Top 10 Players To Never Win a Slam

First topic message reminder :

As it is quiet on the board at the moment and some of the old topics have re-surfaced, I thought I would throw this out there. I would like you guys to list the 10 best players you have seen never to win a Slam. Can be retired or active. I think this is interesting. I expect some names to make the list, I may even be surprised by past players that have never been discussed on any forum. After much thought and consideration this is my list.

1) Andy Murray
2) Todd Martin
3) Miroslav Mercir
4) David Nalbandian
5) Kevin Curren
6) Nikolay Davydenko
7) Marcelo Rios
8) Tim Henman
9) Cedric Pioline
10) Mark Philippoussis

Who are yours?

Tenez wrote:The "great" Todd Martin who failed to reach a slam final because Malivai Washington was on his way?

C'mon. Medvedev WAS in a slam final and got Agassi under his foot before a very partial crowd shouted for a longer match.

Medvedev who merely featured in the top 20 for just over a year?

C'mon, I gave you Davy, but I am not giving up on Martin.

Impressive record and also made 2 GS Finals.

Medvedev was injured most of his career but when he was not he was easily a top 4 player...more even.

I forgot about TM reaching 2 GS finals....Ok then....I'll grant you that one.

I didn't see a lot of Medvedev and Agassi spoke highly of his game in his book.

I was a fan of the Martin because of how well he moved for a big guy. Similar in a way to Ljubicic, he is actually a good mover, but with age has slowed him down.

Sure he moved very well for his big frame. I was not a fan of his tennis though. Good serve and volley but his BH was weird. I watched him practice last year at Wimbledon for 10mn before he was due to play a Senior match.

Tenez wrote:Sure he moved very well for his big frame. I was not a fan of his tennis though. Good serve and volley but his BH was weird. I watched him practice last year at Wimbledon for 10mn before he was due to play a Senior match.

He had a weird BH. Almost like he was lifting the ball because the followthrough at the end almost looked like a SHBH.

I think the two greatest tennis players never to have won a slam* are:
Roger Federer and
Rafael Nadal

* please look up the ass terisks.

Nore Staat wrote:I think the two greatest tennis players never to have won a slam* are:
Roger Federer and
Rafael Nadal

* please look up the ass terisks.

Not that far fetched. Only one of them won his slam within the tennis rules.

Martin was a talented (underrated) player whose game worked well in the era he played in. I remember him outclassing Tim Henman in straight sets at Wimbledon I think (1996 or 1997?), although admittedly it was still a year or two away from peak Henman.

6 slam semi finals and 2 of those onto the final (failed to reach the final at Wimbledon but managed it at the US Open), he was the kind of player who merited perhaps one slam in his career? Had his chance 2-1 up against Agassi in the US Open final. Agassi felt that Martin was an underachiever.

Blew that semi against Malivai Washington though. 5-1 up in the final set I recall was it?

Even so, Medvedev slam record is clearly inferior to Martin's, just that one run to the 1999 FO final, one semi, and a load of earlier defeats.

Agassi claims in his book that Medvedev's run to the FO final was based on some tips he game him about his game earlier that year! It's an interesting story. At 2-0 and 4-4 Medvedev gets a break point. Then a second serve. Agassi claims that this "is the turning point in the match, perhaps in both our lives". He then says he hits a hard, risky second serve, followed by a volley on the line before winning the point...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axBExkmqZSQ here it is and it comes in straight at the crucial point I described, although the volley doesn't actually hit the line as Agassi says, but it was a good volley under the circumstances.

There is also a point later when you can see Medvedev shaking his head at the crowd cheering him serving into the net.

Henman Bill wrote:Agassi claims in his book that Medvedev's run to the FO final was based on some tips he game him about his game earlier that year! It's an interesting story. At 2-0 and 4-4 Medvedev gets a break point. Then a second serve. Agassi claims that this "is the turning point in the match, perhaps in both our lives". He then says he hits a hard, risky second serve, followed by a volley on the line before winning the point...

Does Agassi talk about the ridiculous loud crowd in his book? Agassi was completely outplayed until then...61 62 I believe. It was a master display in a final very similar to the demolition of Connors by McEnroe at W 84 or of Courier by Edberg in USO??...only interrupted this time by the crowd.

