Rank the 1-slam winners of 2000s

[Davy_for _GOAT]

1. Roddick - won US Open 2003 and reached 4 slam finals (including 3 Wimbledons), was ranked at No.1, and has been in Top 10 for almost a whole decade, easily the best of the six

2. Tie Djokovic/Ferrero - Ferrero has 1 more slam final and reached No.1, but Djokovic has more Masters, the Masters Cup and satisfactory results on all surfaces (Wimby SF, 2 finals in Queens/Halle)

3. Del Potro - slightly better results than Johansson, vs better opponents
4. Johansson

5. Gaudio - had weakest opponent in the final, and only played well on clay
6. Costa - better than Gaudio and Johansson, but he really belongs in the 90s

7. Goran

 

[clayman2000]

What about Goran?

 

[Davy_for _GOAT]

What about Goran?

d@mn, that's what makes it complicated, some people belong in the 90s.

Frankly, based on his results in 00s, he's not even close to Gaudio or Costa

 

[thalivest]

I would like to rank the 3, 2, and 1 slam winners of each gender for the 2000s:

Men 3 slam winners of the 2000s:

1. Agassi- well he is the only one.

Men 2 slam winners of the 2000s:

1. Hewitt- this is a no brainer IMO. Two time year end #1, Wimbledon and U.S Open winner, two time TMC Champion.

2. Kuerten- give him the nod since while he was a one surface wonder somewhat, he did clearly outperform Safin to win the crucial TMC in 2000 where Kuerten beat both Sampras and Agassi and Safin lost to both. This was on a surface that should have favored Safin, and with the year end #1 ranking on the line, an acheivement Safin never managed. That is already enough to give him the edge over Safin for me.

3. Safin- won no Masters on clay as Kuerten did on hard courts. Both his slams were on hard courts just like Kuerten's were on clay. More balanced and overall slam results than Kuerten, but I already explained why I put Kuerten in front of him.

4. Sampras- well this was just for this decade alone, and since Safin was better than him overall in 2000, 2001, and 2002 (2001 was close mind you) I dont see how he could rate anywhere else.

1 slam winners men of the 2000s:

1. Roddick- Regardless who one feels is the better player between Djokovic and Roddick, Roddick has had the better career up to now (likely to be surpassed in time by the younger Djokovic of course).

2. Djokovic- more versatile than Roddick but still has not surpassed his accomplishments quite yet IMO.

3. Ferrero- really needed to build on his 2000-2003 success to be any higher.

4. Del Potro- only going to move up in the future.

5. Johansson- was actually a really tough player on hard courts and even to some degree grass.

6. Costa- I only rank him this low since prime Costa was in the 90s, and the early 2000s Costa wasnt even all that strong for the most part. His FO win at this point in his career came out of the blue.

7. Ivanisevic- again this was for just this decade alone. He was even more past it then Costa in the early 2000s when he won Wimbledon.

8. Gaudio- do I have to say anything.


Women 3 slam winners of the 2000s:

1. Sharapova- well her and Capriati are the only 2 who have won 3 slams this decade and Maria is by far the better player of the two so this was an easy call.

2. Capriati- cant believe she is even in this category.


Women 2 slam winners of the 2000s:

1. Clijsters- she and Mauresmo were both underachievers to many, but I still think Kim is the better player of the two. She seemed even more of a threat to win slams more often, and overall achieved more.

2. Mauresmo- read above.

3. Kuznetsova- underachieving headcase who was lucky as heck to win the 2 slams she did given the draw and circumstances she had at both, and the number of chances she blew in other slams.


Women 1 slam winners of the 2000s:

1. Davenport- this is a no brainer. So much horrible luck this decade, it is a crime she won only 1 slam this decade.

2. Pierce- great player but 2000 and 2005 were her only strong years this decade. Mostly a 90s player. Still outclasses the rest IMO.

3. Ivanovic- she did reach 3 slam finals at one point. Easy to forget with her struggles now for awhile she was quite a legitimate force.

4. Myskina- she actually won a slam? Pretty much topics like this are the only times I am reminded of that. By the way she won the same French Open that Gaudio won, same things are fate I guess.

