Who is the best player to not win each slam; taking into account ability on the surface

[BGod]

For men the two obvious ones for me are Borg for USO and Rafter for WMB. In both cases you had really packed draws and they came close in Finals on multiple occasions.

French as the OP says is tough. Gotta think about but inclined to say Connors considering 4 SFs and 4 QFs in his later career and packed draws. I mean he was blocked through his prime outright.

The AO is the hardest because grass, slow hard now faster hard. Obviously Murray with 5 Finals and other runs is statistically with little question but I'd throw Roddick and Cash in as side notes.

 

[buscemi]

For men the two obvious ones for me are Borg for USO and Rafter for WMB. In both cases you had really packed draws and they came close in Finals on multiple occasions.

French as the OP says is tough. Gotta think about but inclined to say Connors considering 4 SFs and 4 QFs in his later career and packed draws. I mean he was blocked through his prime outright.

The AO is the hardest because grass, slow hard now faster hard. Obviously Murray with 5 Finals and other runs is statistically with little question but I'd throw Roddick and Cash in as side notes.

The Cash pick for AO is a good one b/c he lost 5 set finals both on grass and hard.

 

[WCT]

French as the OP says is tough. Gotta think about but inclined to say Connors considering 4 SFs and 4 QFs in his later career and packed draws. I mean he was blocked through his prime outright.

He was blocked one year, 1974. 75-78 he choose not to enter the tournament.

 

[netlets]

Going through each slam who would you say is the best to never win it, taking into account ability on the surface as well of course. Some seem fairly easy, while some are tougher. I am going to do my choices for both genders.

Men:

Australian Open- Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe. Not sure if they should even really count though considering the Australian Open was barely considered a slam back then. If not then it is obviously Andy Murray.

French Open- If it was simply best player it would be Pete Sampras, but as I specified your calibre on each given surface should be considered, so that said no way it should be Pete. Even so I am not really sure who the best choice should be here. Most greats who didn't win the French struggled relatively speaking on clay. John McEnroe maybe, only since he was mere points away in 1984. If it is strictly best clay court player to not win the French Open it would be someone like Alex Corretja or Dominik Thiem, but they aren't really good enough players overall to make a good choice. This one is tough to pick someone.

Wimbledon- Ivan Lendl would have to be the choice. He is a major all time great, and was good enough on grass to come close (losing in finals or semis) a whole bunch of times.

US Open- Bjorn Borg obviously is the choice.


Women:

Australian Open- Venus Williams would be the best choice. A major all time great, 7 time slam winner, and a great hard court player.

French Open- Martina Hingis has to be the choice. Venus is not a good enough clay courter to merit being the choice, and while Conchita Martinez and Gabriela Sabatini might be the best clay courters to never win the French, neither is a good enough player to merit being the choice.

Wimbledon- Justine Henin is the easy choice here I think. I am guessing many will say Hana (for being best female grass player who never won Wimbledon), and some will say Seles, but I strongly disagree with both. Monica Seles is not a good enough grass courter to merit being the choice, and Hana Mandlikova is not a good enough player (compared to Justine or Monica) to merit being the choice. Basically best player to not win Wimbledon is probably Seles, with Henin a very close second. Best grass courter to not win Wimbledon is probably Mandlikova, with Henin a very close second. The former (best player) though Hana isn't even top 5 probably, and the latter (best grass courter) Seles is not even top 15 atleast, so Henin is the easy choice as best to not win Wimbledon overall.

US Open- Evonne Goolagong is the easy choice here on all levels. Even moreso considering the tournament was on grass and clay numerous of her years, and she was excellent on both (pretty sure she was excellent on hard courts too).


Someone help me with a best to not win French Open for the men though as I am having a really hard time with that. I firmly believe Sampras is not good enough on clay to be a worthy pick for that, but there also aren't hardly any good options. And people like Corretja, Orantes, Thiem, don't feel like good enough players to merit being the choice. Murray is a better clay courter than Sampras, and a much greater player than those I just named, but he doesn't feel like making sense as a choice either. Becker and Edberg probably are even weaker clay courters than Sampras (along with being less great of players obviously).

Connors has to be the one IMO. He won the US Open on Har-Tru against Borg when Borg was young. But still, that's a Slam on clay that he won. He made the semis in 1979, 1980, 1984, 1985 at RG and wasn't allowed to play in 1974 when he was the best player in the world. He most likely wins the title that year as Borg hadn't emerged fully yet.

