Who are the best female and male players with only 1 slam (in singles)

[justinjay]

My main candidates would be.

Men:

Stich- Very versatile, slam finals on all 3 major surfaces. Lost a winnable match in the French Open final atleast, the U.S Open final vs Agassi much less so given what a bad match up Agassi is for him historically.

Roddick- Obvious candidate.

Muster- Candidate just to Roland Garros and clay greatness.

Ivanisevic- Candidate just to how great he was at Wimbledon and on grass.

Chang- Won first slam at 17 in a big surprise, then came close many future times, but kept falling in big finals or semis to Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and at the end Rafter. Made another 3 slam finals.

I cant think of anyone beyond those 4 but open to suggestions.

As for the women the main candidates right now would be:

Wozniacki
Halep
Sabatini
Novotna
Martinez
Stosur
Ivanovic

I am not really impressed with Martinez at all, and I view her lucky to win the only slam she did, but I guess credential wise I have to begrudginly include her as a candidate.

Stosur may seem a strange choice but considering she won the U.S Open in most impressive fashion (beating Serena who then had an astonishing slam final record in the finals, even if it wasnt peak Rena), and should have won atleast 1 French given her 2011 performance there and a few of her clay performances, I choose to include her.

I guess I will add Ivanovic just since she technically did reach #1, but only managed 1 slam.

 

[EloQuent]

Definitely Roddick.

 

[justinjay]

I would pick Stich for the men and I guess Wozniacki for the women. Even if I dont like her playing style she is a two time YE#1 and unlike Halep who could easily win another major, I dont see Woz winning another.

I forgot Chang, he should be added as a candidate for the men. An additional candidate for the women should probably be Stosur.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Stich the best candidate in my opinion. Apart from the two additional finals he won WTF and the grand slam cup and his peak level was held in very high esteem by people like sampras and Courier. Roddick was a mug and Muster was a one trick pony who never won a match at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic actually deserves some mention here. He was way more than a serve bot, reaching three consecutive QF at the French and showed some good results on Hard.

 

[Mainad]

My main candidates would be.

Men:

Stich- Very versatile, slam finals on all 3 major surfaces. Lost a winnable match in the French Open final atleast, the U.S Open final vs Agassi much less so given what a bad match up Agassi is for him historically.

Roddick- Obvious candidate.

Muster- Candidate just to Roland Garros and clay greatness.

Ivanisevic- Candidate just to how great he was at Wimbledon and on grass.

Chang- Won first slam at 17 in a big surprise, then came close many future times, but kept falling in big finals or semis to Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and at the end Rafter. Made another 3 slam finals.

I cant think of anyone beyond those 4 but open to suggestions.

As for the women the main candidates right now would be:

Wozniacki
Halep
Sabatini
Novotna
Martinez
Stosur
Ivanovic

I am not really impressed with Martinez at all, and I view her lucky to win the only slam she did, but I guess credential wise I have to begrudginly include her as a candidate.

Stosur may seem a strange choice but considering she won the U.S Open in most impressive fashion (beating Serena who then had an astonishing slam final record in the finals, even if it wasnt peak Rena), and should have won atleast 1 French given her 2011 performance there and a few of her clay performances, I choose to include her.

I guess I will add Ivanovic just since she technically did reach #1, but only managed 1 slam.

Think I would add Ferrero as he made 2 other Slam finals and was ranked #1. Possibly Moya too (ranked #1 and 1 other Slam final).

 

[NatF]

Arod for me. Someone like Stich arguably had more game but Arod achieved more overall and for me one slam doesn't do him justice.

 

[parvasedpotens]

If I could include 0 Slam winners, I think Dementieva was better than the women 1 Slam winners.
Of the remaining, I have to go with Wozniacki for her consistency and time at #1.
That said, for those I hit with, Stosur gave me fits due to her spin.
For men I'm going with Roddick. Although Stich should have won more, as well.

 

[Pheasant]

Roddick takes it for the men. He was 7-7 vs Hewitt, 4-3 vs Safin, and 2-1 vs Sampras, and 5-4 vs Djokovic. Unfortunately for Roddick, he is only a year younger than Federer. Roddick played through Fed’s entire prime years. Fed beat Roddick in 4 slam finals and 3 slam semis. Without Fed around, Roddick likely walks away with 5-6 career slam titles.

For the women, Sabatini is an easy choice for me. She unfortunately had to play against a bunch of legends, including Martina, Evert, Graf, and Seles. She had a lifetime record of 619-185, .770 winning pct. Her winning pct of .770 is better than many multi-slam winners. She also accumulated 81 wins against players in the top 10. That is a lot of wins against quality opponents. She won 27 titles, which includes 2 year-end titles.

Here is how Sabatini did against some quality opponents:
12-11 vs Vicario(4 slam titles)
7-3 vs Davenport(3 slam titles)
3-6 vs Evert(18 slam titles)
6-15 vs Martina(18 slam titles)
11-29 vs Graf(22 slam titles)
11-5 vs Capriati(3 slam titles)
9-6 vs Conchita Martinez(1 slam title)
4-1 vs Pierce(2 slam titles)
3-11 vs Seles(9 slam titles)

Sabatini had winning records against 3 different players that won at least 3 slam titles. That is remarkable.

 

[Sport]

Del Potro >>>> Roddick.