 

[thalivest]

I cant believe anyone would rate Gaudio anywhere but last. Johansson has won a Masters title on hard courts, granted it was in late 1999, has beaten many top players on hard courts (he owned Kafelnikov on the surface), has played very tough on grass and indoors as well. Gaudio has never been in a Masters finals, has never been in another slam quarterfinal. Gaudio might have a nicer game to watch but Johansson hands down as the more successful and better player.

Costa was past his prime but still was so much better player than was Gaudio. Same for Ivanisevic.

Check out Gaudio's slam record. Just scary bad for a slam champion, even a fluke one.

 

[_maxi]

5. Gaudio - had weakest opponent in the final

You must be crazy. Coria, weak? on clay?

 

[anointedone]

You must be crazy. Coria, weak? on clay?

First of all Coria is not that great. 2004 was the worst year of clay court tennis of the Open Era probably. Only in such a weak year of clay courters could Coria be the guy to beat on clay for the year. Think about it, Ferrero wrecked by illness and injury, Kuerten long done with hip problems, a past his prime Moya, Federer not strong on clay at all apart from Hamburg until 2005, Nadal a 17 year old baby on tour who didnt even play the French that year. This was the grand clay court field of 2004, LOL! Federer was 2-0 vs Coria even at Coria's peak. In 2004 Federer could lose to anyone on clay, he still went out early rounds most clay court events he played, and yet he still beat Coria once he reached him. Ferrero bullied Coria in the Monte Carlo final on clay in 2003 when Coria was already near his best, and before Ferrero's health problems ruined him. 18 year old Nadal went 2-0 vs Coria on clay in 2005 which was Coria's last year playing top tennis. Coria never conquered any major foes on clay. His biggest ever win at the French was a 33 year old Agassi, and at his peak he lost to Verkerk, Gaudio, and pre prime Davydenko at the French. Coria did well only when he didnt have to play anyone that good.

If you look at the finalists from 1990 to today:

1990- Gomez and Agassi, both better than Coria on clay
1991- Agassi and Courier, both better than Coria on clay
1992- Courier and Korda, Courier better than Coria on clay
1993- Courier and Bruguera- both better than Coria on clay
1994- Bruguera and Berasetegui, Bruguera better than Coria on clay
1995- Muster and Chang, Muster definitely and Chang maybe better than Coria on clay
1996- Kafelnikov and Stich, Kafelnikov probably better than Coria on clay
1997- Kuerten and Bruguera- both better than Coria on clay
1998- Moya and Corretja, both probably better than Coria on clay in their primes
1999- Agassi and Medvedev, Agassi in his prime better than Coria on clay
2000- Kuerten and Norman, Kuerten obviously better. Norman in 2000 was probably better than Coria ever was on clay too.
2001- Kuerten and Corretja, both better than Coria on clay
2002- Ferrero and Costa, both better than Coria on clay
2003- Ferrero and Verkerk, Ferrero obviously better than Coria on clay
2005- Nadal and Puerta, Nadal obviously better than Coria on clay
2006 to 2008- Nadal and Federer, both better than Coria on clay
2009- Federer and Soderling, Federer better than Coria on clay

So the only finalists of the French that were weaker than even Coria on clay were Korda in 92, Berasetegui in 94, Stich in 96, a past his prime Medvedev in 99, Verkerk in 2003, and Puerta in 2005. So actually most of even the runner ups are in fact better than Coria. If he had won the final that year as he was heavily favored to do vs Gaudio, even he would have been the weakest French Open Champion of the last 20 years other than maybe Kafelnikov. Gaudio just was even a much weaker one still.

 

[bluescreen]

wow, u really have a low view of coria's ability on clay. in 2004 he was definitely the man to beat on the dirt by a long shot. in 2005 he was pretty good too until nadal came along.

i'd say ferrero had the weakest opponent in a final among 1 slam winners of the decade.

 

[Serendipitous]

Gaudio owns everyone.

 

[anointedone]

wow, u really have a low view of coria's ability on clay. in 2004 he was definitely the man to beat on the dirt by a long shot. in 2005 he was pretty good too until nadal came along.

i'd say ferrero had the weakest opponent in a final among 1 slam winners of the decade.

