Worst player to win a slam?

random1

Rookie
Since we talked about best non-winners, and worst finalist, who's the worst to ever actually win a slam. (Men and women seperately, please).

I'd have to go with Ivanisevic. Such a limited game, and such a head case as well. I like the guy, and was happy he won, but lucky as hell, IMO. All serve, very little game to go with it, but that's all you needed at Wimbledon for many years.

Not sure about the women's side. Novotna? Majoli?

I realize these are all good players, almost by definition. I guess I'm trying to figure out who the ultimate one-hit wonder is.


PS - Let's keep Roddick bashing to a minimum...
 

AJK1

Hall of Fame
I have a few: Ivanisevic, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Johanssen. All very good players, but not up to others standards, were lucky to win their Grand Slams in my opinion.
 

8PAQ

Banned
Both Goran and Roddick have been in multiple Slams finals so you can't really say that their wins have been a fluke. Unlike say Thomas Johansson....
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
Yeah Goran was one-dimensional, but he was consistently ranked pretty high throughout the 90s, so he can't be called a one-hit wonder. He only made one GS semi outside of Wimbledon, though('96 US Open) And he won titles on all surfaces(including 3 on clay) Never won a title in the US, which is surprising.

Year-end rankings:
'90-9
'91-16
'92-4
'93-7
'94-5
'95-10
'96-4
'97-15
'98-12
'99-62
'00-129
'01-12
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
I'm glad you qualified it by saying that you "realize these are all good players, almost by definition". You have to be a tremendous player to go deep in a Slam, let alone win it. However, I understand that among Slam champs, some were less talented, but caught lightning in a bottle for two weeks... and never really resurfaced again.

Among the seemingly least talented champs I have actually seen, I guess I would list Thomas Johansson and Gaston Guadio. However, I like both of these players and feel like they worked hard to win enough to maximize the talent they have... and they deserved the championships they won. Plus, their careers aren't over yet, so maybe they will repeat the success someday?

Among players that I never saw play, but are historically considered "lucky" to have won would be Brian Teacher (1980) and Mark Edmonson (1976) at the Australian Open.
 

Happyneige

New User
My vote for female players goes to Kuznetsova. She was speculated to be 'The best Russian' but has not delivered. After winning US Open in 2004, she won only one more title in Bali (the following week) and none in 2005. Was an embarassment to Russia during Fed Cup 2004. (Thank God for Dementieva and Myskina.) Failed to defend the US Open title in 2005, not to mention getting kicked out in the 1st round.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
Happyneige said:
My vote for female players goes to Kuznetsova. She was speculated to be 'The best Russian' but has not delivered. After winning US Open in 2004, she won only one more title in Bali (the following week) and none in 2005. Was an embarassment to Russia during Fed Cup 2004. (Thank God for Dementieva and Myskina.) Failed to defend the US Open title in 2005, not to mention getting kicked out in the 1st round.
But Kuznetsova is only 20 years old and has a ton of career left in her. In my opinion, she is better than Myskina and her career record will reflect that by the time she is done playing. By the way, I'm not going to put Myskina in the "one hit wonder" category yet either because at 24, she has a lot of years yet also.

For the women, among the players I've actually seen play, I would nominate Iva Majoli because her win was such a huge upset, she never made it past the quarters of any other Slam, and her career fizzled after she won.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
It's Johansson and Gaudio for sure.

Gaudio's a *pretty* good player; but who would really argue that peak Coria, Ferrero, Nadal, Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, and Courier weren't better and more feared on clay? In other words, at one point, all of these guys were so confident and playing so well that they were class of the field level on clay; but Gaudio's one of those guys who's the class of the bridesmaids, never the bride. To me, Coria GIFTED him a French Open title on a silver platter his nerve induced cramps were so bad...and Gaudio STILL barely, and I do mean, barely, won it.