Roddick only won 1 US Open against Ferrero (a clay specialist) and was #1 only 13 weeks in the pre-Fedal era. Those days his maximum rival was Ferrero, the previous #1 from whom he took the #1. Federer won his first Wimbledon but was still a baby on HC.

Meanwhile, the legendary Del Potro utterly destroyed peak Nadal 3-0 at the US Open 2009. Then he beated a healthy 28-year-old Federer in the final. Roddick could only dream of doing that.

Del Potro "almost" beated Federer at the 2012 Olympics on grass (4 hours and a half). Then he defeated peak Djokovic at the 2012 Olympics SF to win the Bronze Medal. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals.

In 2016, Del Potro defeated Djokovic and Nadal to reach the Olympics final. Subsequently, he won the Silver Medal. Again, Roddick could only dream of doing so.

In 2018, Del Potro defeated Federer in the IW final. How many times has Roddick beated Federer in a final? ZERO.

Roddick has more Masters 1000 than Delpo (4>1). But Roddick just "vultured" in the pre-Fedal era his 3 first Masters 1000, winning all of them on HC against Coria (a clay specialist) and Fish (a nobody). The only one meritory is his 2010 Miami, where he beated Nadal in the SF.

In addition, Olympic Medals >>>>> Masters 1000. Olympic games are played every four years, meaning a player can only participate there 3 or 4 times at most. But a player can participate like 15 or 16 times in a particular Master 1000. It is much more difficult to win an Olympic Medal than a Master 1000. An Olympic Silver Medal (which Del Potro has) is equally relevant as a final at the WTF (which Roddick lacks).

 

[PDJ]

My immediate thought was Sabatini.
And, I'm sticking with it.

 

[bluetrain4]

My immediate thought was Sabatini.
And, I'm sticking with it.

Definitely Sabatini for women. She had the game and her results show her competitiveness with the elite of her time. Problem is her great matches against quality opponents usually didn't happen when it mattered most (exceptions of course). She had nerves too. That semi-meltdown to MJF at the French was painful to watch.

 

[boredone3456]

My immediate 3 female choices were Sabatini, Woz and Ivanovic. I'd probably say Sabatini but I could make a really solid case for Wozniacki in particular at this point

 

[PDJ]

My immediate 3 female choices were Sabatini, Woz and Ivanovic. I'd probably say Sabatini but I could make a really solid case for Wozniacki in particular at this point

I don't really recall Wozniacki or Ivanovic being that consistent at majors generally?
And both never really were consistently good against the greats of their time the way Sabatini was against Graf.

 

[hothanded]

I would go with Wozniacki. Hate her game but she is a two time Year End #1. That puts her firmly over Sabatini and the other pretenders.

 

[boredone3456]

I don't really recall Wozniacki or Ivanovic being that consistent at majors generally?
And both never really were consistently good against the greats of their time the way Sabatini was against Graf.

Woz has 2 additional major finals to her win at the 2018 AO. She has 4 additional major SFs and some other QF finishes.

She also won the 2017 YEC, has won 5 Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 tournaments with 6 additional runner ups. She overall has 29 career titles (Which is more than Sabatini who has 27) She also has 24 runner up finishes. Also, being 28 she very likely will add more career titles and possibly more Premier Mandatory/Premier 5's. Add in her weeks at #1...

Even if you throw out her weeks at number 1...she has a case. The biggest detraction to her is her being a hard court expert. Gabby was definitely more an all surface player and that might give her the edge. However if Woz doesn't manage to win another major but pads her numbers everywhere else, she will likely leave Gabby behind.

 

[70後]

Wozniacki
Halep
Sabatini
Novotna
Martinez
Stosur
Ivanovic

Wozniacki
Halep
Ivanovic
Sabatini
Stosur
Novotna

(the middle four you can switch around a bit)

Generally, anybody who managed to win a slam in the solid gold 2 decade Serena era from 1998 - 2017, really earned it. This includes the first Serena era and the second Serena era from 2012-2017, which I consider to be tougher in some ways since Serena changed her game a lot when she came back in 2011, and it has in turn become the blueprint for today's and tomorrow's 2010's tactical ralliers.



-------huge gap way way down below,



anybody with a slam in the Graf era following the Graf motivated assassination of Seles. The fact that Graf won nearly all the slams in that era is kind of the point. Those were years of darkness that only lifted with 1997 and Hingis brining back some faint rays of light and hope and the dawning of the golden era of Seles legacy power ball strikers Seles type 2.0 final release starting from Serena, Venus and Lindsay.

 

[PDJ]

Woz has 2 additional major finals to her win at the 2018 AO. She has 4 additional major SFs and some other QF finishes.

She also won the 2017 YEC, has won 5 Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 tournaments with 6 additional runner ups. She overall has 29 career titles (Which is more than Sabatini who has 27) She also has 24 runner up finishes. Also, being 28 she very likely will add more career titles and possibly more Premier Mandatory/Premier 5's. Add in her weeks at #1...

Even if you throw out her weeks at number 1...she has a case. The biggest detraction to her is her being a hard court expert. Gabby was definitely more an all surface player and that might give her the edge. However if Woz doesn't manage to win another major but pads her numbers everywhere else, she will likely leave Gabby behind.

Thanks.
That's quite impressive.
I guess l just don't think of Wozniacki in the same breath as Sabatini. The latter seemed a superstar of her day, and the former as nothing particularly special amongst a group of players that have achieved similar.
But, Wozniacki would appear to have a case.

