Worst player to win a slam?

Have to go with Hewitt. Great player, very fit and determined but didnt have many weapons if any. He was very consistent but that was just about it.

For the goons that say Ivanisevic: it cant be considered a fluke if he was in 4 wimbledon finals, he was close to beating agassi and sampras on one occasion so something isnt right there, calling it a fluke.

Costa a fluke, no way. He crushed ferrero completely, apart from one set.
He was one of the favourite clay courters for many years.
Johansson worked hard to win the aussie, his backhand was on as well as his forehand and he served well throughout the tournament.

and for the lunatics that say Gaudio, gaudio never produced a fluke and he certainly showed that as he won 5 clay court titles in 2005 alone. He nearly beat nadal at monte carlo this year. no way a fluke.

Ill say hewitt, it wasnt a fluke..his two grand slams, but he was the worst to win a slam.
 

tennisprofl

Semi-Pro
johansson is one of the worst..he hasn't been doing very well lately. gaudio shocked everyone at RG but his ranking is still pretty decent so im not sure what to think.
 

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
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...
Bob Falkenburg, who is actually in the Tennis Hall of Fame. He was one of the first disciples of Jack Kramer's "percentage tennis," only he lacked competent groundstrokes to back up his big serve-and-volley game. (He was, in fact, Kramer's partner in doubles.) Falkenburg won Wimbledon in 1948 over John Bromwich on a fluke backhand passing shot. He was also hated by most fans, known for purposefully dropping sets at love in order to rest.
 

Breaker

Legend
Marat Safinator said:
Have to go with Hewitt. Great player, very fit and determined but didnt have many weapons if any. He was very consistent but that was just about it.

For the goons that say Ivanisevic: it cant be considered a fluke if he was in 4 wimbledon finals, he was close to beating agassi and sampras on one occasion so something isnt right there, calling it a fluke.

Costa a fluke, no way. He crushed ferrero completely, apart from one set.
He was one of the favourite clay courters for many years.
Johansson worked hard to win the aussie, his backhand was on as well as his forehand and he served well throughout the tournament.

and for the lunatics that say Gaudio, gaudio never produced a fluke and he certainly showed that as he won 5 clay court titles in 2005 alone. He nearly beat nadal at monte carlo this year. no way a fluke.

Ill say hewitt, it wasnt a fluke..his two grand slams, but he was the worst to win a slam.
Hewitt is and was far better than Gaudio, Johannson, or Costa could ever be. He was at number 1 for 80 consecutive weeks (top 10 of all time I think?), won 2 straight year end masters cups, and had the two grand slams, only being pushed in ONE match at the US Open and only dropping two sets at Wimbledon in the quarters and absolutely DEMOLISHING both Sampras and Nalbandian in the finals. His mental toughness, speed, determination, and fitness are weapons just as much as a monster serve and have kept him a contender for years.

I'd still say Johannson, hasn't really done much since that win and didn't really do anything before it either. Pretty much an annual top 20 player who was able to take advantage of his oppurtunities and therefore got his slam.
 

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
dannyjjang said:
Marat Safin
safin has two slams u idiot ....and was ranked #1 at the end of a year....roddick was also ranked #1 at the end of the year....roddick has also been ranked in the top 20 of the world since 2001as well as ending the years 2003,2004,2005 1,2 and 3 respectivly which is no fluke....
 
Bogie said:
thomas johansson or andy roddick
i cant believe i forgot about roddick. i dont wanna give him the gold medal for this category though. id give him first place in biggest disappointment though, or best downward spiral, lol.
 

Chang

Rookie
MikeMcKenzie said:
chang

conchita
Chang has 34 career titles and has an even h2h with courier. He's not the worst player to win a slam. Just because it's not his favourite surface doesn't mean its a fluke.
 

Alexandros

Professional
Marat Safinator said:
Have to go with Hewitt. Great player, very fit and determined but didnt have many weapons if any. He was very consistent but that was just about it.

For the goons that say Ivanisevic: it cant be considered a fluke if he was in 4 wimbledon finals, he was close to beating agassi and sampras on one occasion so something isnt right there, calling it a fluke.

