Who is the best 1 slam wonder? (Open Era)

[Enigma]

There are so much that I can't put them all in the poll, but here is the full list:

Andres Gimeno: 1972 French Open
Manuel Orantes: 1975 US Open
Mark Edmonson: 1976 Australian Open
Adriano Panatta: 1976 French Open
Roscoe Tanner: 1977 Australian Open (Jan)
Vitas Gerulaitis: 1977 Australian Open (Dec)
Brian Teacher: 1980 Australian Open
Yannick Noah: 1983 French Open
Pat Cash: 1987 Australian Open
Michael Chang: 1989 French Open
Andres Gomez: 1990 French Open
Michael Stich: 1991 Wimbledon
Thomas Muster: 1995 French Open
Richard Krajicek: 1996 Wimbledon
Petr Korda: 1998 Australian Open
Carlos Moya: 1998 French Open
Goran Ivanisevic: 2001 Wimbledon
Thomas Johansson: 2002 Australian Open
Albert Costa: 2002 French Open
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 2003 French Open
Andy Roddick: 2003 US Open
Gaston Gaudio: 2004 French Open
Juan Martin Del Potro: 2009 US Open

Whos the best out of this bunch? Take your picks!

 

[Andres]

Roddick is a former #1, who also reached several slam finals. Ferrero, also a #1 who reached the USO finals.

Ivanisevic was only #2, but along with his Wimbledon title, he also was a 3 times Wimbledon runner-up

 

[Mustard]

Many good candidates there. Andres Gimeno is very underrated, one of the best 3-4 players in the world in the last few years before the open era.

I voted for Thomas Muster. Gimeno and Goran Ivanisevic miss out.

 

[Def]

Roddick. Unless Delpo gets to a few more slam finals and wins a couple masters, Roddick is far higher. Stitch is the only other one I would consider, but then you have to see the consistency of Roddick.

 

[Steve0904]

Roddick. Almost unfair to call him a one slam wonder IMO. He has so many other great results that just don't match him being a one slam wonder as do some of the others on this list.

 

[Mainad]

IMO it's between Muster and Roddick.

In addition to his 1 Slam, Muster won 8 Masters 1000 titles (the most won by any player with the exceptions of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray) and 42 other titles. He was a former world #1.

In addition to his 1 Slam, Roddick reached 4 other Slam finals, won 5 Masters 1000 titles and 26 other titles. He was also a former world #1.

In achievements and stats, they both seem to be a level above all the other 1 Slam champions on the list.

 

[jaggy]

Because of the injury I went with Muster.

 

[President]

Muster's achievements are almost entirely on a surface that the best players of his time period weren't particularly relevant on. Roddick had to go through the best in the world time and time again on his best surfaces, otherwise he would surely have more majors.

 

[Mustard]

Muster's achievements are almost entirely on a surface that the best players of his time period weren't particularly relevant on. Roddick had to go through the best in the world time and time again on his best surfaces, otherwise he would surely have more majors.

Muster won Miami, Dubai and a carpet masters at Essen (a win over an in-form Sampras in the semis).

 

[triforce defender]

Chang. He reached 3 additional grand slam finals besides his lone FO win. Plus his 3 grand slam finals came at 3 different slams.

 

[helloworld]

Chang has a better resume than Roddick, but he never got that No.1 spot due to Sampras..

 

[90's Clay]

ROFLMAO @ Roddick winning this poll. Hes the LEAST talented out of damn near everyone on the list

Stich was probably the most talented of all of them. ( I believe even Pete said Stich was the most talented player hes ever play against) Muster certainly has a claim there as well. Del Potro took out Nadal/Federer back to back. That is a HUGE achievement (while Roddick couldn't beat Fed if you have him a 2 set lead and took out Fed's kneecaps in the process. He would still find a way to lose it)

 

[mental midget]

ROFLMAO @ Roddick winning this poll. Hes the LEAST talented out of damn near everyone on the list

Stich was probably the most talented of all of them. ( I believe even Pete said Stich was the most talented player hes ever play against) Muster certainly has a claim there as well. Del Potro took out Nadal/Federer back to back. That is a HUGE achievement (while Roddick couldn't beat Fed if you have him a 2 set lead and took out Fed's kneecaps in the process. He would still find a way to lose it)

yeah roddick wins on resume probably, right? but talent, i take stich as well. that guy was a phenomenal player when his mind and body cooperated. he was ridiculous in that wimbledon run.

 

[TMF]

Roddick.

He's the unluckiest player because he had goat Federer. Many of those 1 slam wonder could have been slamless had they play in the same era as Federer. And Roddick was closer to win more than 1 slam than any of those players.