 

[PDJ]

Wozniacki
Halep
Ivanovic
Sabatini
Stosur
Novotna

(the middle four you can switch around a bit)

Generally, anybody who managed to win a slam in the solid gold 2 decade Serena era from 1998 - 2017, really earned it. This includes the first Serena era and the second Serena era from 2012-2017, which I consider to be tougher in some ways since Serena changed her game a lot when she came back in 2011, and it has in turn become the blueprint for today's and tomorrow's 2010's tactical ralliers.



-------huge gap way way down below,



anybody with a slam in the Graf era following the Graf motivated assassination of Seles. The fact that Graf won nearly all the slams in that era is kind of the point. Those were years of darkness that only lifted with 1997 and Hingis brining back some faint rays of light and hope and the dawning of the golden era of Seles legacy power ball strikers Seles type 2.0 final release starting from Serena, Venus and Lindsay.

I don't quite understand this post?
What about the period when Graf dominated pre Seles?
Also Wozniacki took her slam post invincible Serena.
Sabatini took hers whilst Graf was also seemingly invincible. And beat Graf at many other events.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I don't quite understand this post?
What about the period when Graf dominated pre Seles?
Also Wozniacki took her slam post invincible Serena.
Sabatini took hers whilst Graf was also seemingly invincible. And beat Graf at many other events.

I can't tell whether that post was serious or parodic.

 

[hothanded]

Sabatini is a bit overrated by some fans these days IMO. Yes she had a tough era with Graf, Seles, and the rest. Still a 3-15 slam semi final record is absolutely pathetic, irregardless of your competition. Usually I would go a long with the idea it is better to be making all those semis, then not at all, but this is a rare case if you are going to do that unbelievably awful, you are better not to reach so many semis as it shows what an incompetent big match player you must be. Also a lot of the same people who talk up what a tough era Gaby had are many of the same people who claim Graf dominated a weak era with aging Navratilova and Evert in the late 80s and post Seles stabbing in the mid 90s yet Gaby herself could only win 1 slam total in either of those periods.

She has a very bad slam record against someone like Mary Joe Fernandez of all people. I know match ups are a thing in tennis, but would this really happen to someone who was as good as many make her out to be. To me she looks roughly on par with both Novotna and Martinez, who while they peaked at slightly different times, all basically played in the same era, and have near identical stats in everything- slam finals, tournament titles, Premier titles, career high rankings, etc...The one big edge Gaby has is winning the YEC twice, Jana once, Martinez never, but that isnt really fair in a way to Conchita whose worst surface was indoor carpet probably.

Someone like Wozniacki did end two consecutive years at #1 and I dont see Sabatini doing that in any era.

 

[MLRoy]

My main candidates would be.

Men:

Stich- Very versatile, slam finals on all 3 major surfaces. Lost a winnable match in the French Open final atleast, the U.S Open final vs Agassi much less so given what a bad match up Agassi is for him historically.

Roddick- Obvious candidate.

Muster- Candidate just to Roland Garros and clay greatness.

Ivanisevic- Candidate just to how great he was at Wimbledon and on grass.

Chang- Won first slam at 17 in a big surprise, then came close many future times, but kept falling in big finals or semis to Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and at the end Rafter. Made another 3 slam finals.

I cant think of anyone beyond those 4 but open to suggestions.

As for the women the main candidates right now would be:

Wozniacki
Halep
Sabatini
Novotna
Martinez
Stosur
Ivanovic

I am not really impressed with Martinez at all, and I view her lucky to win the only slam she did, but I guess credential wise I have to begrudginly include her as a candidate.

Stosur may seem a strange choice but considering she won the U.S Open in most impressive fashion (beating Serena who then had an astonishing slam final record in the finals, even if it wasnt peak Rena), and should have won atleast 1 French given her 2011 performance there and a few of her clay performances, I choose to include her.

I guess I will add Ivanovic just since she technically did reach #1, but only managed 1 slam.

Of your female candidates, Novotna & Ivanovic are my picks. Novotna had quite a great attacking game. She was an excellent volleyer, and a lot of fun to watch most of the time. And Ivanovic had the best forehand in the game, in addition to being exciting to watch. Remember her last match against "Sugar", and a couple other opponents not too happy with her?!

I can understand your POV regarding Martinez, but, for me she has two things going for her. She won A LOT of regular tourneys, so she could really play. And I consider her slam win as THE biggest slam upset of all-time. A Spanish baseliner playing against the Queen of Wimbledon, and arguable the best grass court player ever. I still can't believe she won! I'll have to look up her draw.

But, if they're going to enshrine non-slam winners like Sukova, and "Pammie Shriver", without a "Doubles" designation, I'd pick Kerry Melville Reid & Marion Bartoli for the next round. Reid won Oz, was a US Open finalist, won several slam doubles titles, as well as 25ish tourneys. And Marion won Wimbledon in 2013, but her bigger accomplishment, in a way, was reaching that final in 2007, WITHOUT A SERVE!!

In case you were wondering. ;^)B

 

[hothanded]

I would pick Novotna on the womens side as I believe she is better than Sabatini, and I just cant pick Wozniacki despite her results as her game is so unappealing.