Johannson to me, well, he's actually more talented than he gets credit for; but he's really NOT what anyone's ever considered an ELITE level talent. Sure, if he gets hot here and there, he's dangerous; but that's ALL. He got a decimated draw that year and Safin came out flat, but Safin also had to face a truly treacherous draw unlike Johansson to get to the finals. Put it this way. Who's better, peak Safin or peak Johansson? Exactly. The difference to me between fluke slam winners and the real deals are that the non-fluke ones, at their peak level; they are darn near unbeatable, Johnasson isn't that guy...that's like saying if Alberto Berasategui or Alberto Costa had won a French because their more elite opponents came out flat. In Costa's case, he actually did win that way so it does happen. Though to be honest, he deserved it more than Johansson did in my opinion; because he had a tougher path to glory that tournament than Johansson did and no one can take that away from him. He battled HARD that tournament and played at the highest level I've ever seen from him. To be honest, when Johansson won the Australian Open; I did not get the feeling like hey, this is the absolute best this guy can play, he's playing above his head and is in the zone. Instead, I saw a guy who got a draw that opened up for him, had some so-so, routine matches to get to the final, and played pretty good in the finals but was he on his best form ever that match? That I don't believe.

Korda in my opinion doesn't belong on the list. Korda was basically considered a genius level talent by his peers, clear top of the food chain talent wise. McEnroe said he's maybe the cleanest, purest striker of the ball he's ever seen when on. He was an enigma type player, who when he should have been reaching his prime, had that part of his career taken away from him due to a groin injury he needed surgery for but was too afraid to get surgery for so he lived off pain killers instead and played at only about 60% of his capacity for a few years as he himself said, which is why his results "mysteriously" dipped during that time.

Korda was a French Open finalist in spite of having razor flat groundies. Korda was kind of like the Jana Novotna of the men's tour. They even had practically the same, ideosyncratic, Karate Kid crane kick, service motions. Same all-court game, fine hands at net, fine movement. But Korda had the more dangerous groundies. When he was on off the ground, he could totally decimate an opponent in no-time flat, before they even knew what hit them, it was like playing laser tag with a pentium chip assassin. At least with Gonzales, you know when you've been bludgeoned. With Korda, it was like being sliced up by a master Japanes sushi chef handy with blades. Before you know it, you've been skinned alive by a Schick Quatro razor blade.

Korda won the Australian Open in dominant fashion. He was clearly on a roll coming in, he beat Sampras at the US Open, took Sampras to five at Wimbledon that same year; he clearly was NOT the same hobbled Korda of the mid-90s, kind of like how Medvedev wasn't the same Medvedev from his top ten years. Things change for whatever reason, but clealry some guys have elite talent and others don't. Guys like Johnasson and Costa and Gaudio and Malivai Washington and Todd Martin to me all fall into the category of very, very good; but their talent was never so great that they caused a "buzz" among fellow tour players like Korda and Medvedev once did.

The Korda of the 98 Australian Open looked like a Korda who was on a mission, who was more mature and headier than in his earlier days when he made the top ten on talent alone. It just looked like someone who always had the talent, but learned to appreciate it and grow hungrier when he faced a difficult period in his life, and thus came out stronger for the wear, ready to now put it all together instead of squander.

Goran to me also does not belong on the list. Medvedev said in an interview upon retiring that there are several levels on the tour, that top 20 is very good but actually pretty much the same level as everyone else 20 to 100, just that they're more consistent in their level. He said that from 20 to 100, there's no difference, they're all the same level. He said that top 5, however, then that's totally different. He said top five is just on a different level from everyone else, that that's TRUE elite. Say what you will about Goran only having his serve and average groundies and volleys, but average but well-balanced groundies and volleys are more than enough when you've got such an overwhelming weapon as his serve. Players couldn't read it, and he could swing them out sooo wide as a lefty. Basically, if he was having a great serving day, it was basically unreturnable. In my opinion, more devastating than Sampras' serve even. Sampras was a more well-rounded server because of his great kick second serve (something Goran really didn't have), and the fact that he was much more consistent and reliable under pressure with it, but Bruguera said that when Goran was on with his serve, it was definitely the best in the world, not Sampras'. I honestly believe that to be true. Sampras, day in, day out, the better server, no question. If the match got tight, he was the less shaky server, the more clutch server. If you're just talking about when someone's in the zone once in a blue moon without the pressure? Goran was the king just as Michael Jackson was the king of "ee-heeh!" Goran's serve was unplayable if he was hitting his spots. Sampras, you could at least hope to get your racket on the ball...albeit just barely. Sampras wins the race, but Goran was the hare...of course, Sampras also just happend to be a really, really, REALLY fast tortoise though himself, not to take anything away from him.

