Is David Ferrer the best player to never win a Major ?

[Otacon]

Statistically, it is indeed David Ferrer who is the best player to have never managed to win a Grand Slam according to this site : http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=BestPlayerThatNeverWonGrandSlamTitle

To understand the methodology, click on the GOAT Points.

 

[Jmauer]

My vote goes to a different David, though he is at the bottom of your list.

Reason - playing level.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Berdych being ranked higher than Davydenko and Nalbandian is a joke.

 

[TheAssassin]

Nalbandian, Rios and Coria get my vote.

Davydenko is up there as well.

 

[JMR]

The good thing about this list is that it includes a lot of very good but obviously non-ATG players from the 70s and early 80s who are often unfairly omitted from discussions of this type. So whether Ferrer is the perfect answer or not, the project is a success. However, Tony Roche won Roland Garros in 1966, and therefore shouldn't be on the list!

 

[Sysyphus]

he probably has the most impressive career of a non-slam-winner all things considered, because he has (had) remarkable consistency. But one feels some others had a higher top level; I like Tsonga for a guy who possessed slam winning level but couldn't put it together for a whole fortnight. And Coria for sure.

 

[kishnabe]

Nalbandian...had the gear that is able to beat the top 3 players.

Ferrer....would need a weak draw like Nadal US Open 2017 to get his major.

 

[chut]

Depend on what you call "best". Ferrer has achieved a lot through his career and as a dependable, consistent player, he obviously amassed some goat points.
But imo, his level was consistent but never enough to win a slam, because he always lacked a game changing weapon.
He never caught fire and was able to win back to back matches against the elite players. Berdych, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Davydenko all did it, at least in M1000.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Miloslav Mecir.

 

[Deon Sanders]

Just on that list Nalbandian, Davydenko, and Tsonga are better players to not win a major

Ferrer was one of the GOAT vultures for many years

 

[MarcusInKensington]

Nowhere near.

Sorry Ferret fans.

 

[romallen]

Not even close.

 

[r2473]

Kyrgios

 

[Steve0904]

He probably had the most solid career of a non slam winner, but I wouldn't say he was the best never to win one. His potential to actually win one was always very low because of his relative lack of power.

I've always thought Tsonga was the best player, at least of this era, to never win a slam. Guys like Nalbandian and Davydenko are nice picks too, but they're more nostalgic than anything. Nalbandian's BH was a great shot as was Davydenko's, but their day in day out consistency on the serve and/or FH was what killed them.

OTOH, Tsonga's BH is below average, but I've always rated the serve and FH as the more important shots in men's tennis anyway. I never felt like Davy or Nalby should ever have won a major, whereas Tsonga (or even someone like Berdych for all the flak he gets) has/had the power to win at least one. Long odds on either Tsonga or Berdych winning one now though.

 

[Shaolin]

Rios is the best. Next are guys like Nalbandian, Mecir. Corretja, Todd Martin deserve to be near the top.

 

[boredone3456]

David gets a lot of respect from me for being a workhorse of a player who played seemingly day in day out and would be arguable as the "King of the ATP 500" type of player. However once you get beyond that into bigger tournaments, its hard to say. in 2012/13 he was certainly very consistent and an outlyer, but those were the only years he made it to the QF or better of all 4 majors and adding in 2011, there were only 3 years it made it to the 4th round of all 4 majors in the year. His one major final, the biggest name he played getting to it was Tsonga....who I really think choked after beating Federer in the QF. I respect David a lot, but even if you took out the big 4 I don't know if I could see him winning a major. The french would certainly be his best shot and even there...its a stretch.

I'd definitely name Davydenko, Nalbandian and others over him for peak level of play. Maybe in terms of consistency at the top or something Ferrer comes into the discussion though.

 

[acintya]

david is a nice boring consistent guy. thats all

 

[Phoenix1983]

Absolutely not.

He's not even the best player born in 1982, from a Spanish speaking country, with the first name David, who never won a slam.

 

[Stilljonesing]

The good thing about this list is that it includes a lot of very good but obviously non-ATG players from the 70s and early 80s who are often unfairly omitted from discussions of this type. So whether Ferrer is the perfect answer or not, the project is a success. However, Tony Roche won Roland Garros in 1966, and therefore shouldn't be on the list!