For the men I would pick Ivanisevic for Wimbledon alone. With a bit more luck or playing 1 or 2 big points better he could have won there in 92, 95, and 98, too.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Gerulaitis & Sabasimba.

 

[Mainad]

I would pick Novotna on the womens side as I believe she is better than Sabatini, and I just cant pick Wozniacki despite her results as her game is so unappealing.

For the men I would pick Ivanisevic for Wimbledon alone. With a bit more luck or playing 1 or 2 big points better he could have won there in 92, 95, and 98, too.

He didn't make the final that year. He made it the year before.

 

[hothanded]

He didn't make the final that year. He made it the year before.

I realize that but he lost an extremely close 5 setter to Sampras in the semis despite IIRC winning more points, having many more break points, possibly winning the same or higher number of games. I have no doubt whatsoever he beats Becker in the final, he easily beat him in the 94 semis in straight sets, and Becker was fatigued and played a mediocre final vs Sampras.

 

[jorjipy]

No mention of Pat Cash? Not saying he is better than the others listed but he did make 3 Grand Slam finals in about 12 months.....

 

[vandre]

i'd pick stich from the men's list and gabby from the women's.

stich was the epitome of an all court player. you could never write him off because of the surface and he could always tweak his game in order to complement the surface. out of the players mentioned, he just seems to be the one who has the most complete game (to me).

as for gabby, i think that she was a fairly unique player for her time. there were other women on the tour who hit 1 handed on both sides but i never saw anyone who could hit a topspin one handed backhand like gabby did. in fact, i don't remember any other women who were hitting topspin off both sides the way that gabby did. as for results, she won the 1990 uso which began a 3 year run (91-93) of reaching the quarterfinals or better in each slam (including being the 91 wimbledon runner up).

 

[bluetrain4]

Sabatini is a bit overrated by some fans these days IMO. Yes she had a tough era with Graf, Seles, and the rest. Still a 3-15 slam semi final record is absolutely pathetic, irregardless of your competition. Usually I would go a long with the idea it is better to be making all those semis, then not at all, but this is a rare case if you are going to do that unbelievably awful, you are better not to reach so many semis as it shows what an incompetent big match player you must be. Also a lot of the same people who talk up what a tough era Gaby had are many of the same people who claim Graf dominated a weak era with aging Navratilova and Evert in the late 80s and post Seles stabbing in the mid 90s yet Gaby herself could only win 1 slam total in either of those periods.

She has a very bad slam record against someone like Mary Joe Fernandez of all people. I know match ups are a thing in tennis, but would this really happen to someone who was as good as many make her out to be. To me she looks roughly on par with both Novotna and Martinez, who while they peaked at slightly different times, all basically played in the same era, and have near identical stats in everything- slam finals, tournament titles, Premier titles, career high rankings, etc...The one big edge Gaby has is winning the YEC twice, Jana once, Martinez never, but that isnt really fair in a way to Conchita whose worst surface was indoor carpet probably.

Someone like Wozniacki did end two consecutive years at #1 and I dont see Sabatini doing that in any era.

But, results are results. I get that the 3-15 SF record is "pathetic" but what's the alternative? She loses earlier more often, and thus never even has a "big match" to lose in the late stage of a Slam? Thus losing earlier to a lesser opponent (thus not a "big match) is better than losing later to an elite opponent? That makes no sense when compared to other players who have one Slam, but far fewer SFs. It's like when people say someone with a record in Slam finals of 8-1 is "better" than someone who was 8-11 because the percentage is better. The both made won 8 titles, but the 8-11 player had 10 times as many runnerups.

How on earth could Ivanovic (somebody mentioned her) be considered a better 1-Slam winner than Sabatini? They both made 3 Slam finals and had 1 win. Additionally, Sabatini had 15 SFs and 10 QFs, while Ivanovic had 2 SFs and 3 QFs. Plus Sabatini had 2 YEC wins and 27 tournaments overall. Ivanovic has no YEC wins and 15 tournaments overall. Conchita Martinez (IMO rightfully not even considered in this conversation about the best 1-Slam winner) is a better 1-Slam winner than Ivanovic -- 1 win, 2 RU, 9 SF, 11 QF, and 33 titles overall.

People seem to be saying "it's better to not get there (the later stage of Slams) than to get there and lose."

 

[hothanded]

But, results are results. I get that the 3-15 SF record is "pathetic" but what's the alternative? She loses earlier more often, and thus never even has a "big match" to lose in the late stage of a Slam? Thus losing earlier to a lesser opponent (thus not a "big match) is better than losing later to an elite opponent? That makes no sense when compared to other players who have one Slam, but far fewer SFs. It's like when people say someone with a record in Slam finals of 8-1 is "better" than someone who was 8-11 because the percentage is better. The both made won 8 titles, but the 8-11 player had 10 times as many runnerups.

How on earth could Ivanovic (somebody mentioned her) be considered a better 1-Slam winner than Sabatini? They both made 3 Slam finals and had 1 win. Additionally, Sabatini had 15 SFs and 10 QFs, while Ivanovic had 2 SFs and 3 QFs. Plus Sabatini had 2 YEC wins and 27 tournaments overall. Ivanovic has no YEC wins and 15 tournaments overall. Conchita Martinez (IMO rightfully not even considered in this conversation about the best 1-Slam winner) is a better 1-Slam winner than Ivanovic -- 1 win, 2 RU, 9 SF, 11 QF, and 33 titles overall.