Anyway, the bottom-line is that Goran was a legitimate top five player during his peak and no other tour player would argue that. If guys like Johansson, Gaudio, Martin, Berasategui, Washington, and Costa made top 5 for any decent stretch of time; I think you'd find the other players scratching their head...not that they don't think they're very good, but TOP FIVE good? That's a whole different level and story. As Medvedev said, there's really the top five and everyone else. Sometimes you can crack the top ten if you get on a roll for awhile, but I really think that to prove yourself to be a CLEAR top five level player at one point in your career shows that you are just a little more special than the rest.

Bottom-line, Korda and Goran, and yes Ferrero too (on clay), in the zone were virtually unbeatable as are virtually all top-five caliber players with the exception of Chang. Because of this, they are not fluke slam winners, but rather more cases of what took them so long?

Johansson, Costa, and Gaudio while very good, are just not quite on that level. Johansson and Gaudio are fluke slam winners. Costa was a warrior who overachieved Rocky style one year, still a fluke? Kind-of. It's the half-way point kind of like when the Rockets won the championship when Michael Jordon was busy going through a mid-life baseball crisis.
 

Feña14

Legend
AJK1 said:
I have a few: Ivanisevic, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Johanssen. All very good players, but not up to others standards, were lucky to win their Grand Slams in my opinion.
Ferrero wasn't, he too has been in multiple slam finals and between 2000-2003 he was arguably the man to beat alongside Guga at RG. Add to that he has been world number 1.

I don't think you can say he is one of the worst players to win a slam.
 

dmastous

Professional
If your going to put Ivanisevic you also have to add Richard Krajicek to the list. Big serve, OK groundies, OK volleys. One Wimbledon against Mal Washington (a journeyman who's best surface wasn't even grass) and a steaker, and off into the wild blue yonder.
 

hoosierbr

Hall of Fame
I'd go with Albert Costa.

As for Thomas Johansson, I'm not sure it's fair to put him on the list. When he won the Aussie in 2002 he was battling a shoulder injury that eventually kept him out of the US Open. His knee was also starting to let him down and he ended up missing all of the next year after surgery. Had he been healthy the rest of 2002 and the next year who knows if he could have made another run somewhere else, possibly in his defense of Melbourne? Look at the draw Agassi had when he won it, incidentally his last Slam to date. I think the fact that he made the SF at Wimbledon this year and played a tough four setter w/Roddick, that basically ended when Roddick got a lucky net cord in the fourth set tiebreak. Had it gone five I actually think TJ would have won.

Costa, on the other hand, has never done anything significant off of the dirt. Credit to him for his warrior's effort to win the French in 2002 but when you think of current Grand Slam champions still playing how long does it take to remember his name?

Goran doesn't belong. If you want to talk about Wimby one slam wonders how about Krajicek? I don't think he belongs either but, again, he never made another Slam final after he won in 1996.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
Like tym said, there are very talented players who were oft injured(Korda, Krajicek) who only won one slam & there are journeyman types who got a bit lucky(Gaudio, Johannson)

It seemed like Krajicek was injured most of the time, but was still one of those "can beat anyone, anytime, anywhere" type of players. I don't think his '96 Wimbledon was that unexpected. He was more talented/complete a player than Goran, but wasn't healthy enough to contend consistently at majors. I remember when he played Sampras at the 2000 US Open. He was unseeded, but everyone thought it could be an even match. When Krajicek went up a set, Johnny Mac thought he was capable of winning the whole thing. Had he done so, it wouldn't have been a huge surprise, the guy was that good, regardless of ranking.

Al Costa is an interesting case. When he won the French, his best years were thought to be behind him & Ferrero choked badly in the final. So Costa's title in '02 could be called a fluke, but the guy was one of the very best claycourters of the 90s(one of the few guys to give Muster a match at his best). Had he won the French in, say '97 or '98, it wouldn't have been called a fluke, but in '02 against the new king of clay Ferrero?

Thomas Johannson's year end rankings reflect why he was thought to be a fluke, never an elite player before Australia '02. Any he never scared anyone like Korda or Krajicek.
'95-117
'96-60
'97-39
'98-17
'99-39
'00-39
'01-18
'02-14(won Australian)

Krajicek's rankings(not bad considering abbreviated schedule much of the time)
'91-40
'92-10
'93-15
'94-17
'95-11
'96-7
'97-11
'98-10
'99-10
'00-36
'01-missed entire year due to injury
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
random1 said:
Since we talked about best non-winners, and worst finalist, who's the worst to ever actually win a slam. (Men and women seperately, please).