Pro's couldn't play in the majors until like 1968 or 1969.

 

[BHServe]

Berdych being ranked higher than Davydenko and Nalbandian is a joke.

True

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Tom Okker is the greatest player never to win a major. I think he is greater than Ferrer, if each is viewed through the lens of his era.

Tony Roche is the best player never to win a major, by a combination of peak level + mental resilience to be able to show that level in the majors. He was unlucky to lose several thrillers to great players, most famously the 1969 AO SF to Laver who won the Grand Slam that year (7-5 22-20 9-11 1-6 6-3, 4.5 hours under the scorching sun with no breaks on changeovers) and the 1975 AO SF to Newcombe who beat prime Connors in the final (6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9; Newcombe trailed 2-5 and saved 3 match points!)

 

[Phoenix1983]

Tony Roche is the best player never to win a major, by a combination of peak level + mental resilience to be able to show that level in the majors. He was unlucky to lose several thrillers to great players, most famously the 1969 AO SF to Laver who won the Grand Slam that year (7-5 22-20 9-11 1-6 6-3, 4.5 hours under the scorching sun with no breaks on changeovers) and the 1975 AO SF to Newcombe who beat prime Connors in the final (6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9; Newcombe trailed 2-5 and saved 3 match points!)

I'm sure Roche won the French Open in 1966.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'm sure Roche won the French Open in 1966.

Amateur Slams of the post-1940 era are not true majors IMO. The very best players did not compete.

 

[lunaticmochi]

I vote for Davydenko or Nalbandian. Hell I'd take Berdych over Ferrer.

 

[JMR]

Tony Roche is the best player never to win a major

Do people here actually read threads before commenting in them? I pointed out in post #5 above that Roche actually did win a major, the French. I even put the comment in bold! How did you miss it?

Amateur Slams of the post-1940 era are not true majors IMO. The very best players did not compete.

Of course they are majors. Everyone counts them as majors. The quality of the fields is irrelevant to the question whether a slam is a slam or not. Let's not go down the path of sophistry.

Now, if you want to value the slams of the Open Era more than the slams of the pro/amateur era, of course you may do that in making your own GOAT determination or list of ATGs. But that's a different matter. The fact is that Roche won a major, and therefore can't be mentioned as a player not to have won a major.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Do people here actually read threads before commenting in them? I pointed out in post #5 above that Roche actually did win a major, the French. I even put the comment in bold! How did you miss it?



Of course they are majors. Everyone counts them as majors. The quality of the fields is irrelevant to the question whether a slam is a slam or not. Let's not go down the path of sophistry.

Now, if you want to value the slams of the Open Era more than the slams of the pro/amateur era, of course you may do that in making your own GOAT determination or list of ATGs. But that's a different matter. The fact is that Roche won a major, and therefore can't be mentioned as a player not to have won a major.

'Amateur major' ain't the same as 'major'.

 

[Algo]

My vote goes to Davydenko.

 

[JMR]

'Amateur major' ain't the same as 'major'.

A "definition applied by one guy to support a specious argument" is not the same as a "definition."

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

he probably has the most impressive career of a non-slam-winner all things considered, because he has (had) remarkable consistency. But one feels some others had a higher top level; I like Tsonga for a guy who possessed slam winning level but couldn't put it together for a whole fortnight. And Coria for sure.

This. Semi-consistent players with huge peak levels would more likely get my vote.

 

[JackGates]

Yeah, Federer/Ferrer are both sides of the same coin.
Federer is the best player who won most majors, but Ferrer is the best player who didn't win any majors.

Even their names are similar. And Ferrer hasn't won a single match vs Federer, to complete the circle.

 

[letstakeourshirtsoff]

My vote goes to a different David, though he is at the bottom of your list.

Reason - playing level.

+1

I'd say Nalbandian is the most talented player to never win a slam.

 

[thomasferrett]

Nah, Murray always wins this category (yes, he's still Slamless btw - the wind won the first Slam, then Djokovic's and Raonic's injuries won the other two).

