 French was tough but most of those others were not in form or really in their primes anyway.

 

[DownTheLine]

Federer was not in his prime this USO.

 

[Max G.]

Thinking about the 09 US Open and was wondering who had the toughest draw to win their first slam? I'd love to hear what others think.

As always, no flaming, trolling, or hating, please. Thank you.

Candidates IMO:
Chang (89 French) -- beat Sampras, Lendl, Chesnokov and Edberg
Sampras (90 USO) -- beat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi
Courier (91 French) -- beat Ferreira, Todd Martin, Edberg, Stich, and Agassi
Agassi (92 Wimbledon) -- beat Becker, McEnroe, Ivanisevic
Kuerten (97 French) -- beat Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Bruguera
Safin (00 USO) -- beat Ferrero, Todd Martin, and Sampras
Hewitt (01 USO) -- beat Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras
Djokovic (08 Aus) -- beat Hewitt, Ferrer, Federer and Tsonga
Del Potro (09 USO) -- beat Ferrero, prime Nadal and prime Federer

Why did you put "prime" Nadal and "prime" Federer, but didn't put any sort of qualifiers for anybody else? I don't particularly feel like arguing about whether they were actually in their prime or not, but still, you didn't put the "prime" note for anybody else - and I'm sure at least some of those guys were "in their prime". Seems like you're trying to slant the poll in this direction...

 

[smack that]

federer's serve sucked that day against delpo

 

[Serendipitous]

Juan Martin Luther King del Potsville

 

[SerbWhoLovesDelPo]

I voted Chang, because I forgot Kuerten. That was probably the toughest.

Where is Goran for 2001 Wimbledon?

 

[JeMar]

Ivanisevic needs to be on here.

Aside from his first round opponent (some dude from Sweden) and his semi-final opponent (excellent Tim Henman), his entire draw consisted of past and future slam winners and slam finalists.

2001 Wimbledon:

1: Jonnson
2. Moya
3. Roddick
R16: Rusedski
QF: Safin
SF: Henman
F: Rafter

All but one of these players are big-match tough, and four of them could be considered fast court specialists.

 

[abmk]

Pretty close b/w guga, chang and goran. But I think I'll go with guga

 

[grafselesfan]

Juan Martin Luther King del Potsville

Pretty kitty cat.

 

[ispaht]

You've got to be kidding when you say that Del Potro's win in the US Open came at the expense of PRIME Nadal, and PRIME Federer.

Anyway,for me it's a toss-up between Chang and Ivanisevic.

 

[JeMar]

The thing with Kurten's draw is that two of his matches were against career challenger players, including his semi-final match. Bjorkman was a decent singles player on fast courts, and mainly a doubles specialist.

Goran's draw was loaded from the second round on. I know Moya's not a grass court great or anything, but the guy has tasted slam success.

 

[JeMar]

Chang's RG title came at the expense of a very weak Sampras. This was the Sampras that Agassi described as "definitely not making it on the tour," and one that would not blossom until late in the next year. Sampras was barely ranked in the top 100 when Chang thumped him 1, 1, and 1. Pete was pretty pathetic back then.

One of the guys he beat en route to the final was ranked 291 in the world. The average rank of the guys he had to beat was 88 or something ridiculous like that.

Doesn't even compare to some of the other slams that have been won by other guys.

People just look at that slam and see his epic wins over Lendl and Edberg, but they forget about all the other matches he played.

 

[HoVa]

I'll give it to Chang on the basis that he was a 17 year old wunderkid from out of nowhere taking on some consistent and seasoned veterans on a tough stage.

still to think 20 years later and its still considered THE miraculous run.

 

[HoVa]

Oh, don't forget about Mats Wilander 1982 FO title

Wilander surprised the tennis world at the 1982 French Open. As an unseeded player, he upset second seeded Ivan Lendl in the fourth round, fifth seeded Vitas Gerulaitis in the quarterfinals, fourth seeded José Luis Clerc in the semifinals, and third seeded Guillermo Vilas in the final 1–6, 7–6, 6–0, 6–4 in 4 hours and 42 minutes.