Costa a fluke, no way. He crushed ferrero completely, apart from one set.
He was one of the favourite clay courters for many years.
Johansson worked hard to win the aussie, his backhand was on as well as his forehand and he served well throughout the tournament.

and for the lunatics that say Gaudio, gaudio never produced a fluke and he certainly showed that as he won 5 clay court titles in 2005 alone. He nearly beat nadal at monte carlo this year. no way a fluke.

Ill say hewitt, it wasnt a fluke..his two grand slams, but he was the worst to win a slam.
Ha, you have the temerity to call other people names for their choice when you pick... Lleyton Hewitt? You say Ivanisevic can't be considered because he was in four finals and won one of those, how about Hewitt who was also in four slam finals and won two of them (both on different surfaces)? Go take some crazy pills dude.
 

sotua

Rookie
dmastous said:
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.
But that same Wimby meant cutting peak Sampras' Wimby run. Wimbledon 96 is remembered as the time Krajicek beat Sampras, and as an afterthought, that Washington was in the final. (Sampras must have cried himself to sleep a lot of times over that match... the SF and F were on a silver platter if he had beaten Krajicek!). 1996 Wimbledon was no easy task...

Krajicek was pretty good, but, in his own words, his ROS wasn't good enough. That and his injuries derailed him for being Goran #2, IMO.

I don't think Ivanisevic belongs in that list. He was a pretty good grass courter, made quarters in every slam, and was in multiple F/SFs at Wimbledon.

My vote is for Thomas Johansson.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
Grinder said:
Gaston Gaudio, Petr Korda, Andres Gomez
Korda was a finalist at the French before winning the australian. He won on all surfaces and he could play them all. He could also beat anybody when he was "on" pretty much regardless of how the other guy played.

I would go with Johansson or Gaudio really.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
!Tym said:
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.
Really well said ...was just reading through the thread ...didn't see your post before "disagree-ing" with the previous poster. You said it all about both Ivanisevic and Korda ... and I agree totally. Thanks for taking the time :).
 

cuddles26

Banned
Mark Edmunston probably was. Wasnt he a janitor who was ranked 217 or something? Of recent memory definitely would be Thomas Johansson. I think Gaudio generaly is a weaker player then Johansson but he is better on clay then Johansson is on hard courts since Johansson is similar on all surfaces and Gaudio is a clay court specialist.
 

brucie

Professional
Less Goran slagging, his game was well suited to grass his sucess earned him a wildcard and ultimately the title!
 

fastdunn

Legend
Marat Safinator said:
For the goons that say Ivanisevic: it cant be considered a fluke if he was in 4 wimbledon finals, he was close to beating agassi and sampras on one occasion so something isnt right there, calling it a fluke.
Yep. If not Sampras, he would have won multiple Wimbledon.
The flamboyant Ian Tiriac once said Ivanesevic could have won five
Wimbledon. He is more like the least lucky player of all time.

He was often quoted as one of the best players who never won
a slam (before he finally won one). IMO, he was one unlucky fella.
He had to compete with Sampras during the whole career at his
best chance, Wimbledon. Before Sampras, it was Becker he had to compete
as a young player. One unlucky fella. Good thing he finally won one.
 
Whoever said Ferrero is foolish. Ferrero is pure class. He's lost his step, which sucks, but he dominated the clay in '03. I hope he comes back but his win was no fluke.

Whoever said Goran is equally foolish.
 
Not to mention Ferrero went to the final of the US Open (beating Agassi) only to fall to an inferior Roddick whom he played with poor strategy.
 
costa was good on clay for a 3 or 4 year period. totally unfair statement.

I am suprised some idiot didnt say Bruguera. Some of the people of this boards knwoledge is very limited if they say Costa.

Try:

Johan Kriek
Jaroslav Drobny
Manuel Orantes
 

gmonfils

Rookie
Andres Gomez was one of the best clay court players of the 80's and should not be on this list or mentioned in the same breath as some of the others. If it hadn't been for Lendl (Gomez 2-17 lifetime against) Gomez would have won at least 3 French Opens!