I admited he was the one to beat on clay in 2004. What other year in history other than 2004 would he have been the one to beat on clay though. Certainly not while any of Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Ferrero, Nadal, or even Rios or Agassi were near their best which pretty much eliminates every year other than 2004.

Ferrero did have the weakest opponent but he is still a far superior clay courter to either Coria or Gaudio. No contest.

 

[Davy_for _GOAT]

You must be crazy. Coria, weak? on clay?

Coria was the weakest opponent in the final that any of those 6 1-slam winners had (except maybe Roddick)

Djokovic and Del Potro had Federer, Costa had Ferrero (on clay), Johansson had Safin. Only Roddick perhaps had an easier opponent (Ferrero on fast hardcourt), but Roddick is obviously better than Gaudio, so no controversy there.

Am i right?

 

[thalivest]

You must be crazy. Coria, weak? on clay?

What was so great about Coria? 1 big clay title ever in Monte Carlo, 1 French Open final where he struggled past Henman in the semis to make, and 1 other semi where after scraping past a mid 30s Agassi he lost to Martin Verkerk. His only win over Nadal on clay being when Nadal was 16, and his biggest ever win at the French being a past his prime Moya. Relative to a typical slam final opponent he is weak. Relative to Tommy Robredo he is great sure.

 

[abmk]

1. Roddick
2. Djokovic
3. Ferrero
4. Del Potro
5. Johansson
6. Costa
7. Ivanisevic
8. Gaudio

 

[abmk]

wow, u really have a low view of coria's ability on clay. in 2004 he was definitely the man to beat on the dirt by a long shot. in 2005 he was pretty good too until nadal came along.

i'd say ferrero had the weakest opponent in a final among 1 slam winners of the decade.

^^^^

agree

 

[egn]

First of all Coria is not that great. 2004 was the worst year of clay court tennis of the Open Era probably. Only in such a weak year of clay courters could Coria be the guy to beat on clay for the year. Think about it, Ferrero wrecked by illness and injury, Kuerten long done with hip problems, a past his prime Moya, Federer not strong on clay at all apart from Hamburg until 2005, Nadal a 17 year old baby on tour who didnt even play the French that year. This was the grand clay court field of 2004, LOL! Federer was 2-0 vs Coria even at Coria's peak. In 2004 Federer could lose to anyone on clay, he still went out early rounds most clay court events he played, and yet he still beat Coria once he reached him. Ferrero bullied Coria in the Monte Carlo final on clay in 2003 when Coria was already near his best, and before Ferrero's health problems ruined him.

Worst year...hmm sorry this is debatable 1990 ring a bell. Andrei Chesnokov made two clay court master series final and Juan Aguilera at 32 who was barely ever a top 10 player faced off against Boris Becker in the Hamburg (slowest clay court) final and the final saw Andre Gomez beat a choking Andre Agassi. You had a wildcard and qualifer in the QFs. I am sure I can dig up more but to say it is the worst is a bit harsh.

Coria was a lot better than you cut him out to be. First of all lets break some of your stuff down. You call Coria's era weak..what was it like in the late 90s when you had baby Kuerten and Moya who never deserved a French Open winning slams. Second of all Moya played better from 02-04 then in 98. He had worse results at France but overall he was a far better player. He was not PAST HIS PRIME. He was consistently in the top 10 and hanging around the top 5. This is bull. Moya suffered from injury which cut his prime in half, buit please in 02-04 he was a threat at all the major clay court events and was performing just as good as he was in 98. Argue this with me by saying he didn't win a slam just shows how much holes your argument would have, but Moya won 2 master series 2 more finals and a handful of QF or better finishes he was losing in the slams because there was guys like Coria. You are telling me in 2004 ranked 5 Moya was past his prime and nothing when Coria beat him after winning the Rome master series on clay and being a favorite going into the French Open. Look into Moya's 2004 season. Only time Moya made the quarters of every major clay event. Little to do with Ferrero being absent because he wouldn't meet Ferrero to the quarters of any of them anyway due to his ranking.