I'd have to go with Ivanisevic. Such a limited game, and such a head case as well. I like the guy, and was happy he won, but lucky as hell, IMO. All serve, very little game to go with it, but that's all you needed at Wimbledon for many years.

Not sure about the women's side. Novotna? Majoli?

I realize these are all good players, almost by definition. I guess I'm trying to figure out who the ultimate one-hit wonder is.


PS - Let's keep Roddick bashing to a minimum...
Ok, I know you said keep the bashing to a minimum, but this is outrageous. I am not saying Goran is one of the all time greats, but his career was ridiculously more successful than many other slam winners.

Fact is the guy won 22 titles, was ranked as high as #2 in the world(7/4/94), and reached 3 other Grand Slam finals besides the one he won. Not only that, but he also reached at least the quarterfinals at all 4 slams, making the quarters twice at the Australian, the quarters 3 times at the French, and the semis once at the US Open. This goes along with his amazing Wimbledon record of 1 win, 3 finals, 2 semis, and a quarter.

When thinking of the worst Grand Slam winner, there are so many who never came close to winning another one, that I cannot understand how you could pick Goran as the worst. Just off the top of my head, I can name Thomas Johannson, Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, and I am sure others can name countless other slam winners who Goran is head and shoulders above as well.
 
M

MaratFerrero

Guest
I agree with Fena14. You cant include JCF becuase in 2003 he was the premier player on clay. The few loses he had on clay came to Federer and Safin.. Not bad in my opinion. And he was good on other surfaces..beat hewitt and agassi in the US open that year and got to the final. Im sure if it wasnt for the injuries in 2004 he would of probably still been in the top 5 in 2004, and had a chance to be in the top 5 in 2005.
 

random1

Rookie
!Tym said:
It's Johansson and Gaudio for sure.

excellent post ommitted for brevity
Great post !Tym, and you've convinced me that I'm being to harsh on Goran. I do wonder how he'd do today(maybe we'll see at DC?) with generally slower play on the tour. And I completely agree that his serve was the best when he was on.
I should certainly rate Goran over Krajicek as well.
 

Rickson

G.O.A.T.
Gaudio for sure. Coria's cramps gave Gaudio a huge lucky break and any top 200 player would have beaten Coria after he started cramping.
 
T

tangysox

Guest
Rickson, Gaudio won five clay titles this year so he can obviously play on clay and winning RG would be fitting for him because RG is usually the "flukiest" slam for players to win (ie, claycourt experts can rarely win big titles on fastcourts). There are of course exceptions, like Rafael Nadal.
 

RiosTheGenius

Hall of Fame
if Martin Verkerk had beaten Ferrero in the 2003 RG final it would've been a real tragedy. but I think all slam winners are fairly good and very much deserving of the titles.
I hear names like Gadio and Johansson, but they really played like champs and beat some good players on their way to their finals, just look at Gaudio's draw in 2004, that was no walk in the park at all.
I think these guys are all great.
as for those looneys who said Ferrero I will not even comment.
 

RiosTheGenius

Hall of Fame
Rickson said:
Gaudio for sure. Coria's cramps gave Gaudio a huge lucky break and any top 200 player would have beaten Coria after he started cramping.
did everyone Gaudio play in the previous rounds cramp too?.... did Gaudio get a wild card to the final?

take a look at Gaudio's draw... I think he had to do a bit more than getting through Coria.
it gets me annoyed when people who only watch the finals make statements here.
 
Putting Ferrerro in there is completely unfair. The man got the measles and is working his way back to standard. He's still young and is one of the only guys I've seen lately really go toe to toe with Federer (Dubai early round I think). When he's at the top of his game, not many can beat him. And he plays well only hard courts.

Goran is much deserving of his title, having been to that final before. I would say Petr Korda beating Rios, who should have won that match.
 

noosense00

New User
Definitely putting JCF in there is not fair. He is an awesome playing having reached multiple finals. I definitely would put Johansson and Krajicek in that list.

A player who has reached multiple finals but only 1 final is an unbelievable accomplishment, but if a player has won a title reaching only that final I would not consider him/her a good player.
 
D

DoubleFaults

Guest
Andre Gomez beatting Andre Agassi at the French Open. Forgot the year.
 
