the most deserving player who's never won a slam?
- Thread starter Matt H.
- Start date
sseemiller
Rookie
I agree re Todd Martin.
I'm a bit surprised that Philippoussis never won one, but his time may have passed as well.
Right now, I'd say Coria is due for a slam -- Roland Garros. He has a few years left, and if he doesn't win one, I'll be surprised.
I'm a bit surprised that Philippoussis never won one, but his time may have passed as well.
Right now, I'd say Coria is due for a slam -- Roland Garros. He has a few years left, and if he doesn't win one, I'll be surprised.
Todd Martin & Cedric Pioline came the closest with multiple opportunities...
I'm not surprised about Flipper at all. I've watched him since he came on the tour, and I never thought he was much compared to #1 ranked players like Edberg, Becker, Agassi, or even Courier. Heck, I'd take the young Mats Wilander for my Davis Cup team over Flipper. Mark P. has actually overachieved in my mind, making a single Wimbledon final...
I'm not surprised about Flipper at all. I've watched him since he came on the tour, and I never thought he was much compared to #1 ranked players like Edberg, Becker, Agassi, or even Courier. Heck, I'd take the young Mats Wilander for my Davis Cup team over Flipper. Mark P. has actually overachieved in my mind, making a single Wimbledon final...
Vanja Ljubibratic
New User
I think that Henman would deserve winning Wimbledon once and for all. He's shown so much desire and heart when it always seemed that he would go out early, mainly because he didn't have any significantly great results before W. But this year, he's playing very, very well. If friggin' AO can change the court for Hewitt, then Wimbledon should do something to the grass to maximize Henman's changes, like making it so that two baseliners like Hewitt and Bandy never make it to the finals.
Unfortunately for Henman, Federer seems almost invincible on grass. I really want him to win it this year though.
Unfortunately for Henman, Federer seems almost invincible on grass. I really want him to win it this year though.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I think the key word here is deserve. Based on effort and career, I wholeheartedly agree that Todd Martin should have won more than one. He was just unfortunate to be playing during a time when Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Chang were all peaking.
Mark Woodforde said that Flipper is content to put out 70%. Based on this, his results are exactly what he deserved. There's nothing wrong with 70%, hey the guy has earned more money than he can probably spend. But, to say that he's deserving of a Grand Slam title is a bit of a reach in my book.
I have the same impression of Rios. When he reached the finals of the Australian Open, ESPN (Cliff Drysdale) reported that Rios was glad he reached the finals for one reason and one reason only. It meant he would break even with his casino bill. Apparently Marcello has a hobby.
Mark Woodforde said that Flipper is content to put out 70%. Based on this, his results are exactly what he deserved. There's nothing wrong with 70%, hey the guy has earned more money than he can probably spend. But, to say that he's deserving of a Grand Slam title is a bit of a reach in my book.
I have the same impression of Rios. When he reached the finals of the Australian Open, ESPN (Cliff Drysdale) reported that Rios was glad he reached the finals for one reason and one reason only. It meant he would break even with his casino bill. Apparently Marcello has a hobby.
Phil
Hall of Fame
No one "deserves" to win a slam except those who have already won won. Underachievers come and go by the bucketfull, and you would like to say, "But geez he's SUCH A NICE GUY.", but that doesn't equate to deserving. Many, many factors come into play in winning a slam-consistancy, mental toughness, physical preparation, and even a bit of luck (the draw), and if a player can't line-up all of those factors for two weeks, then he/she does NOT deserve to win a slam. They either win it or they don't; no should've, could've, would've.
sseemiller
Rookie
I think lightning has struck in the same place twice. But I totally agree with Phil. He's right on there.
Hawaii 5.0
Rookie
Martin,Rios,Corretja,Pioline for sure, but Coria,Henman,Bjorkman are a bit of a stretch.Flipper actually reached 2 GS finals Wimby and US Open losing to Rafter and Federer.Rios has more talent than all the guys named,held #1 and that's without a ton of drive and imo wasted talent and distractions and he's 5'9",Martin cuz he's Mr.5 Setter and he's super nice and kinda a grinding big man whose been to 2 GS finals.Corretja cuz he has a beautiful game and ability to win one, but just has had some bad luck and reached 2 GS Roland Garros Finals.Pioline reached 2 GS finals,again has a beautiful game and some bad luck, but he reached Wimby and US Open with 5 years between them and his game was very versatile,he could outgrind grinders and outhit big hitters.
