the best one slam winner

jean pierre

Professional
Who is the best one slam winner during the open era ?

Tanner, Teacher, Johansson, Moya, Noah, Muster, Chang, Gomez, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Cash, Del Potro, Gaudio, Ferrero, Stich, Edmondson ?

Did I forget some ?

I think the best can be Chang, who played several Grand Slam finals in different Grand Slams.
 

zcarzach

Semi-Pro
Who is the best one slam winner during the open era ?

Tanner, Teacher, Johansson, Moya, Noah, Muster, Chang, Gomez, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Cash, Del Potro, Gaudio, Ferrero, Stich, Edmondson ?

Did I forget some ?

I think the best can be Chang, who played several Grand Slam finals in different Grand Slams.

You forgot Roddick.
 
Who is the best one slam winner during the open era ?

Tanner, Teacher, Johansson, Moya, Noah, Muster, Chang, Gomez, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Cash, Del Potro, Gaudio, Ferrero, Stich, Edmondson ?

Did I forget some ?

I think the best can be Chang, who played several Grand Slam finals in different Grand Slams.
no roddick in your list ? ;)
 

Matt H.

Professional
yeah. without pete goran would have a handful of wimbledon titles.

replace pete with fed, and it's the same story for roddick.
 

PeteD

Legend
Also consider Delpo. I think he did his wrist at the 09 Open final and has not fully recovered. I was in NY for that and his groundstrokes were absolutely frightening, even from the stands his power was scary. Oh OK I just saw you did list him.
 

Def

Semi-Pro
Roddick, ended 2003 #1, 3 Wimbledon Finals lost to Federer, 1 USO lost to Federer and from late 2003 until early 2011 was consistently top 8, and most of that was top 5.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Who is the best one slam winner during the open era ?

Tanner, Teacher, Johansson, Moya, Noah, Muster, Chang, Gomez, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Cash, Del Potro, Gaudio, Ferrero, Stich, Edmondson ?

Did I forget some ?
You forgot quite a few. In addition to Roddick, already mentioned, you forgot Gerulaitis. In addition to his AO title, Vitas had USO and FO finals, five other slam semifinals (two at Wimbledon), and he won a total of 25 titles, including the WCT, which was very big at the time. Peak rank of No. 3. I don't think he's above Roddick, however.

Orantes, Korda, Gimeno, Panatta, Costa.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
This thread reminds me of @suresh's 'number of tennis players who carried their country's flag in the Opening Ceremony' thread. The entire thread was spent cleaning up his mess.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Thomas Muster. 1 major, 8 masters series, 44 career titles, 111-5 on clay over 2 calendar years.
 

ximian

Rookie
Everyone's saying its so obviously Roddick. Has everyone just forgotten the 90s or too young to remember?

Chang's portfolio beats Roddick hands down. Best one and done major winner, easily. 7 Masters series, 34 titles, top 10 for a decade. Came one match away from #1 (at the height of Sampras' powers) in 1997.

Compare that with Roddick's 5 Masters series, 32 titles, top 10 for a decade, and a very brief stint at #1 sneaking in before Federer's reign.

Chang's portfolio is clearly stronger.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Everyone's saying its so obviously Roddick. Has everyone just forgotten the 90s or too young to remember?

Chang's portfolio beats Roddick hands down. Best one and done major winner, easily. 7 Masters series, 34 titles, top 10 for a decade. Came one match away from #1 (at the height of Sampras' powers) in 1997.

Compare that with Roddick's 5 Masters series, 32 titles, top 10 for a decade, and a very brief stint at #1 sneaking in before Federer's reign.

Chang's portfolio is clearly stronger.
Why hands down?