 

[thomasferrett]

OTOH, Tsonga's BH is below average, but I've always rated the serve and FH as the more important shots in men's tennis anyway. I never felt like Davy or Nalby should ever have won a major, whereas Tsonga (or even someone like Berdych for all the flak he gets) has/had the power to win at least one. Long odds on either Tsonga or Berdych winning one now though.

Yes Tsonga, no on Berdych though. The more I watch Berdych, the more the limitations of his game become apparent. And he actually doesn't have that much power - especially for a guy his size, he has an easy clean=hitting style but Tsonga is much more explosive as a shot-maker and a mover, hence much more dangerous with a higher potential when he's on. Tsonga can also zone mentally for extended periods in a match whereas I'd never trust Berdych in the biggest moments.

So I think there's some significant difference in ceiling between Berdych and Tsonga.

 

[NuBas]

Loved to see one of those guys win a slam, Kohlschreiber, Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, etc it would be awesome for tennis.

 

[travlerajm]

Cedric Pioline

 

[Shaolin]

+1

I'd say Nalbandian is the most talented player to never win a slam.

You've never seen Rios hit a ball then.

 

[letstakeourshirtsoff]

You've never seen Rios hit a ball then.

Rios was gifted too. but please keep to yourself, I don't like these arrogant assumptions. kthxbye

 

[Shaolin]

Rios was gifted too. but please keep to yourself, I don't like these arrogant assumptions. kthxbye

Ok no worries. I'll try harder to not upset you next time, poor delicate easily offended millennial

 

[Druss]

Yes David is the best player to never win a major, without a doubt.

He's back home in Argentina enjoying retirement.

 

[vbranis]

Nalbandian, Rios, Coria and Davydenko. In that order.

 

[King No1e]

soderling isn't even on there? thats shocking

 

[Deanjam]

Statistics are great and all. But no Tommy Haas?

 

[Otacon]

Statistics are great and all. But no Tommy Haas?

You're a gif master.

 

[Deanjam]

You're a gif master.

 

[Red Rick]

Nalbandian was so close that in hindsight he was 1 point away from putting Roddick on top of this list. The horror

 

[arvind13]

No one mentions Mark Philippoussis. For all their finesse and variety, neither nalbandian or rios had a big enough game to win slams, especially rios. Mark did. Big serve, big forehand, big backhand, good net skills. His only weakness was his movement. Philippoussis is certainly the best player ever not to win a slam. Because he had a bigger game and more slam winning potential than rios or nalbandian.

 

[Mainad]

No one mentions Mark Philippoussis. For all their finesse and variety, neither nalbandian or rios had a big enough game to win slams, especially rios. Mark did. Big serve, big forehand, big backhand, good net skills. His only weakness was his movement. Philippoussis is certainly the best player ever not to win a slam. Because he had a bigger game and more slam winning potential than rios or nalbandian.

Agree about Philippoussis and I think Söderling should be included too. Both players made multiple Slam finals (2 each) unlike most of the names on the list.

Tony Roche is the only player on the list who made multiple Slam finals. He made 3 which makes a strong case for him to be considered the best player never to win a Slam in the Open Era (he did win Roland Garros in 1966 back in the amateur era)..

 

[Shaolin]

No one mentions Mark Philippoussis. For all their finesse and variety, neither nalbandian or rios had a big enough game to win slams, especially rios. Mark did. Big serve, big forehand, big backhand, good net skills. His only weakness was his movement. Philippoussis is certainly the best player ever not to win a slam. Because he had a bigger game and more slam winning potential than rios or nalbandian.

MP deserves a mention for sure but you're crazy if you think Rios didn't have a good enough game to win a major. The guy's problem was motivation and injuries.

Rios should have won RG in 98 but he just gave no f*cks which was his problem in general. His QF match against Moya he literally slept till like 20-30 min before the match started..pretty much says it all.

 

[Deon Sanders]

neither nalbandian or rios had a big enough game to win slams

Mate Nalbandian had a huge game. It was too big.

He beat peak Fed indoors on carpet in a 5 setter

Thats as hard as tennis can get

 

[letstakeourshirtsoff]

Ok no worries. I'll try harder to not upset you next time, poor delicate easily offended millennial

whatever you say, champ.

still nalbandian >>> rios.