 

[BGod]

He was blocked one year, 1974. 75-78 he choose not to enter the tournament.

My bad. Still of those 5 years very likely he makes one or more Finals and could even win. By his later career metrics and play on clay off FO he has the best case for a player not winning it.

 

[Ombelibable]

Men

Australia: Andy Murray in the modern era, Tony Trabert for 1955.
France: Jimmy Connors, Guillermo Coria, or Dominic Thiem in the Open Era, but likely Frank Sedgman overall.
Wimbledon: Ken Rosewall, with Ivan Lendl in the modern era. Sympathetic nods to Andy Roddick and Fred Stolle.
USA: Bjorn Borg, Lew Hoad.


Women

Australia: I can't do better than Venus Williams and Helena Sukova.
France: Martina Hingis seems the obvious choice.
Wimbledon: Lily Alvarez, Hana Mandlikova, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Justin Henin.
USA: Evonne Goolagong.

I agree with most, here. My 2 extra cents:

AO : Murray, Borg*/McEnroe* (*its status as a major event in the eyes of top players back then)
RG : Coria (Clay King before the real clay king arrived).
W : Lendl, Rosewall.
US : Borg. Everyone got a shot at it 2008 onwards, so no nominees from the current era, haha!

 

[martinezownsclay]

I agree with most, here. My 2 extra cents:

AO : Murray, Borg*/McEnroe* (*its status as a major event in the eyes of top players back then)
RG : Coria (Clay King before the real clay king arrived).
W : Lendl, Rosewall.
US : Borg. Everyone got a shot at it 2008 onwards, so no nominees from the current era, haha!

Hmm really like Coria as a pick for Roland Garros. Technically per my personal rules I would normally say he isn't a good enough overall player but for that. But given the lack of any decent options for that he is a great choice. It would either be him or Connors. Connors is the best clay courter of the the major all time greats who didn't win Roland Garros, and Coria probably the best pure clay courter who didn't.

Australia I like how you broke it down. Borg and McEnroe sort of should be the choice, except they barely ever played it in their primes so does it make sense. Borg didn't play it hardly ever period, he might have never played it. I would need to look that up. McEnroe began playing it in 83 however, missed in 84 but played and lost in 83, then played it most years after. So honestly he would be a good choice as he did try and win it. It would be either him or Andy Murray.

And yeah anyone who couldn't win the Open in the current field should be disregarded completely there.

What about the women? Any thoughts on them?

 

[buscemi]

Hmm really like Coria as a pick for Roland Garros. Technically per my personal rules I would normally say he isn't a good enough overall player but for that. But given the lack of any decent options for that he is a great choice. It would either be him or Connors. Connors is the best clay courter of the the major all time greats who didn't win Roland Garros, and Coria probably the best pure clay courter who didn't.

Orantes and Corretja would probably be good choices as well. Both reached #2 in the world and won a bunch of big clay titles. Orantes won the U.S. Open on clay, beating Nastase, Vilas, and Connors in the QF/SF/F and made a French final, losing to Borg in 5 sets. And Corretja made 2 French finals.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Orantes and Corretja would probably be good choices as well. Both reached #2 in the world and won a bunch of big clay titles. Orantes won the U.S. Open on clay, beating Nastase, Vilas, and Connors in the QF/SF/F and made a French final, losing to Borg in 5 sets. And Corretja made 2 French finals.

I agree on both of these. Orantes did win a slam (also on clay) so that aspect makes him possibly a more attractive option given my critiera.

Who would be some of your choices for both men and women at each slam. And how do you strike the balance between surface ability and overall greatness of a player when deciding. Like if it was just ability on the specific surface picking Sampras at the French or Seles at Wimbledon would seem laughable, but due to overall greatness as players, they are still in the discussion as best to not win those particular slams, even though Sampras is nowhere near the best clay courter to not win the mens French Open, and Seles nowhere near the best grass courter to not win the womens Wimbledon title. Then you have the great surface specialists on the other end, who never won a slam anywhere in some cases, or only won 1 slam total- Ivanisevic at Wimbledon if he had never won it, Corretja and Coria at the French, Sabatini and Martinez at the French.

When there are options that cover both territories I generally give it to one of them. Like Henin or Mandlikova for Wimbledon covers both (I go with Henin even though Hana is probably slightly better on grass, both are great picks who cover both), Goolagong or Capriati at the US Open, Murray or McEnroe at the Australian Open, Hingis at the French Open easily covers both so is probably by far the best pick there, and someone like Borg at the US Open of course. Then you have other cases like the men at the French Open or the women at the Australian Open where nobody easily covers both, making it more of a challenge.