Titles - 34>32 for Chang but Roddick can still rack up a few titles, it's dead even here
MS titles - 7>5 but Roddick more than makes up for it with the number of Wimbledon finals reached and total no of GS finals
both top 10 for a long time - even
Roddick however not only was ranked 1st but ended 2003 as the world no 1

Also there are other factors - match winning % - Chang's 66 to Roddick's 75 I think
 
Last edited:

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
Chang also reached the finals of the Australian Open..

so you can also say thats favorable for Chang over Roddick

# of different slam finals reached 3 vs 2

Also, how does winning % come into play in a hypothetical 'tiebreaker', making a quarterfinal is not an accomplishment, sure it might be better to not lose 1st round, but a loss is a loss, tournament wins are what matter.

Chang also made the finals of the year end masters
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Chang also reached the finals of the Australian Open..

so you can also say thats favorable for Chang over Roddick

# of different slam finals reached 3 vs 2

Also, how does winning % come into play in a hypothetical 'tiebreaker', making a quarterfinal is not an accomplishment, sure it might be better to not lose 1st round, but a loss is a loss, tournament wins are what matter.

Chang also made the finals of the year end masters
At the end of the day you can make a case for both of them.

One could also make an arguement - without Fed around, Roddick would be a 4-7 time major champ, how many more majors would Chang potentially have if Sampras never played tennis?
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Some other stats for Chang and Roddick

Record vs. Top 10 opponents: Chang (51-94, 35.2%) Roddick (37-72, 33.9%)
Record in finals: Chang (34-24, 58.6%) Roddick (32-20, 61.5%)
Record in GS matches: Chang (120-56; 68.2%) Roddick (128-44; 74.4%)
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Some other stats for Chang and Roddick

Record vs. Top 10 opponents: Chang (51-94, 35.2%) Roddick (37-72, 33.9%)

Record in finals: Chang (34-24, 58.6%) Roddick (32-20, 61.5%)
Record in GS matches: Chang (120-56; 68.2%) Roddick (128-44; 74.4%)
Wow that's really poor, for both men.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Everyone's saying its so obviously Roddick. Has everyone just forgotten the 90s or too young to remember?

Chang's portfolio beats Roddick hands down. Best one and done major winner, easily. 7 Masters series, 34 titles, top 10 for a decade. Came one match away from #1 (at the height of Sampras' powers) in 1997.

Compare that with Roddick's 5 Masters series, 32 titles, top 10 for a decade, and a very brief stint at #1 sneaking in before Federer's reign.

Chang's portfolio is clearly stronger.
roddick *was* actually number one though. Ill take the top ranking over a few extra titles.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day you can make a case for both of them.

One could also make an arguement - without Fed around, Roddick would be a 4-7 time major champ, how many more majors would Chang potentially have if Sampras never played tennis?
Chang played Sampras 5 times in Majors and only once in the final round. So, even if Pete did not play, Chang was not guaranteed more majors although he would have gotten a few more looks against less formidable opponents than Sampras.

Chang's finest moment against Pete came at RG 1989. Triple breadstick for Pete.
 

Nextman916

Professional
Roddick, because Roddick in his prime would beat all those guys in everything except clay. But even as longevity and sustainability goes, it's gotta be him.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
Interesting, I guess this really would come down to some bizarre tiebreaker stats.

haha

It's looking like a tie between Chang and Roddick

Their win% vs top 10 are pretty poor, but Chang played almost 37, could be 1 or 2 off,just did the math quickly, more matches.

That might offset that overall winning % by a bit, but maybe not the full 9% that they differ in
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Roddick. Not only he reached No. 1, but also he had one year end No. 1, which is a very exclusive club, much more so than slam winner.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Everyone's saying its so obviously Roddick. Has everyone just forgotten the 90s or too young to remember?

Chang's portfolio beats Roddick hands down. Best one and done major winner, easily. 7 Masters series, 34 titles, top 10 for a decade. Came one match away from #1 (at the height of Sampras' powers) in 1997.

Compare that with Roddick's 5 Masters series, 32 titles, top 10 for a decade, and a very brief stint at #1 sneaking in before Federer's reign.

Chang's portfolio is clearly stronger.
as Mac says you have to be kidding me...