People seem to be saying "it's better to not get there (the later stage of Slams) than to get there and lose."

I agree Ivanovic isnt a better 1 slam winner but I would probably put Novotna and Wozniacki over Sabatini. Quite possibly Halep as well. Wozniacki and Halep reached #1, you could say their competition wasnt great but Sabatini had numerous chances to reach #1 in 91 and CHOKED, I think she had 3 matches vs Date, Huber, Capriati (all very winnable) where she only had to win to reach #1 and couldnt. If Wozniacki and Halep only had those 3 matches to get to #1 to win, I am sure they win atleast 1 of them, probably more than 1. Yes I realize they probably wouldnt have even got in that same position in 91, but even so. And if Gaby couldnt once pass Graf in a HUGE gigantic slump, playing the worst tennis of her career in 91 (which is the main reason Seles started dominating with little opposition from Graf at first), since lets face it a relatively in form Graf would NEVER in a million years lose 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini, lose a slam semi to Sanchez 6-0, 6-2, etc...then it is doubtful she makes #1 even in a weak era. Plus she never even got to #2 in the rankings. Novotna didnt reach #1 and has a bad head to head with Sabatini, but almost all the matches were in Sabatini's prime and not Novotna's so I am mostly dismissive of their head to head, it would be like overpraising Novotna for her head to head vs Seles (although even that is somewhat noteable to me as Sabatini would never be capable of this success vs Seles or one of the really big guns, not even post stabbing Seles). Novotna reached 1 more slam final although she has 1 less YEC, Novotna excelled far more at Wimbledon which is still the sports premier tournament by far, and of course had a great doubles career. Novotna also atleast reached #2 and she did it in 98 (also in 97 but I am referencing 98) which many believe was part of the deepest period in womens tennis history from 98-2003 so the competition excuse for Sabatini doesnt fly here when as I noted she couldnt even beat Graf in by far her worst ever prime form for a single week in 91 to get to atleast #2. Novotna was also far more competitive with peak Hingis than I believe Sabatini could have been. Sabatini did better against Graf for sure, but overall I am more impressed by Novotna and her career arch slightly, especialy since she came from little expectations and excelled, and might have won a lot more but for her mental weakness under pressure, unlike Gaby whose game simply wasnt good enough.

As for Ivanovic, as I said I do not put her over Sabatini, but she has something over Sabatini, reaching #1, when Sabatini couldnt even reach #2. And yes you can note competition, but again I could easily come up with many counters to that (there are always endless excuses for Sabatini and her lack of success given the enormous overhype on her it seems). Plus she atleast won RG and made another final on clay, her own best surface, while Sabatini's whose best surface was also clay amazingly failed to make a single RG final, a huge flop and failure given her talent and ability level on clay.

And yes I absolutely think if you are going to lose 15 of your 18 slam semis you are better off not reaching 18 as long as you still get to 3 finals. I have no problem saying that and I dont care who disagrees with me. I am not going to gush over someone just for reaching 18 semis, when it amounted to by far a historically worst ever slam semi final record. It is like how I would prefer to be Connors and have 8 slam wins with 15 slam finals than Lendl with 8 slam finals and 19 slam finals, making him a very rare all time great with a losing record in slam finals, if I had to choose. Of course in this case Connors is a very rare all time great with a losing record in slam semi finals which is probably even worse, but that is another topic. But even Lendl's 8-11 slam final record is nowhere near as pathetic as Sabatini's historically awful 3-15 slam semi final record, even considering Sabatini is not an all time great like Lendl is.

 

[bluetrain4]

I agree Ivanovic isnt a better 1 slam winner but I would probably put Novotna and Wozniacki over Sabatini. Quite possibly Halep as well. Wozniacki and Halep reached #1, you could say their competition wasnt great but Sabatini had numerous chances to reach #1 in 91 and CHOKED, I think she had 3 matches vs Date, Huber, Capriati (all very winnable) where she only had to win to reach #1 and couldnt. If Wozniacki and Halep only had those 3 matches to get to #1 to win, I am sure they win atleast 1 of them, probably more than 1. Yes I realize they probably wouldnt have even got in that same position in 91, but even so. And if Gaby couldnt once pass Graf in a HUGE gigantic slump, playing the worst tennis of her career in 91 (which is the main reason Seles started dominating with little opposition from Graf at first), since lets face it a relatively in form Graf would NEVER in a million years lose 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini, lose a slam semi to Sanchez 6-0, 6-2, etc...then it is doubtful she makes #1 even in a weak era. Plus she never even got to #2 in the rankings. Novotna didnt reach #1 and has a bad head to head with Sabatini, but almost all the matches were in Sabatini's prime and not Novotna's so I am mostly dismissive of their head to head, it would be like overpraising Novotna for her head to head vs Seles (although even that is somewhat noteable to me as Sabatini would never be capable of this success vs Seles or one of the really big guns, not even post stabbing Seles). Novotna reached 1 more slam final although she has 1 less YEC, Novotna excelled far more at Wimbledon which is still the sports premier tournament by far, and of course had a great doubles career. Novotna also atleast reached #2 and she did it in 98 (also in 97 but I am referencing 98) which many believe was part of the deepest period in womens tennis history from 98-2003 so the competition excuse for Sabatini doesnt fly here when as I noted she couldnt even beat Graf in by far her worst ever prime form for a single week in 91 to get to atleast #2. Novotna was also far more competitive with peak Hingis than I believe Sabatini could have been. Sabatini did better against Graf for sure, but overall I am more impressed by Novotna and her career arch slightly, especialy since she came from little expectations and excelled, and might have won a lot more but for her mental weakness under pressure, unlike Gaby whose game simply wasnt good enough.