One of the reason I started this thread was I was truly curious what critiera people would use. Greatness as an overall player, overlooking relative weakness on a surface. Ability on the surface for sometimes largely surfaces specialists who didn't win the big one there. Performance level at slams in defeat- applying heavily to someone like Capriati at the Open or Rafter at Wimbledon based on his efforts to try and win Wimbledon 2000 and 2001.

 

[buscemi]

I agree on both of these. Orantes did win a slam (also on clay) so that aspect makes him possibly a more attractive option given my critiera.

Who would be some of your choices for both men and women at each slam. And how do you strike the balance between surface ability and overall greatness of a player when deciding. Like if it was just ability on the specific surface picking Sampras at the French or Seles at Wimbledon would seem laughable, but due to overall greatness as players, they are still in the discussion as best to not win those particular slams, even though Sampras is nowhere near the best clay courter to not win the mens French Open, and Seles nowhere near the best grass courter to not win the womens Wimbledon title. Then you have the great surface specialists on the other end, who never won a slam anywhere in some cases, or only won 1 slam total- Ivanisevic at Wimbledon if he had never won it, Corretja and Coria at the French, Sabatini and Martinez at the French.

When there are options that cover both territories I generally give it to one of them. Like Henin or Mandlikova for Wimbledon covers both (I go with Henin even though Hana is probably slightly better on grass, both are great picks who cover both), Goolagong or Capriati at the US Open, Murray or McEnroe at the Australian Open, Hingis at the French Open easily covers both so is probably by far the best pick there, and someone like Borg at the US Open of course. Then you have other cases like the men at the French Open or the women at the Australian Open where nobody easily covers both, making it more of a challenge.

One of the reason I started this thread was I was truly curious what critiera people would use. Greatness as an overall player, overlooking relative weakness on a surface. Ability on the surface for sometimes largely surfaces specialists who didn't win the big one there. Performance level at slams in defeat- applying heavily to someone like Capriati at the Open or Rafter at Wimbledon based on his efforts to try and win Wimbledon 2000 and 2001.

Men:

AO: Borg b/c I'm 99% sure he wins the Australian Open if he plays it regularly between 1975-1981
French: Connors b/c I think he wins in 1974, 1976, or 1977 if he plays it.
Wimbledon: Toughest one. I like Rafter and his 2 finals.
U.S. Open: Borg b/c of his 4 finals, losing twice each to Connors and McEnroe.

Women:

AO: Venus with her 2 finals losses to Serena and her hard court prowess.
French: I guess Hingis with her 2 French finals and some big clay titles.
Wimbledon: Seles b/c I think she wins in 1994 if she's not stabbed.
U.S. Open: Goolagong b/c of her four straight finals and her unluckiness that two of them were in the clay U.S. Open years.

 

[Ombelibable]

Hmm really like Coria as a pick for Roland Garros. Technically per my personal rules I would normally say he isn't a good enough overall player but for that. But given the lack of any decent options for that he is a great choice. It would either be him or Connors. Connors is the best clay courter of the the major all time greats who didn't win Roland Garros, and Coria probably the best pure clay courter who didn't.

Australia I like how you broke it down. Borg and McEnroe sort of should be the choice, except they barely ever played it in their primes so does it make sense. Borg didn't play it hardly ever period, he might have never played it. I would need to look that up. McEnroe began playing it in 83 however, missed in 84 but played and lost in 83, then played it most years after. So honestly he would be a good choice as he did try and win it. It would be either him or Andy Murray.

And yeah anyone who couldn't win the Open in the current field should be disregarded completely there.

What about the women? Any thoughts on them?

Oh yes, I forgot about Connors. One of the highest clay ELOs in history, as per the ATP statistics page. I see similarities with his encounters with Borg like I do of Federer vs Nadal.
In WTA,

I'd put Venus Williams for Australian and RG - she was too good a player not to have won both. She's certainly a better player than Sharapova (IMO) who's got the career slam.
Wimbledon : Hard to see beyond Justin Henin and Monica Seles. For Justine, perhaps going into Wimbledon just a fortnight after Roland Garros and winning, isn't as easy as Borg/Nadal/Federer/Djokovic/Serena have made it seem. For Seles, I really wish we weren't living in this dark timeline and that she had a long and fulfilling career.