 

[drwood]

Oh, don't forget about Mats Wilander 1982 FO title

That's why I said within the past 20 years .

 

[grafselesfan]

Chang's RG title came at the expense of a very weak Sampras. This was the Sampras that Agassi described as "definitely not making it on the tour," and one that would not blossom until late in the next year. Sampras was barely ranked in the top 100 when Chang thumped him 1, 1, and 1. Pete was pretty pathetic back then.

One of the guys he beat en route to the final was ranked 291 in the world. The average rank of the guys he had to beat was 88 or something ridiculous like that.

Doesn't even compare to some of the other slams that have been won by other guys.

People just look at that slam and see his epic wins over Lendl and Edberg, but they forget about all the other matches he played.

He also beat Chesnokov in the semis. I dont care where Chesnokov was ranked, he was considered one of the best clay courters in the World from 88-90. To have beaten Lendl, Chesnokov, and Edberg already makes his draw very hard regardless what the rest looked like. How tough the 2 or 3 toughest opponents are anyway is far more opponent than who had the tougher of their weaker 4 opponents who had almost no chance to beat the eventual winner in most cases anyway.

 

[Telepatic]

Federer was not in his prime this USO.

Why OP stood out in poll that Delpo got "prime Fed" (and not in Djokovic's draw) is beyond me lol..was he past his prime in `08 than hes again prime in later stage of `09?? All credit to Delpo but if your giving him credit give it to Djokovic as well.
Also, "prime" Nadal..and guy havent played for a while and came up with some abd injury as well..
I'd say Kuerten by the way.

 

[drwood]

Why OP stood out in poll that Delpo got "prime Fed" (and not in Djokovic's draw) is beyond me lol..was he past his prime in `08 than hes again prime in later stage of `09?? All credit to Delpo but if your giving him credit give it to Djokovic as well.
Also, "prime" Nadal..and guy havent played for a while and came up with some abd injury as well..
I'd say Kuerten by the way.

As long as Fed is able to make 7 slam finals in a row (his current streak -- second all time only to his own record of 10), he's still prime Fed until proven otherwise. As long as Nadal is winning slams, he's still prime Nadal until proven otherwise.

If you're well enough to play (and make a slam SF), you're well enough to lose without making excuses. Period.

 

[35ft6]

Why do you say that?

Because compared to the others, his string of wins is not as impressive. None of those guys were French Open champs at the time, and of the 5 mentioned, only Agassi would someday win the French. He's the only person on the list who didn't have to beat a person who had already won that Slam to take the title. And besides that, none of those guys were at their best on clay.

Compare that to Guga who had to beat 3 French Open champs and then ranked 66, played 5 people ranked higher than him. Courier played no French Open winners (at the time) and was ranked 9 at the time and played only two people ranked higher than him.

 

[drwood]

Because compared to some of the others, his road was not as hard. None of those guys were French Open champs at the time, and of the 5 mentioned, only Agassi would someday win the French. He's the only person on the list who didn't have to beat a person who had already won that Slam to take the title. And besides that, none of those guys were at their best on clay.

World #1 and reigning Wimbledon champion Edberg hadn't already won a slam? OK

Stich won the next slam played (Wimbledon) and then made a French final later in his career

Agassi was in his second straight slam final and his career speaks for itself.

EDIT: Rereading your post, its a fair point that none of Courier's opponents had won the French before. But still that is a VERY difficult draw from beginning to end in order to win your first slam.

 

[Baikalic]

I'm going with chang, but I'd like to suggest Ivanesevic had a pretty tough draw to finally get Wimbledon on the 4th final try.

Moya, Roddick, Safin, Henman, Rafter 6–3, 3–6, 6–3, 2–6, 9–7 in 2001 is looks very tough to me.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Even thought its not his first slam I'll throw Sampras 93 Wimbledon in there, Agassi, Becker and Courier.