Coria hasn't shown enough promise besides a bunch of clay titles, but nothing spectacular at the French,but this comes at a time when Ferrero,Guga are still playing.Henman despite his grass court game might deserve to win one,becuase he came at a time when Sampras and Federer are playing well on grass.Sampras dominated Henman at the end of his career and now Federer has done the same in big events and majors.Bjorkman is just a journeyman doubles player who is a good singles player,but singles focus seems to detract from his doubles.He has won quite a bit of doubles titles and even a few GS titles.One of the things about doubles is that doubles players are good on any surface(Bjorkman reached the final or won at every GS from grass,rebound ace,red clay,etc.)
Coria hasn't shown enough promise besides a bunch of clay titles, but nothing spectacular at the French,but this comes at a time when Ferrero,Guga are still playing.Henman despite his grass court game might deserve to win one,becuase he came at a time when Sampras and Federer are playing well on grass.Sampras dominated Henman at the end of his career and now Federer has done the same in big events and majors.Bjorkman is just a journeyman doubles player who is a good singles player,but singles focus seems to detract from his doubles.He has won quite a bit of doubles titles and even a few GS titles.One of the things about doubles is that doubles players are good on any surface(Bjorkman reached the final or won at every GS from grass,rebound ace,red clay,etc.)
ILoveChokers
New User
Clerc, Corretja and Mecir and proabbly the best players who never won a slam IMO.
Todd Martin doesnt deserve a slam more than Kevin Curren in the 80's.
Todd Martin doesnt deserve a slam more than Kevin Curren in the 80's.
sseemiller
Rookie
It wasn't that bad, Phil. :lol: Let's see if we agree again on something. Then I may get a bit worried. :wink:
ezdude1970
Semi-Pro
MARCELO RIOS, should have won that australian open agaist korda!
uh . . . yes, Rios came oh so close to beating Korda in that final, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. Seriously, it was a very painful and disappointing match to watch because it appeared Rios could not care less about winning a slam. Anyway, I don't know if "deserving" is quite the word as I tend to agree with Phil in that you either win it or you don't. There is no could've, would've, or should've! I would love to see Henman come through at Wimbledon, even though I fear that is unlikely to happen. If he could actually win Wimbledon under all that scrutiny, that would be something special.
F
Free_Martha
Guest
Tim Henman is a great player. Now that he has Sampras' coach, perhaps he can finally get past whatever mental barriers have been blocking him from winning a slam. He's certainly quite capable of doing so. I'd like to see him win one slam. At least one. It doesn't even have to be Wimbledon, though that would be the icing on the cake.
JohnThomas1
Professional
Clerc back in the day definitely deserved to win a French title, he won numerous titles on clay and frequently beat the best in the world on that surface, just not in grand slams. Jimmy Arias could have also jagged a French at one time given the right luck. Mecir was VERY unlucky, he had the class at one time to win one. In the womens Sukova and Fernandez were born at the wrong time, smack in the middle of great tennis era's.
Hewittfan22
Semi-Pro
maybe Hyung-Taik Lee he's a all court player, very solid
irishbanger
Rookie
If they didn't win a slam, they didn't deserve it. People get what they deserve. Don't buy into that adverstising BS---"Don't you deserve yadda yadda yadda ..."
"If they didn't win a slam, they didn't deserve it." - not necessarily. Some players that were good enough to win Slams, didn't - because of bad luck, bad draws, or just because they got the wrong opponents at the wrong times.
Example - Goran Ivanisevic deserved a Wimbledon. If he hadn't won that one against Rafter, he would be the clear answer to this thread.
At the moment, I'd say Henman and Wimbledon - he's been so close so many times. Lost to the eventual champion in the semis, four times is it? If he retires without winning one, he'll be the clear answer to lots of these threads. Guys like Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Rios... they're on the borderline, debatable.
Example - Goran Ivanisevic deserved a Wimbledon. If he hadn't won that one against Rafter, he would be the clear answer to this thread.