He was ranked in the top 20 most of his career including a high of #4 in 1990

year end rankings

1990 - 6
1989 - 17
1988 - 24
1987 - 11
1986 - 10
1985 - 15
1984 - 5
1983 - 15
1982 - 14

Gomez only won 1 slam not 2 as mentioned by another poster
 

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
brugera in prime could beat rafa.... AM I SEEING THINGS....nadal has won 60 straight matches on clay agisnt the likes of federer,coria, gaudio, almagro (a very good clay courter) etc...brugera was a solid player in his prime...in my mind...if nadal can win the next french open and win 15 more mathces on clay i will call him = on clay too the likes of borg lendl and vilas
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
clayman2000 said:
brugera in prime could beat rafa.... AM I SEEING THINGS....nadal has won 60 straight matches on clay agisnt the likes of federer,coria, gaudio, almagro (a very good clay courter) etc...brugera was a solid player in his prime...in my mind...if nadal can win the next french open and win 15 more mathces on clay i will call him = on clay too the likes of borg lendl and vilas
Well Brugera COULD beat Nadal. Key word is "could." Brugera even at his best would be slightly overmatched by Nadal and Nadal comes to play more often. Brugera could beat Nadal, but I think a Nadal would win 4 out of 5 against him.
 

Cridal

New User
Keep one thing in perspective

To random1 and any other gifted players on this forum...

Before you introduce a topic like that please keep this in mind:

Anyone of the mentioned players in this thread will wipe the floor with you!
 

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
Steve Dykstra said:
Well Brugera COULD beat Nadal. Key word is "could." Brugera even at his best would be slightly overmatched by Nadal and Nadal comes to play more often. Brugera could beat Nadal, but I think a Nadal would win 4 out of 5 against him.
you never know....bruger could win 4/5 over nadal...we dont know...what i do know is that nadal is by far a better player than brugera...and if nadal played in brugers prime time he would be #1---well maybee 2 as well with samprass and agassi
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
boris becker 1 said:
and to these so called Nadal fans who are 16 years old. Bruguera in his prime would have wiped the floor with Nadal on clay
Actually, though a lot would say Nadal's best would beat Bruguera's best; I'm not so sure.

Bruguera to me was a lot more talented than given credit for, and I think a lot of it is because most never saw him except a few matches here or there.

He won more points than Sampras in every match they ever played, including on super fast indoors; and had he been in any kind of shape, he would have defeated Sampras that one time he lost to him at the French. He beat Rafter at Wimbledon pulling serve and volley out of his hat back when grass played like grass. He had Becker on the ropes, very nearly beating him in straight sets at the year ending championship semis in Germany when the courts were actually fast. When Korda won the Grand Slam Cup on super fast indoors in heroic fashion against Sampras and Stich in the semis, he also barely survived Bruguera in the quarters.

This is a guy whose forehand was even more western than Nadal's, yet he's beaten a guy like Krajicek in straight sets indoors when they were actually fast. Beat a FIRED up Leconte at the Paris Indoors with one of the most amazing crowd supports for a single player you'll ever see, and though Leconte was old and sucky by this point, that was not the case in this ONE *isolated* match, Leconte played brilliantly this match.

Bruguera himself pointed something out when a person asked him why he wasn't very good outside clay. He said that you have to realize that he NEVER played on hard courts until he was 18 at the US Open. Do people even understand what kind of disadvantage that is? Bruguera said that had he grown up later, his game would have developed differently and it would have been different. I think he's got a legitimate point that no one ever recognizes or brings up when traditionalist talk about oh how the claycourters don't have "real" talent whatever that means.

He also had soft hands. He hit two of the most acutely angled backhand passing shots I've ever seen against Pioline and Medvedev. He hit two of the most "that's *really* spectacular" FEATHERED acutely angled running forehand topspin passes you'll ever see against Muster in the Lipton finals, and he did it two points in a row at a point in the match where was clearly tanking and out of gas so it wasn't a fluke, that's natural talent.

In the Leconte Paris Indoors match, he out Leconted Leconte a few times with cat and mouse, TOUCH, style tennis, even Leconte clapped after these points.

Against Courier in a seniors tour final on clay, he *toyed* with a much more serious Courier by playing a style totally different from his typical style on tour. Instead of trying to bash heavy top, he plays like Santoro and salt and peppers drop shots, short angled forehands, and drop volleys with near 100% winning percentage. And yet, at Wimbledon he did much the same thing against Rafter. He could pull a rabbit out of his hat without much notice, why? Because he had natural talent, he wasn't as rigid as a Courier. Courier trained to be a machine. Bruguera tried to immitate a machine, but really he was more of a washing machine with on and off rinse cycles and absent-mindedness.