 

[Chico]

Voted for Stich. Always thought he deserved more than one slam.

Roddick is overrated here.

Ivanisevic, Chang, Cash, Noah, Muster, Krajicek are all typical one slam wonders.

 

[rockandroll]

Although in talent and overall game he would be near the bottom of this group IMO, based on his career it has to be Roddick.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Roddick would have 4-5 slams without Federer. He was a beast on grass too.

 

[90's Clay]

Chang has had a better overrall career than Roddick. So if we want to go "based on achievements" than the edge goes to Chang for most accomplished 1 time slam winner


That makes them "greatest' of the one time slam winners but doesn't; necessarily make them the best. Del Potro, Muster, Stich, were all far and away more talented deadly players. Kraijcek when he was zoning was also a player deadly as hell

 

[rockandroll]

Chang has had a better overrall career than Roddick

Debateable. Chang has the edge in Masters title, but Roddicks year end #1 looms large in comparision to Chang not even spending a week there. Roddick also won his slam in a place he was supposed to (which for him would be Wimbledon or the U.S Open), while Chang never won a slam in a place he was supposed to be capable of (which for him would be the Australian or U.S Open) and instead won a French which is basically a fluke as he was not a top clay courter of his era.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Debateable. Chang has the edge in Masters title, but Roddicks year end #1 looms large in comparision to Chang not even spending a week there. Roddick also won his slam in a place he was supposed to (which for him would be Wimbledon or the U.S Open), while Chang never won a slam in a place he was supposed to be capable of (which for him would be the Australian or U.S Open) and instead won a French which is basically a fluke as he was not a top clay courter of his era.

Roddick also has one additional slam final over Chang.

 

[Indio]

Chang: 662-312 .680
Roddick: 612-213 .742

Chang: 34 titles
Roddick: 32 titles, won in approximately 150 fewer matches

Chang's best surface: Hard courts .706 21 W
Roddick: Hard courts: .755 21 W

Chang had the better overall career? Interesting evaluation. Chang did better in two ways: Seven Masters to five, and a better performance on clay. It seems that for some people that counts for a hell of a lot.

 

[Andres]

IMO it's between Muster and Roddick.

In addition to his 1 Slam, Muster won 8 Masters 1000 titles (the most won by any player with the exceptions of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray) and 42 other titles. He was a former world #1.

In addition to his 1 Slam, Roddick reached 4 other Slam finals, won 5 Masters 1000 titles and 26 other titles. He was also a former world #1.

In achievements and stats, they both seem to be a level above all the other 1 Slam champions on the list.

Agassi? Sampras?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Roddick. Almost unfair to call him a one slam wonder IMO. He has so many other great results that just don't match him being a one slam wonder as do some of the others on this list.

Roddick isn't a one slam wonder. He is a great player who unfortunately only managed to win one slam along with several other accolades (5 Masters, ect).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The term "one slam wonder" is thrown around way too much. There's only two I can think of and they are Gaudio and Johansson.

 

[Mainad]

Agassi? Sampras?

Yes, of course. I was thinking of just the current players but , then, Muster isn't a current player either!

 

[Mainad]

The term "one slam wonder" is thrown around way too much.

I totally agree. The way some people like to throw this phrase about it's as if winning 'just one Slam' makes you into some kind of 'failure' when 99% of players would kill just to even make a Slam final!

There's only two I can think of and they are Gaudio and Johansson.

Not even them. They both won their Slams fairly and squarely by beating the 7 best players they were given to play against.

 

[diggler]

Correction. Pat Cash won 1 Wimbledon and was runner up at the Australian Open twice.

My vote goes to Roddick.

 

[MachiA.]

1. Stich 2. Flying Dutchman 3. Muster

Roddick is a bad joke.


KR

 

[Tonyr1967]

Andres Gomez - lol

 

[dominikk1985]

ROFLMAO @ Roddick winning this poll. Hes the LEAST talented out of damn near everyone on the list

Stich was probably the most talented of all of them. ( I believe even Pete said Stich was the most talented player hes ever play against) Muster certainly has a claim there as well. Del Potro took out Nadal/Federer back to back. That is a HUGE achievement (while Roddick couldn't beat Fed if you have him a 2 set lead and took out Fed's kneecaps in the process. He would still find a way to lose it)

roddick wasn't a great athlete but he probably has the very best serve in tennis history. he is limited in some regards to his serve and FH but if you have a serve that good that is a talent too.

if you use a traditional definition of talent stich is of course more talented but some guys just have very polarized skills.

would you call shaq not talented because all he could do was pushing away his opponent and then do a slam dunk (but better than anyone else)?