As for Ivanovic, as I said I do not put her over Sabatini, but she has something over Sabatini, reaching #1, when Sabatini couldnt even reach #2. And yes you can note competition, but again I could easily come up with many counters to that (there are always endless excuses for Sabatini and her lack of success given the enormous overhype on her it seems). Plus she atleast won RG and made another final on clay, her own best surface, while Sabatini's whose best surface was also clay amazingly failed to make a single RG final, a huge flop and failure given her talent and ability level on clay.

And yes I absolutely think if you are going to lose 15 of your 18 slam semis you are better off not reaching 18 as long as you still get to 3 finals. I have no problem saying that and I dont care who disagrees with me. I am not going to gush over someone just for reaching 18 semis, when it amounted to by far a historically worst ever slam semi final record. It is like how I would prefer to be Connors and have 8 slam wins with 15 slam finals than Lendl with 8 slam finals and 19 slam finals, making him a very rare all time great with a losing record in slam finals, if I had to choose. Of course in this case Connors is a very rare all time great with a losing record in slam semi finals which is probably even worse, but that is another topic. But even Lendl's 8-11 slam final record is nowhere near as pathetic as Sabatini's historically awful 3-15 slam semi final record, even considering Sabatini is not an all time great like Lendl is.

I honestly don't know how to figure in No. 1 rankings. IMO, I don't value it that much, but I completely get why others do. I put Slams (and significant results -- i.e., Tier 1 wins, Slam RUs, SFs, even QFs -- above rankings, but others don't. Simply, to me, a player with 2 Slams who never reached No. 1, is better than a player who won 1 Slam and reached No. 1. But, we're comparing 1-Slam winners, so it would seem to make sense that the 1-Slam No. 1 is "better" than the 1-Slam winner who never reached No. 1. But, I'd still, for example, take Sabatini's record over No. 1 Ivanovic and (at least at this point) Halep. Part of my reasoning is that the ranking system has changed over time. It's not comparing to apples to apples (the ranking system was different between Sabatini vs. Ivanovic and Halep and Woz). Comparing Slam and other results IS comparing apples to apples, for the most part.

http://www.wtatennis.com/content/wta-rankings-began-40-years-ago-0

 

[hothanded]

I honestly don't know how to figure in No. 1 rankings. IMO, I don't value it that much, but I completely get why others do. I put Slams (and significant results -- i.e., Tier 1 wins, Slam RUs, SFs, even QFs -- above rankings, but others don't. Simply, to me, a player with 2 Slams who never reached No. 1, is better than a player who won 1 Slam and reached No. 1. But, we're comparing 1-Slam winners, so it would seem to make sense that the 1-Slam No. 1 is "better" than the 1-Slam winner who never reached No. 1. But, I'd still, for example, take Sabatini's record over No. 1 Ivanovic and (at least at this point) Halep. Part of my reasoning is that the ranking system has changed over time. It's not comparing to apples to apples (the ranking system was different between Sabatini vs. Ivanovic and Halep and Woz). Comparing Slam and other results IS comparing apples to apples, for the most part.

http://www.wtatennis.com/content/wta-rankings-began-40-years-ago-0

Halep has already made more slam finals and not only been #1 but ended a year at #1. She has 17 WTA titles, and has already been a consistent top 3/top 5 player for atleast as long as Sabatini was, and still going strong. She doesnt have a YEC or as many Tier 1 titles as Sabatini, so of course you could still make a case for Sabatini, but I might be inclined to go with Halep already.

Yes the ranking system has changed but I never felt Sabatini deserved to be ranked #1 or #2 either, so the rankings went along with what I thought made sense anyway. I do think Wozniacki deserved to be ranked #1 in early 2011 and after the Australian Open this year atleast. I feel Halep deserved getting to #1 at points both last year and this year.

Either way Wozniacki and Novotna are my top 2 picks, and I am pretty sure Halep will get a 2nd major atleast, so it doesnt matter. And I dont see Wozniacki ever getting a 2nd major.

 

[MLRoy]

I chose Ivanovic over Sabatini, despite a better slam & everything else record because her game was boring as f***, to put it bluntly. She played like The Woz, but with extreme topspin to prolong the torture. Yeah, for a time she was the only player giving Graf a hard time. But when she was playing, I had to change the channel.

 

[hothanded]

I chose Ivanovic over Sabatini, despite a better slam & everything else record because her game was boring as f***, to put it bluntly. She played like The Woz, but with extreme topspin to prolong the torture. Yeah, for a time she was the only player giving Graf a hard time. But when she was playing, I had to change the channel.

Exactly my thoughts. I always found Sabatini overrated. Her serve sucked, and she had massive technical weakness on her groundstrokes, despite that those were the strength of her game. People always say she didnt achieve more due to the tough era, but it is the exact same era many say Graf had it easy due to weak competition. It is hypocritical and makes no sense.