His backhand pass was very good. He actually played right on top of the baseline against Sampras and Becker on even very fast indoors and returned their serves about as well as you could off that side. It was his forehand chip that was the problem, and yet against guys who came in it wasn't a bad play. Nadal is more like Muster in that he'll stand back to get the full swing in.

Bruguera's problems were two-fold. Injuries and a lack of mental commitment. He was known to tank whenever he didn't feel well, even within the same match, you'd see him just go through the motions quite often, and really he was a guy who picked his spots for when to give it his all.

Nadal gives it his all 110% of the time like Muster, but this does not mean that Bruguera's 110% effort level would not be able to match Muster or Nadal's.

He was very fast too, Krajicek said that he "couldn't believe how fast" he was actually. He had good length, reach. Had soft hands for extreme angles and drop volleys. His backhand return was excellent. His serve was not great, but it was not horrible either; he could spot it well. He could generate extreme topspin off BOTH sides. Everyone talks about his forehand being famous for spin, yet I've also seen him mix in some of the highest bouncing topspin backhands you'll ever see. His backhand was more versatile than Nadal's, period. Nadal actually has a fairly flat backhand, and the trajectory doesn't change much. Bruguera took Sampras apart with this shot alone at the 97 Lipton semis, yet not with any single type of backhand shot, but rather with a VARIETY of backhand shots from high topspin, to flat sting rays, to running approaches Bjorkman style, to acute angled passes, and so forth.

His forehand he could hit as huge as anyone when he wanted too as well, not just topspin. But as for his ability to manipulate all kinds of topspin off this side, I think it's unparalleled...he could flick hard and heavy topspin, moonball topspin, feathered dipping angles, literally any kind or degree of topspin modulated all with the flick of a wrist it seemed.

Talented player? I think so, but not a day in, day out type player either. As Courier said about him and the level of effort he gave at the US Open, "the boy tanked, just say it, the boy tanked."

A Bruguera playing as if his life was on the line, if that was the stipulation? AND he was up against Nadal; whoever loses, you die? THEN, I think Bruguera's got a real shot, because I think a lot of the things Nadal can do, Bruguera could do just as well when he was giving it his all. The difference though to me was that Bruguera had softer hands. And the thing is when you evaluate a guy like Nadal, you have to realize that he's the type who plays EVERY match and EVERY single point like his life is on the line. For most players, you can't ask them to do that because mentally they simply don't have that kind of energy or desire in them. Nadal can't suddenly "elevate" his energy over what he normally does for this match since you can't elevate on 110%. Whereas a guy like Bruguera's typical level cannot help but elevate in this kind of format.

Remember, Buguera said that he hated playing Muster more than anyone and that Muster owned him. He also said that they played basically the same except that he had maybe a little more touch (probably a nice, PC way of saying he thought he had more talent than him); BUT that the difference he thought was that Muster was always superior to him in terms of FITNESS. Nadal has that and "heart" over Bruguera just like Muster did, but otherwise I always thought of Nadal as kind of like the perfect meshing of Muster and Bruguera.

He has a little more of the natural talent and softer hands and natural speed/length of Bruguera; but with the determination, killer instinct, fitness, RELENTLESSNESS point-in, point-out, match-in, match-out of a Muster.

I think Bruguera had the more varied backhand and slightly softer hands though than Nadal, i.e. a little more ability to come up with shoe string "whimsical" type shots.

And Muster was less prone to getting tight in the clutch compared to Nadal (Nadal looked *very* shaky at points in the Wimbledon final when he had his chances I thought). Muster was like Seles, a natural born assassin in the clutch, whereas Nadal is OVERALL clutch, but you get the feeling that it's his heart in the end that saves him from failing in the clutch rather than natural born cold-bloodedness like a Seles or Muster.

Also, I think Nadal is fit, but it IS possible for him to get tired whereas with Muster that wasn't even a question. Muster was all-time maniacal when it comes to fitness in my opinion, and I don't think anyone's ever topped him at his peak fitness. The guy was simply a MANIC machine with an infinite battery.