At the moment, I'd say Henman and Wimbledon - he's been so close so many times. Lost to the eventual champion in the semis, four times is it? If he retires without winning one, he'll be the clear answer to lots of these threads. Guys like Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Rios... they're on the borderline, debatable.
irishbanger
Rookie
Everone in the draw is "good enough" to win. "Bad luck"? What does kharma have to do with it? "Good enough" players make their own luck. "Bad draws"? You're going to have to play them eventually. "Good enough" players line 'em up and knock 'em down, regardless! Ditto "wrong players at the wrong time". Goran "deserved" a slam simply because he wasn't good enough to win the previous three times? I'm sorry Rafter didn't win, he was certainly "good enough".
"Everone in the draw is "good enough" to win." - not true. At each event, there's only a
"Good players make their own luck" - sometimes. Some luck you can't make. Only the all-time greats can make their own luck - everyone else has to hope that them playing well coincides with luck of the draw, or with some other factor. In the nineties, if you ran into Sampras or Agassi playing their best - well, your luck was out. That was Ivanisevic's position - he had put himself in a position to almost win Wimbledon time and time again, which is all he can do - and barely got edged out by the all-time greats.
Henman - well, whether he qualifies to "deserve" a slam depends on what he does from now on - if he doesn't choke away his next opportunity but just comes up against an on-fire Hewitt, I'll say he "deserved" to win one.
There's a lot of luck involved. Sure, if you're making Slam finals by the dozen, you'll win some - but most players don't have that luxury. Thomas Johansson got lucky - he got the right draw and the right final, which coincided with two weeks of his best play.
For guys like, say, Todd Martin - the two never coincided. Todd Martin lost one final to Sampras, one to Agassi - if he had gotten "lucky" and faced, say, Greg Rusedski, or Mark Philippoussis, or maybe someone else who isn't going for all-time great status - he might have won one. He's certainly in the same caliber as many players that DO have slams - and that's why some people say he "deserves" one.
You seem to be against the entire concept of considering anyone to "deserve" a Slam - I disagree with that, though I can see arguments against individual players.
"Good players make their own luck" - sometimes. Some luck you can't make. Only the all-time greats can make their own luck - everyone else has to hope that them playing well coincides with luck of the draw, or with some other factor. In the nineties, if you ran into Sampras or Agassi playing their best - well, your luck was out. That was Ivanisevic's position - he had put himself in a position to almost win Wimbledon time and time again, which is all he can do - and barely got edged out by the all-time greats.
Henman - well, whether he qualifies to "deserve" a slam depends on what he does from now on - if he doesn't choke away his next opportunity but just comes up against an on-fire Hewitt, I'll say he "deserved" to win one.
There's a lot of luck involved. Sure, if you're making Slam finals by the dozen, you'll win some - but most players don't have that luxury. Thomas Johansson got lucky - he got the right draw and the right final, which coincided with two weeks of his best play.
For guys like, say, Todd Martin - the two never coincided. Todd Martin lost one final to Sampras, one to Agassi - if he had gotten "lucky" and faced, say, Greg Rusedski, or Mark Philippoussis, or maybe someone else who isn't going for all-time great status - he might have won one. He's certainly in the same caliber as many players that DO have slams - and that's why some people say he "deserves" one.
You seem to be against the entire concept of considering anyone to "deserve" a Slam - I disagree with that, though I can see arguments against individual players.
Kobble
Hall of Fame
It is a shame that so many excellent players with good hearts will not win a major in their career, but it happens very often in sports. Some of my sentimental favorites are Todd Martin, Pioline, Bjorkman, Corretja, Enqvist, and Philippoussis. Martin and Corretja have such great character that it hurts the fans more than them when their opportunities slip by. Rios didn't give himself enough opportunities to get one. I wish he could have kept his late 90's level up for a longer stretch, and it isn't likely he will regain that form at this point. I would like to see some of the people on my list get a major one day, but it can seem hopless sometimes. If I was a genie, Martin would get his U.S. Open title, and Corretja would get a French Open. Wait a minute! If I was a genie, I would have a U.S Open and a Fench Open title.
Similar threads