Ivanovic had a much shorter peak but I think at her peak she would be more likely to win slams than Sabatini. She didnt win more than 1 since she peaked when there were more dominant big hitters like Serena, Sharapova, Davenport, Venus around, but in the era of Sabatini where there were no big hitters besides Graf and Seles (who were almost never both around/in form at the same time) she would have a good chance to win more than 1.

Novotna played roughly in the same era but peaked at a later time, but IMO was a better player than Sabatini. Their head to head is 11-4 Sabatini but Novotna choked badly to lose 3 of those from big leads so it really should be 8-7 or something. However almost all their matches were in Sabatini's prime from 88-92 and not in Novotna's prime from 95-99, I think the Novotna of 95-99 would easily have a winning record vs the Sabatini of 88-92.

 

[boredone3456]

Giving Novotna a peak of 95-99 is a stretch. She won exactly 1 title in 1995, lost before the QF in 2 of the 4 majors and finished the year at #11. If you want to say Novotna was at her prime in 1995, it was a horrible year for her prime given both 1994 and 1996 were way better years for her. 1999 is also in no way prime Novotna. Again she won exactly 1 title and only made the QF of Wimbledon (losing before the QF everywhere else). Novotna's real peak in terms of her level of play was probably 1996-1998. Now, if you want to say Sabatini had weak competition from 88-92 thats your prerogative, but Novotna also had pretty poor competition for 2/3 of her best years. 1997 and 1998 had Graf gone or injured/slumping, post stabbing Seles, a really declining ASV and Martinez. It was a huge time of transition for the tour that was capitalized on by Hingis before the emergence of the Williams, Davenport and others as real forces as we transitioned into the 2000s.

As for the H2H between Novotna and Sabatini I thought it was 10-3 in Gabby's favor. Anyway, looking at it, Jana arguably choked in 2 or 3 of those matches, however Gabby arguably choked in one her loses, 1998 Filderstadt where she lost 1-6 7-6 7-6. So if we throw out all the choke matches, 3 of Gabby's wins and 1 of Jana's, the H2H is still 7-2 in Gabby's favor and still pretty clear or 8-3 if we go by the 11-4 number as its possible the metric I looked it up on is missing matches. Heaven knows matches go missing places and have for decades.

Novotna was insanely talented. She had some of best hands at net in her time. Her approach shots were great and she really was the only one in 1997 who really looked at the time like she could actually give Hingis a run for her money (before Davenport got it together in late 1998 and the Williams really emerged). The gap between them is close. Personally Gabby was way more consistent in her delivery of her game, hence she got more singles titles, major SFs, and I believe more overall match wins all while retiring at what, 27?

 

[Moses85]

Federer rg 2009.

 

[buscemi]

For the men, if we're including doubles, I'd probably go with Stich.

But I'll note that I never see Orantes on these lists, and I think he deserves a mention:

-1975 U.S. Open title, straight setting Connors in the final;
-1974 French Open final, losing in five sets to Borg;
-1976 WTF title;
-36 titles, including plenty of big titles like Rome, Monte Carlo, and Toronto; and
-career-high #2 ranking​

And that's all without playing the Australian Open in the Open Era.

​

 

[Hardcourter]

Nishikori and Venus Williams of course..

Edit. and maybe Stan the man also.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Nishikori and Venus Williams of course..

Edit. and maybe Stan the man also.

You mean, Nishikori and Raonic, right?

 

[Hardcourter]

You mean, Nishikori and Raonic, right?

Man, like I said earlier here I drink 5 out of 7 days a week and today is the "mini saturday" as wednesday so I drink heavily and dont rly know wjat Im talking bout..

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Stich and Sabatini. Honorable mention goes to Roche and Novotna.

Edit: Skip Roche. I'll go for Pat Cash instead.

 

[MLRoy]

Exactly my thoughts. I always found Sabatini overrated. Her serve sucked, and she had massive technical weakness on her groundstrokes, despite that those were the strength of her game. People always say she didnt achieve more due to the tough era, but it is the exact same era many say Graf had it easy due to weak competition. It is hypocritical and makes no sense.

Ivanovic had a much shorter peak but I think at her peak she would be more likely to win slams than Sabatini. She didnt win more than 1 since she peaked when there were more dominant big hitters like Serena, Sharapova, Davenport, Venus around, but in the era of Sabatini where there were no big hitters besides Graf and Seles (who were almost never both around/in form at the same time) she would have a good chance to win more than 1.

Novotna played roughly in the same era but peaked at a later time, but IMO was a better player than Sabatini. Their head to head is 11-4 Sabatini but Novotna choked badly to lose 3 of those from big leads so it really should be 8-7 or something. However almost all their matches were in Sabatini's prime from 88-92 and not in Novotna's prime from 95-99, I think the Novotna of 95-99 would easily have a winning record vs the Sabatini of 88-92.

What I liked about Ivanovic was that she really went for her shots, and hit a ton of amazing forehand winners. I also liked that she could beat anyone at any time, despite/because of her streakiness. She also seemed to get more tenacious with age. Her last year or two playing had some really great dramatic matches; one with Sharapova comes to mind. That's why I was disappointed when she retired.

I just caught a video of a match I never saw before. Highlights from the Seles/Novotna Oz final. What a match! I also saw some of their US Open quarter-final match on that channel, which was great, too. A great reminder of what a player Novotna could be. Here's the clip, if you're interested:

The quality isn't great, but it was worthwhile to me. That channel has a lot of great match highlights. Hope you like it. Take care!