 

[captainbryce]

It's too early to have Del Potro on this list in my opinion. As he is still playing, only 25 years old, and still ranked inside the top 5, he is still competitive with the "big four" to possibly win another slam in the next 5 years.

From the other choices on the list, it's definitely between Roddick and Chang. But when I examined their respective resumes online, Roddick has to be considered the more accomplished player. Not only was Roddick ranked world#1 (the same year that Federer won Wimbledon), but he made it to more grand slam finals (5 in his career) losing all of them to the greatest player of all time in tightly contested matches. Michael Chang was a great player and he did win 2 more titles than Roddick over the course of his career (34-32), but grandslam results are a greater indicator of "greatness" in most people's eyes. Roddick was a more consistent competitor at the biggest events in tennis. Chang only reached 3 grandslam semifinals in his entire career; Roddick reached 8! Roddick also had a higher overall winning percentage than Change (74% to 68%).

So until we see what Del Potro is able to accomplish in the next 5 years, Roddick is definitely the best one slam wonder ever. In fact, when you look at Roddick's overall accomplishments, he actually has a more impressive resume than many players who have won multiple slams.

Pat Rafter (4 GS semifinals; 11 career titles; world #1 for 1 week; 53.5% career win percentage)
Marat Safin (4 GS semifinals; 15 career titles; world #1 for 9 weeks; 61% career win percentage)
Sergi Bruguera (2 GS semifinals; 14 career titles; highest ranking #3; 61% career win percentage)
Andy Roddick (8 GS semifinals; 32 career titles; world #1 for 13 weeks; 74% career win percentage)

Other than number of GS titles "won", Roddick's accomplishments would eclipse the career of the other players mentioned.

 

[abmk]

roddick ...

stich the most talented though ..

 

[mike danny]

Chang has had a better overrall career than Roddick. So if we want to go "based on achievements" than the edge goes to Chang for most accomplished 1 time slam winner


That makes them "greatest' of the one time slam winners but doesn't; necessarily make them the best. Del Potro, Muster, Stich, were all far and away more talented deadly players. Kraijcek when he was zoning was also a player deadly as hell

roddick did far batter than chang ever did at the holy grail of tennis

 

[Mainad]

Roddick:

Grand Slam finals = 5 (1/4).
YEC/WTF finals = 0.
Masters 1000 finals = 9 (5/4).
Total titles = 32.
Highest Ranking = #1.

Chang:
Grand Slam finals = 4 (1/3).
YEC/WTF finals = 1 (0/1).
Masters 1000 finals = 9 (7/2).
Total titles = 34.
Highest Ranking = #2.

Pretty close stats but I give Roddick the edge because he reached more Slam finals and held the world #1 ranking.

I was wrong though to say he and Muster are a level above Chang. I still place Roddick and Muster ahead of the other 1 Slam winners but Chang must be a close third based on his stats.

 

[NatF]

Roddick is the best, by a clear margin IMO.

 

[Cormorant]

Pat Rafter (4 GS semifinals; 11 career titles; world #1 for 1 week; 53.5% career win percentage)
Marat Safin (4 GS semifinals; 15 career titles; world #1 for 9 weeks; 61% career win percentage)
Sergi Bruguera (2 GS semifinals; 14 career titles; highest ranking #3; 61% career win percentage)
Andy Roddick (8 GS semifinals; 32 career titles; world #1 for 13 weeks; 74% career win percentage)

You're short-changing those guys of several GS semis, Roddick included. Off the top of my head, these are the correct figures for major SF reached(including wins and losses):

Rafter(7): 1 AO SF/1 RG SF/3 Wimbledon SFs/2 USO SFs.
Safin(7): 3 AO SFs/1 RG SF/1 Wimbledon SF/2 USO SFs.
Bruguera(2): 2 RG SFs.
Roddick(10): 4 AO SFs/4 Wimbledon SFs/2 USO SFs.

 

[objectivity]

Debateable. Chang has the edge in Masters title, but Roddicks year end #1 looms large in comparision to Chang not even spending a week there. Roddick also won his slam in a place he was supposed to (which for him would be Wimbledon or the U.S Open), while Chang never won a slam in a place he was supposed to be capable of (which for him would be the Australian or U.S Open) and instead won a French which is basically a fluke as he was not a top clay courter of his era.

you guys completely ignore how stacked the odds were against Chang as an Asian-American. the racial stereotype he had to fight. the frankly racist comments he had to endure.

Michael Chang, the Williams' sister and Arthur Ashe, imho, considering the circumstances they faced, are probably among the greatest players ever.