Overall, Nadal is WITHOUT A DOUBT a better player than both Muster and Bruguera *day in day out* for the above reasons. But in any single one match with the stipulation being that their lives were on the line, I think both these guys would have at least a 50/50 *if not better* chance of beating Nadal also for the same reasons.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
The best match to see why I believe this is the 97 Lipton finals between Muster and Bruguera. It's like a microscosm of the strength and weaknesses of these two guys and yet show how on a single match, life or death, basis; why and how they could stand a real chance against Nadal.

Just my opinion.
 

randomname

Professional
Cridal said:
To random1 and any other gifted players on this forum...

Before you introduce a topic like that please keep this in mind:

Anyone of the mentioned players in this thread will wipe the floor with you!

why does everyone think this fact makes it absurd to talk about a pro's relative talent compared to other pros? ive never understood why people keep bringing up this fact
 

OrangeOne

Legend
randomname said:
why does everyone think this fact makes it absurd to talk about a pro's relative talent compared to other pros? ive never understood why people keep bringing up this fact
Agree with you wholeheartedly. But given some people's reluctance - I wonder if this would be another way of phrasing the original question:

"Player that considers themselves luckiest to have won that slam?" :).

Sure - you're going to get Agassi saying he's blessed to have ever won a match (and hey - i'm a huge Agassi fan but it's just his approach), and you're going to get Lendl / Courier / etc saying that it's all hard work and you make your own luck. But they're not the players we're aiming for...

Realistically, while no-one is able to (or would) answer the question honestly - it would diminish their own acheivement. But we have all won matches that we've thought "phew - lucky to win that one" - for whatever reason.

I bet players like Andres Gomez, Thomas Johansson, etc - look back and think "gee I was *very* lucky to pick up that slam". Deep-down, this would be their own self-assessment that they very much "punched above their own weight" :)

[On the flip-side, I'd think there'd be many others to think they were unlucky for whatever reason to not win a first one or perhaps another one - players that were actually good enough to bag a few and somehow didn't!]
 
bruguera would outgrind Nadal. Bruguera gets no credit. H eown those French opens when Muster, Courier, Corretja, all good clay court players were in their prime.


I repeat he would wipe the floor with Nadal. Nadal does not exactly have a lot of clay court competition does he??
 

Kobble

Hall of Fame
Maybe, Gaudio. Johansson has been to a few semi-finals, he can play on all surfaces. Gaudio has done nothing except for clay, and barely made it when he did win the French. Good movement and a great backhand is about all Gaudio has in his corner.
 

HAWKEYE

New User
I would say Roddick. If he wasn't from the States i guess we would rarely seen his name in this forum outside this thread. The least talented high-ranked US player ever or at least in this two last decades.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
HAWKEYE said:
I would say Roddick. If he wasn't from the States i guess we would rarely seen his name in this forum outside this thread. The least talented high-ranked US player ever or at least in this two last decades.
He was ranked number 1 in the world, so his name would have been everywhere regardless. His has an amazingly talented arm to be able to hit a serve so hard.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Steve Dykstra said:
He was ranked number 1 in the world, so his name would have been everywhere regardless. His has an amazingly talented arm to be able to hit a serve so hard.
Roddick lacks talent in many department. Tennis is not all about big serve. Tennis is also about BACKHAND, VOLLEY, MOVEMENT, COURT ANTICIPATION, etc. Those big words sound familiar don't you think ?
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
helloworld said:
Roddick lacks talent in many department. Tennis is not all about big serve. Tennis is also about BACKHAND, VOLLEY, MOVEMENT, COURT ANTICIPATION, etc. Those big words sound familiar don't you think ?
I never said anything to the contrary. Don't put words in my mouth, I was merely responding to a ridiculous post that said that no one would have ever talked about him if he wasn't American.
 

Watcher

Semi-Pro
If we're talking recently, it's either Johansson or Gaudio. Total fluke for both of them.
Ferrero on the other hand, absolutely was good enough to win. Up to 2003, his lowest finishes at Roland Garros had both been semi-final appearances, in his first two attempts. He was destined to win that tournament. And he followed it up with his best performances at every other slam. Then he got sick unfortunately, and his game has been way off ever since. And don't foret the Master's Cup final in 2002 against Hewitt. Hewitt ruled the world back then, and Ferrero had him all but beat.
 
Top