Chang:
AO: 2 SF's, 1 Final in 10 attempts
RG: 1 Win, 1 F, 2 QF's in 16 attempts
Wimbey: 1 QF in 14 attempts
USO: 1 F, 2 SF's, 2 QF's in 17 attempts

Roddick:
AO: 4 SF's, 2 QF's 11 attempts
RG: 0 QF's in 10 attempts
Wimbey: 3 F, 1 SF's, 1 QF in 12 attempts
USO: 1Win, 1 F, 6 QF's in 12 attempts

Total:
Roddick:
1 Slam, 4 Finals, 5 SF's, 9 QF's in 45 attempts

Chang:
1 Slam, 3 Finals, 4 SF's, 5 QF's in 57 attempts

Chang:
7 years ranked top ten, highest ranked - #2
2 years ranked top 5

Roddick:

10 years ranked top ten, highest ranked - #1
3 years ranked top 5

Roddick can rack up 3 more titles to move in front, he has won 2 titles just this year.

Roddick is the better of the two, and I pick him as well as the best 1 slam winner.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Stich has a good play here. He's a more rounded player than either Roddick or Goran. It is surprising he didn't have more success at majors.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Chang also reached the finals of the Australian Open...
Chang warrants extra kudos for winning his major at age 17 beating both Lendl and Edberg, the #1 and #3 seeds.

(he also served Sampras a three breadsticks destruction in an earlier round)
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Chang also reached the finals of the Australian Open..

so you can also say thats favorable for Chang over Roddick

# of different slam finals reached 3 vs 2

Also, how does winning % come into play in a hypothetical 'tiebreaker', making a quarterfinal is not an accomplishment, sure it might be better to not lose 1st round, but a loss is a loss, tournament wins are what matter.

Chang also made the finals of the year end masters
if what round you lose in doesn't matter and it's all about title WINS, then what's the point in counting chang's finals as a point in his favour?
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
if what round you lose in doesn't matter and it's all about title WINS, then what's the point in counting chang's finals as a point in his favour?
valid point.

However, I was just trying to say that overall win % shouldn't come into play unless it is a "tiebreaker" situation. Where things like finals and overall win % would matter to some people.
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
Roddick - the guy who never did full justice to his talents. Yes, its given Federer's rise to dominace was monumental - but couldn't he win atleast a couple more in 2002-2004? Even Safin managed to get two (And I'd say he's another wasted talent and better than Roddick)....
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
It depends what your critiera is. I wouldnt say it is Roddick since Ivanisevic is better than Roddick on all of grass, clay, and indoors/carpet, with Roddick only being better on hard courts. I wouldnt say it is Muster since he was only ever a real threat on clay.

Overall I would say it is either Ivanisevic or Chang. Doesnt Chang also have more Masters titles and tournament titles than Roddick btw.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Roddick by a hair, with Chang a little behind. If Ivanisevic had managed to keep himself together for a decent amount of time he'd probably get the nod, but I saw him self-destruct too many times to count to really call him the best one slam winner.
 

Ellipses

Rookie
I would say Roddick, but I'm younger and never really watched much of the "olden days".

But I feel like Murray will take that position over some time in 2013.
 

kiki

Banned
Who is the best one slam winner during the open era ?

Tanner, Teacher, Johansson, Moya, Noah, Muster, Chang, Gomez, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Cash, Del Potro, Gaudio, Ferrero, Stich, Edmondson ?

Did I forget some ?

I think the best can be Chang, who played several Grand Slam finals in different Grand Slams.
It is real close.If you give current W the same status as former W, Roddick and Tanner would equalize.Noah,Gomez,Moya played great cc tennis but were unchallenging out of it, so much as Ferrero was.Johannson,Eddo,Teacher were more a surprise winners than anything else.

But Edmondson beat, on aussie grass, Newcombe and Rosewall, which is a very exceptional feat.

Cash was also a R/u in 2 more majors, the 1986 and 1988 AO.He is IMo the best player of the lot with a great margin.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
A lot of new fans of the game I see. Might help to have a look at Muster's achievements. Him and Roddick are the only serious contenders here.
 
Top