US Open : I'm not too knowledgeable, but I'll have to say Victoria Azarenka.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Oh yes, I forgot about Connors. One of the highest clay ELOs in history, as per the ATP statistics page. I see similarities with his encounters with Borg like I do of Federer vs Nadal.
In WTA,

I'd put Venus Williams for Australian and RG - she was too good a player not to have won both. She's certainly a better player than Sharapova (IMO) who's got the career slam.
Wimbledon : Hard to see beyond Justin Henin and Monica Seles. For Justine, perhaps going into Wimbledon just a fortnight after Roland Garros and winning, isn't as easy as Borg/Nadal/Federer/Djokovic/Serena have made it seem. For Seles, I really wish we weren't living in this dark timeline and that she had a long and fulfilling career.

US Open : I'm not too knowledgeable, but I'll have to say Victoria Azarenka.

Venus in Australia I forgot. Great choice, particularly with what a great hard court player she is.

Azarenka is a good choice for the US Open that had slipped my mind. Back to back 3 set final losses to Serena, and a 3rd final loss. Mutli Slam winner, hard court specialist, and former YEar End #1. Capriati and Goolagong are good choices here too IMO, so all 3 have a case.

I don't think Seles is a safe lock to win Wimbledon, even if she weren't stabbed, but she probably had atleast a reasonableish chance (like 45-50% atleast) of winning atleast once. As it is her grass play that she has ever shown in its totality, including pre stabbing, and her career grass results, do not make her even a top 10 or top 15 best female grass courter to not win Wimbledon (she is even probably behind people like Sabatini, Sanchez, and maybe Zina Garrison and Capriati from her own era) but her overall greatness as a player could put her in the running still.

 

[Ombelibable]

Venus in Australia I forgot. Great choice, particularly with what a great hard court player she is.

Azarenka is a good choice for the US Open that had slipped my mind. Back to back 3 set final losses to Serena, and a 3rd final loss. Mutli Slam winner, hard court specialist, and former YEar End #1. Capriati and Goolagong are good choices here too IMO, so all 3 have a case.

I don't think Seles is a safe lock to win Wimbledon, even if she weren't stabbed, but she probably had atleast a reasonableish chance (like 45-50% atleast) of winning atleast once. As it is her grass play that she has ever shown in its totality, including pre stabbing, and her career grass results, do not make her even a top 10 or top 15 best female grass courter to not win Wimbledon (she is even probably behind people like Sabatini, Sanchez, and maybe Zina Garrison and Capriati from her own era) but her overall greatness as a player could put her in the running still.

Very fair analysis. What do you think about Justine?

 

[martinezownsclay]

Very fair analysis. What do you think about Justine?

Justine? She has a good case for Wimbledon IMO, based on her abilities as a grass player and overall player combined. She also was very, very unlucky to be stuck in the era of the Williams sisters, two of the best grass courters of all time (I put both top 5 in the Open Era with Navratilova, Graf, King, and maybe Court), and overall an extremely deep grass era, far more depth than when either Mandlikova or Seles played. That being said as strictly a grass courter I rate her not only behind the Williams sisters but clearly Davenport and Mauresmo too, in her own era alone. Arguably Bartoli and Sharapova too, although I personally would rate her over both, despite their Wimbledon titles, atleast overall ability wise. IMO Hana Mandlikova is a slightly better and much more natural grass court player. Both her finals were pretty mediocre though, particularly the one vs Chris, while Justine atleast put up a good fight and went to 3 sets in both her finals. So Henin did actually come closer than Hana to winning a Wimbledon, despite both reaching 2 finals. Henin is clearly mentally tougher and more likely to put in the effort to win a big final at a venue she never won, although Hana also had some big match abilities and mental strength of course, you don't win 4 slams by beating a big fun in each, and beat Chris and Martina back to back to win the US Open otherwise. Henin was obviously a dominant player for awhile, which Hana while a great player in the Navratilova/Evert era of dominance, never was. And as a 3 time Year End #1, 7 time Slam Champion, and Olympic and YEC winner, she is a much more successful player overall than Hana, and just a bit behind Seles.

Depending your vantage point and what you value Henin, Mandlikova, Seles (strictly on her greatness as a player, as she is likely the greatest overall player to never win Wimbledon, not her grass skills) could all be considerations, but Henin would probably be my choice overall. Although Hana is still the best actual grass courter to not win Wimbledon IMO, just in terms of basic grass skill.