What does Nadal have to do with this? Don't bring Nadal into this before I expose how weak his clay competition is because trust me if you are calling Coria's week wait till you see how easily 06-07 can be ripped apart.

Federer was no slouch on clay. Federer fans downtalk his clay ability to cover up him losing, but Federer made most of his first breakthroughs on clay. Tlel me his first slam qf and his first master series title? What surfaces..clay. Fed just matched up well with Coria and they played two matches. Not to mention in 2005 Coria did much better against Nadal than Fed did..Coria served up Nadal a legit bagel in 2005 and was toe to toe with Nadal in Rome 2005. How many players ever pushed Nadal to 5 sets on clay? The list is very short.

If you look at the finalists from 1990 to today:

1990- Gomez and Agassi, both better than Coria on clay
1991- Agassi and Courier, both better than Coria on clay
1992- Courier and Korda, Courier better than Coria on clay
1993- Courier and Bruguera- both better than Coria on clay
1994- Bruguera and Berasetegui, Bruguera better than Coria on clay
1995- Muster and Chang, Muster definitely and Chang maybe better than Coria on clay
1996- Kafelnikov and Stich, Kafelnikov probably better than Coria on clay If you complain about Coria never winning a big match on clay Kafelnikov is lucky to have faced Stitch the biggest underachiever ever.
1997- Kuerten and Bruguera- both better than Coria on clay
1998- Moya and Corretja, both probably better than Coria on clay in their primes open to interpretation
1999- Agassi and Medvedev, Agassi in his prime better than Coria on clay
2000- Kuerten and Norman, Kuerten obviously better. Norman in 2000 was probably better than Coria ever was on clay too. how is Norman better because he lost in a French Open final and one won clay court master series
2001- Kuerten and Corretja, both better than Coria on clay
2002- Ferrero and Costa, both better than Coria on clay costa benefitted from a wonderful Ferrero choke who was shocked to have been there in the first place
2003- Ferrero and Verkerk, Ferrero obviously better than Coria on clay
2005- Nadal and Puerta, Nadal obviously better than Coria on clay
2006 to 2008- Nadal and Federer, both better than Coria on clay
2009- Federer and Soderling, Federer better than Coria on clay

So the only finalists of the French that were weaker than even Coria on clay were Korda in 92, Berasetegui in 94, Stich in 96, a past his prime Medvedev in 99, Verkerk in 2003, and Puerta in 2005. So actually most of even the runner ups are in fact better than Coria. If he had won the final that year as he was heavily favored to do vs Gaudio, even he would have been the weakest French Open Champion of the last 20 years other than maybe Kafelnikov. Gaudio just was even a much weaker one still.

Doubt your last statement holds up. He would be rated right around Moya, Gomez etc. What would have stopped him from being rated over these guys?

-------------------ON TOPIC
1. Roddick
2. Djokovic
3. Ferrero
4. Gaudio
5. Johansson

its is
Roddick
Djokovic
Ferrero
Goran
Costa
Gaudio
Johansson

 

[OliverSimon]

Del Potro is going to win more so don't bother including him on the list.

 

[FlamEnemY]

^^ I dubt he'll win more in 2009.

 

[YouJaySoup]

1. Roddick - He is very consistent,should clearly win more than just 1 slam. Has reached finals and semifinals in Grand Slams consistently,only to lose to Fed almost every time.

2. Djokovic - He is clearly very very naturally talented. But doesn't seem to have performed as well at a Grand Slam after his AO 08 win. Nvm though,he's still young and one of the best in the world. He has no clear weaknesses,except for his own emotions on court sometimes. Should def and able to win more slams.

3. Del Potro - Despite that USO 09 win,I still feel he is behind Djokovic and Murray. Def has the capability to win more slams in the future,he has a bright path ahead of him. Needs to improve his grass court game though,a champion never feels complete w/o Wimby

4. Ferrero - He seemed to fade away after 2003/2004,but impressed at his resurgence this year. Only thing is that he seems unable to bother the top guys anymore.

5. Gaudio - Truly the epitome of one slam wonder. Faced a choking Coria,and now both have faded miserably. Cannot forget how he got bagelled 6-0,6-0,6-0 in the Masters Cup by Fed.