 

[Mainad]

you guys completely ignore how stacked the odds were against Chang as an Asian-American. the racial stereotype he had to fight. the frankly racist comments he had to endure.

Michael Chang, the Williams' sister and Arthur Ashe, imho, considering the circumstances they faced, are probably among the greatest players ever.

Don't forget to include Althea Gibson. She was the pioneer for them all, the first black American player ever to win Grand Slam titles and she won 5 of them (1 French Championship, 2 Wimbledons and 2 US Championships) and she had to do it all back in the 1950s when racial bars were at their height in many parts of the world including her own country!

 

[Tennis sensation]

I would say Roddick

 

[Egoista]

muster......

 

[tennisaddict]

It should have been Murray.

 

[Warmaster]

Roddick or Stich.

 

[NatF]

Many good candidates there. Andres Gimeno is very underrated, one of the best 3-4 players in the world in the last few years before the open era.

I voted for Thomas Muster. Gimeno and Goran Ivanisevic miss out.

Gimeno was the #3 guy in the mid 60's behind Laver and Rosewall. As his career was largely pre open era I wouldn't count him as a one slam champion.

 

[rockandroll]

Why or Noah and Gerulaitis even on the poll.

 

[Mainad]

It should have been Murray.

How so? Murray departed from this list last July or have you been hibernating all this year?

 

[rockandroll]

IMO it's between Muster and Roddick.

In addition to his 1 Slam, Muster won 8 Masters 1000 titles (the most won by any player with the exceptions of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray) and 42 other titles. He was a former world #1.

In addition to his 1 Slam, Roddick reached 4 other Slam finals, won 5 Masters 1000 titles and 26 other titles. He was also a former world #1.

In achievements and stats, they both seem to be a level above all the other 1 Slam champions on the list.

The problem with Muster is reached only 1 slam final and 3 slam semis. I dont care that the bulk of his achievements are on clay that much. Clay is part of tennis as much as some butthurt people dont like that (although it more impressive when a clay court GOAT does achieve great things off of clay too like Nadal). However he underperformed in slams, including even Roland Garros. What he achieved at the hard court slams is probably about as much as should be expected from him (1 semi, many other quarters). However there was no excuse for him to not achieve far more than he did at RG. He was such a strong clay courter, he should have approached (even if he had still won only 1 RG title, and he probably should have done better than that and not been on this list to begin with his) the overall slam careers of people like Roddick or Chang just by his Roland Garros supremacy alone. From 1994 to 1998 he should have reached atleast the semis of every single Roland Garros.

His overall slam results being so inferior to Roddick and Chang but him beneath them. His overall slam results are also far inferior to Stich and Ivanisevic, who both reached numerous slam finals, and quite a few other semis too, but I still probably put him over them due to his overall career. Although Stich did win the YEC, end a year at #2, and reach slam finals on all 3 surfaces, so he has a good case to be over Muster too.

Muster btw did win Miami on hard courts, and Essen on carpet, as part of his 8 Masters. He would have won the 97 Australian Open had Hrbaty finished off Sampras in the quarters.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

1. Stich 2. Flying Dutchman 3. Muster

Roddick is a bad joke...

Flying Dutchman = Tom Okker! He played 1 singles slam final (did not win).

Which of the other candidates remained in the top 10 for most of a decade? Roddick's stay in the top 10 has only been exceeded by Federer in recent decades (altho' Nadal is approaching that feat as well). Stich was in the top 10 for about 3 years.

Andy has gone deep (QF+) in slam events 19x (more than double Stich's 9x) - with 10 of those, SF or better. ARod has played in 5 slam finals while Stich played in 3 finals. Muster & Krajicek both only played in 1 singles slam final. Muster & Krajicek also reached reach a slam SF (or better) 4x. Which of the other contenders has Andy's impressive resume? Joke's on you know who.
.

 

[rockandroll]

Krajicek was never nicknamed the Flying Dutchman. The only ones I have heard called that is that cute gymnast who won the high bar gold in London, and the great Dutch swimmer Pieter Van Den Hoogenband. I think there was a speed skater called that once, but I forget which. My only nickname for Krajicek is the clumsy looking servebot and chauvanistic pig, who somehow morphs into a complete player only when Sampras is on the other side of the net.

 

[tennisaddict]

How so? Murray departed from this list last July or have you been hibernating all this year?

That is why i said 'should'.

That would probably hold good if Murray does not win anymore as well.

J/k, I am hoping he does well. It will be a bummer if the effects of surgery lasts longer.

 

[TMF]

How so? Murray departed from this list last July or have you been hibernating all this year?

If there was a best 2 slams wonder, how do you feel if Murray got the least number of vote ?