Jack the Hack said:
But Kuznetsova is only 20 years old and has a ton of career left in her. In my opinion, she is better than Myskina and her career record will reflect that by the time she is done playing. By the way, I'm not going to put Myskina in the "one hit wonder" category yet either because at 24, she has a lot of years yet also.

For the women, among the players I've actually seen play, I would nominate Iva Majoli because her win was such a huge upset, she never made it past the quarters of any other Slam, and her career fizzled after she won.
Iva Majoli won a slam?? When was that?
 

Fatmike

Semi-Pro
InTheFlesh_not said:
Iva Majoli won a slam?? When was that?
RG 1997
Code:
Grand Slam (singles) History 
 WL 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 
AUSTRALIAN OPEN 9-6 - - 1r 2r 3r - - 3r 1r QF - - - - - 
ROLAND GARROS 28-9 - - 2r 2r 1r 2r - QF W QF QF 4r 4r - - 
WIMBLEDON 7-7 - - 1r 3r 1r - - 2r QF - 1r 1r - - - 
US OPEN 11-11 - - 1r 3r 3r - 1r 2r 2r 1r 1r 4r 2r 2r -
well, check the link, clearer

http://www.wtatour.com/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=130316
 

omniexist

Semi-Pro
Hmm..

I don't remember a lot of Ivo's game. But I do recall in his match against Agassi he was trading groundstrokes hard and well.

Don't agree he was the worst guy to win a final.

What about that guy (I forget his name) they called the "manyana man" as in well I'm playing bad today so see you manyana? He beat Agassi very early in Agassi's career...I forget which Open final.
 

charlesgso

New User
Pat Cash, Johan Kreik, Michael Chang

Thomas Muster should not be on list. He would have won ten French OPens if a truck didn't run him over.
 

Klippy

Semi-Pro
People, you are missing the point here. It is quite obviously Federer. Definite fluke. :D :razz: :wink:

charlesgso said:
Thomas Muster should not be on list. He would have won ten French OPens if a truck didn't run him over.
Thomas Muster is cool.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
definately not johanson, hes all around solid, has been around top for ever
I'd say Gaudio is most lucky, but he does have the game
 

HeNmAiNiA

New User
Klippy said:
People, you are missing the point here. It is quite obviously Federer. Definite fluke. :D :razz: :wink:


Thomas Muster is cool.
thomas muster is cool
everyone is missing the point coz arnaud clement and mariano puerta aer freaking legos
 

SydW

Rookie
AJK1 said:
I have a few: Ivanisevic, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Johanssen. All very good players, but not up to others standards, were lucky to win their Grand Slams in my opinion.
Ferrero?

If anything, I think Ferrero should be winning more slams. He has some of the best groundstrokes I had ever watched among the current players. Watch his match against Federer on grass this year in Wimbledon.

I wish it is him dominating the clay now instead of Nadal anytime.
 

omigod

Rookie
Chang was a good player but his French Open win is quite amazing.
As I read on a quote (somewhere) Stefan Edberg quipped, "he had God on his side" :p
 

omigod

Rookie
SydW said:
Ferrero?

If anything, I think Ferrero should be winning more slams. He has some of the best groundstrokes I had ever watched among the current players. Watch his match against Federer on grass this year in Wimbledon.

I wish it is him dominating the clay now instead of Nadal anytime.
And Ferroro made the US Open final too.

And his previous 3 appearances in the French (prior to his win) were:
Final (lost to Costa), Semi (lost to Guga), Semi (lost to Guga?).
Lucky to win the French? Like Goran, it would have been a shame if he didn't win his fav slam.
edited: corrected the punctuation and cleared up the last sentence.
 

SydW

Rookie
omigod said:
And Ferroro made the US Open final too.

And his previous 3 appearances in the French (prior to his win) were:
Final (lost to Costa), Semi (lost to Guga), Semi (lost to Guga?).
Lucky to win the French .. like Goran, if he doesn't win his fav slam that would be a great shame.
It is not luck.

I wish he will make it to the top again.
 

omigod

Rookie
Sorry dude, that should be a question mark after the "lucky to win the french". I do think that Ferrero is slam material.
 

SydW

Rookie
omigod said:
Sorry dude, that should be a question mark after the "lucky to win the french". I do think that Ferrero is slam material.
lol yes he is. I want to see him at his best again.
 