 

[UnderratedSlam]

First off, great topic for a thread.

ATP:

1. Del Potro: the guy was storming through draws of several major events in 2009, then just as he got into the groove gets injured just as he is about to break the Big 4 domination. I have zero doubts that with good wrists he would have been a 3-4-slam champ by now. That's 3 or 4, not 34. He had to make lengthy breaks several times due to new surgeries, on both wrists(!) yet came back to win Davis Cup, Indian Wells and reach no 3. He had to change his BH to achieve this. Imagine if he didn't have to change anything and could swing freely on the BH side: he'd be very tough to beat by anyone.

2. Muster. Got unlucky draws at FO often: Kuerten, twice Courier, all in early round, otherwise he may have been a contender there for another title. Also won 8 M1000s which was a lot in the 90s.

3. Stich. Had a silly forehand which is why my respect for him is lower than it could be. He wasn't a natural fighter, often would lose interest, not do his best. I have no respect for that. Winning slams isn't just about talent, it's the whole package. Don't agree that FO 1996 was "winnable". Kafelnikov was terrific during those years, had a more complete game than Stich and with no weaknesses.

4. Pat Cash. He lost two very close finales in AO.

5. Chang. Despite the 3 slam finale losses, not high up because ability-wise he just wasn't that great.

6. Ivanisevic. Ace-machine. Great talent but a tanker. As such, I even believe the 2001 title is too much.

7. Roddick. A real fighter, but very scared of Federer, which I don't respect. If you poo in your pants when you see your main rival, then you don't deserve more than the one slam. Also, over-reliance on serve, dodgy BH.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

WTA:

1. Sabatini. She was very close so often, very consistent for a while. Didn't she miss a MP in a finale?

2. Ivanovic. Had she not lost interest, she could have won more. Very talented. Reached 3 slam finales within a year then decided she'd done it all with the no 1.

3. Halep. Lost three finales all of which she should have won.

4. Iva Majoli. Great game, and I gotta admit, a great body too. I'm a little biased here. Like Ivanovic, she lost interest as soon as she got a slam.

5. Novotna. Highly developed serve-volley game, especially for WTA. She got nervous in crucial matches, could have won 5 slams with a Seles or Graf mentality.

Wozniacki shouldn't even have one slam. Total scrambler with little talent. Halep gave it to her as a present, sort of how Safin gifted Johansson a slam.

 

[PDJ]

WTA:

1. Sabatini. She was very close so often, very consistent for a while. Didn't she miss a MP in a finale?

2. Ivanovic. Had she not lost interest, she could have won more. Very talented. Reached 3 slam finales within a year then decided she'd done it all with the no 1.

3. Halep. Lost three finales all of which she should have won.

4. Iva Majoli. Great game, and I gotta admit, a great body too. I'm a little biased here. Like Ivanovic, she lost interest as soon as she got a slam.

5. Novotna. Highly developed serve-volley game, especially for WTA. She got nervous in crucial matches, could have won 5 slams with a Seles or Graf mentality.

Wozniacki shouldn't even have one slam. Total scrambler with little talent. Halep gave it to her as a present, sort of how Safin gifted Johansson a slam.

I think Sabatini was 2 points away from the Wimbledon title. I don't think she reached match point.

 

[skaj]

Del Potro.

for women Novotna, such a great player. or maybe Stosur, that fantaastic serve, and her forehand when on is so good, the best in WTA history.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Del Potro.

for women Novotna, such a great player. or maybe Stosur, that fantaastic serve, and her forehand when on is so good, the best in WTA history.

I think this German girl who's retired now was slightly better at hitting forehands.

 

[KG1965]

I think Sabatini.

 

[skaj]

I think this German girl who's retired now was slightly better at hitting forehands.

Graf, better in terms of consistency and that she can hit it from almost anywhere on the court, but that is thanks to her superior movement. As a shot itself, Stosur's forehand when on was the wickedest I've seen - not only the power and dept, but that nadalesque top spin, unpredictable trajectory and hard to handle high bounce... the most dangerous forehand in WTA history.

 

[PDJ]

Graf, better in terms of consistency and that she can hit it from almost anywhere on the court, but that is thanks to her superior movement. As a shot itself, Stosur's forehand when on was the wickedest I've seen - not only the power and dept, but that nadalesque top spin, unpredictable trajectory and hard to handle high bounce... the most dangerous forehand in WTA history.

My penny's worth. I think the best forehand when it was 'on' not day in, day out (like a Graf, Evert etc) was Mary Pierce. She could make Graf look like an elephant. As I say, she had to be 'on'.... but when she was.... carnage!

Pre Graf, Sue Barker had a fearsome forehand.

 

[skaj]

My penny's worth. I think the best forehand when it was 'on' not day in, day out (like a Graf, Evert etc) was Mary Pierce. She could make Graf look like an elephant. As I say, she had to be 'on'.... but when she was.... carnage!

Pre Graf, Sue Barker had a fearsome forehand.

yes, another great example of an amazing forehand, that is as good as Graf's. as I said, Steffi gets picked as the best forehand of all time because it was so consistent and cause she could hit it from almost everywhere on the court, thanks to her superb movement, but when Mary and Sam were on and in position, their forehands were just as lethal(if not more).