Klippy

Semi-Pro
I dont think a grand slam final would ever come with luck, actually. Think of how hard these players had to work to become pros- shoot! Think of all those hours sweating it out on the court, long hours in the gym....I just can't see any grandslam final appearance happen "luckily".
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
RiosTheGenius said:
did everyone Gaudio play in the previous rounds cramp too?.... did Gaudio get a wild card to the final?

take a look at Gaudio's draw... I think he had to do a bit more than getting through Coria.
it gets me annoyed when people who only watch the finals make statements here.
Exactly.
Gaudio had a pretty tough draw, including a first round five-setter showdown against Cañas.

R128 Cañas, Guillermo (ARG ) 29 6-2 2-6 4-6 6-3 6-2
R64 Novak, Jiri (CZE ) 43 2-6 6-4 6-4 5-7 6-3
R32 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE ) 65 6-0 6-4 6-7(5) 6-4
R16 Andreev, Igor (RUS ) 94 6-4 7-5 6-3
Q Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS ) 6 6-3 6-2 6-2
S Nalbandian, David (ARG ) 10 6-3 7-6(5) 6-0
W Coria, Guillermo (ARG ) 3 6 3-6 6-4 6-1 8-6

Wins over 3 top Tens, including that year's king of clay.
 
Kevin Patrick said:
It seemed like Krajicek was injured most of the time, but was still one of those "can beat anyone, anytime, anywhere" type of players. I don't think his '96 Wimbledon was that unexpected. He was more talented/complete a player than Goran, but wasn't healthy enough to contend consistently at majors. I remember when he played Sampras at the 2000 US Open. He was unseeded, but everyone thought it could be an even match. When Krajicek went up a set, Johnny Mac thought he was capable of winning the whole thing. Had he done so, it wouldn't have been a huge surprise, the guy was that good, regardless of ranking.
I agree in a way, but I actually did not find his game as complete as many who labelled him such a big underachiever did. Obviously he was an extremely good player, who was very dangerous to the best even when not ranked in the top few, and who maybe missed opportunities to do more in his career. Also his head to head with Sampras, and a few other players is tremendous, and speaks highly to him. However I did not find his game that complete and he relied on several of his bigger strengths. His movement for example was not that good at all, and his return of his serve was actually pretty weak for top players standards IMO. Did you honestly find his game without a few obvious weaknesses, that a truly complete player would not have?



Al Costa is an interesting case. When he won the French, his best years were thought to be behind him & Ferrero choked badly in the final. So Costa's title in '02 could be called a fluke, but the guy was one of the very best claycourters of the 90s(one of the few guys to give Muster a match at his best). Had he won the French in, say '97 or '98, it wouldn't have been called a fluke, but in '02 against the new king of clay Ferrero?

I think Albert Costa was considered a serious contender to win the French every year between 96-99, I dont know if he was the #1 favorite any of those years, but in 96 and 98 he probably was the #2 favorite behind Muster and Rios, and any of those years he was considered a potential winner. So I dont think his French title was a fluke, just a fluke that it happened when he was considered clearly past his best years in tennis.
 
AJK1 said:
I have a few: Ivanisevic, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Johanssen. All very good players, but not up to others standards, were lucky to win their Grand Slams in my opinion.
I have to disagree on Ivanisevic especially. The guy at Wimbledon atleast was a very worthy winner, even though it was a huge shock he won it the year he did. He reached 3 other Wimbledon finals, 92, 94, and 98 before finally winng it in 2001 as a wild card. In 92 he beat Sampras in the semis, and it was a surprise he lost to Agassi in the final, who had not liked grass at all until that year and often skipped Wimbledon. In 94 he was extremely impressive to reach the final, crushing Becker in straight sets in the semis, but ran into a buzzsaw in Sampras that day. In 95 he missed a great chance to beat Sampras in the semis, he lost in 5 sets, he converted on only 2 of 8 break points I believe, and Sampras 3 of 5. He likely would have won that year otherwise. In 1998 he missed a great chance to win in the final vs Sampras, missing two makeable return of serves in the 2nd set tiebreaker that would have given him a 2-sets-to-0 lead. If anything Ivanisevic should have won Wimbledon before he did. Because of his incredable serve mainly, he was a huge huge force at Wimbledon.
 
Top