To me Medvedev is one of the best clay courter ever buut unfortunate to have been injured most part of his career. A much better player than Kafel for instance.

legendkillar wrote:

I didn't see a lot of Medvedev and Agassi spoke highly of his game in his book.

I was a fan of the Martin because of how well he moved for a big guy. Similar in a way to Ljubicic, he is actually a good mover, but with age has slowed him down.

If I am right Medvedev reached GS finals twice, so did Soderling, Soderling will easily feature in my list, after all only player to have ever beaten Rafa in French Open [which the GOAT could only dream of], Soderling would have surely won atleast 1 FO if one of Fed and Rafa be knocked out early in those 2 years, poor guy just didnt happen.

Medvedev only reached one slam final according to his wikipedia article. If you look at his overall slam record on there it's not great.

I don't have the book with me this time as I'm away from home for a while but I think Agassi focuses more on the mental battle rather than the crowd.

Medvedev was imo extremely close to win a slam. And clearly the crowd played a huge part in his failure to do so.

He was a huge talent. Better than Kafel but one got 2 slams the other none, essentially due to back injuries.

Tenez - you are ridiculously inflating Medvedev here as you've also done with Luber and Blake - you seem to be a champion for players with relatively average records at times. Yes he had injuries...dont many clay courters ...but he also vastly underachieved. Primarily because he lacked 'bottle' and was too infatuted with off-court life. He didnt have the grit or focus to be a sustained top 10 tennis player.

Medvedev was a clay courter with relatively little success elsewhere...and yes, he reached that 1 slam final where he didnt have the bottle to maintain his form as the going got closer in that 3rd set when 2 sets up. You can blame it on the crowd if you want, or you could say Agassi did extremely well to turn the match around. Did you see Agassi's play in the last 3 sets?

Regarding Medvedev...his slam record was poor through the 90s. And his achievement was pretty much limted to clay. Kafelnikov got to 3 slam single finals - across different surfaces, winning 2. He also won lots of slam (x4) and other doubles titles, and won singles titles across all surfaces...hard, grass and clay. He was a highly adept indoor player too winning 9 titles - and of course won Olympic Gold too.

Their overall ATP records show a W:L for Kafelnikov of 609–306 and Medvedev of 321–213. That's some difference. Medvedev finished in the top 10 just once as a year end ranking and never played in WTF, outside that 1 year he was no where near reaching top 10 again. Kafelnikov finished in the top 10 at YE 6 times - often high up...and 2 others at #11. He got to the WTF 7 times, reaching 2 SF and a final. He also won vastly more titles, and got to more finals than Medvedev.

Of course you'll be aware Kafelnikov is one of only 3 players to have a winning record against Federer where more than 4 matches are played (H2H 4-2). Would you not agree that all this demonstrates somewhat more talent? I remember Kafelnikov coming on tour and he was heralded as a major talent by a number of pros at the time. That's because he was...and in my book he actually underachieved despite what he achieved! (I believe he played too much, and too much doubles)

How could Medvedev possibly be deemed to be a better or more talented overall tennis player given what both did in the game across all surfaces, etc?

Of course you'll be aware Kafelnikov is one of only 3 players to have a winning record against Federer where more than 4 matches are played (H2H 4-2). Would you not agree that all this demonstrates somewhat more talent? I remember Kafelnikov coming on tour and he was heralded as a major talent by a number of pros at the time. That's because he was...and in my book he actually underachieved!

Before calling my comments ridiculous make sure you don;t come with even more ridiculous comments.

Medvedev was a great talent. Full stop. If you coudl not see it, then clearly because very often you look at slams counts and not much else.

Saying Kafel has a + H2H v Fed is a bit ridiculous considering Federer was pretty young when playing Kafel. However a more useful H2H woudl be teh one between Kafel and Medvedev and that one is lead by Medvedev 6/5. and they were of the same age roughly so that says a lot about their respective strength. The WL ratio shows that Medvedev was very often injured. He even has a 5/5 H2H v Bruguera where on form he completely obliterated the 2 times FO champion.

On the day he had the best clay tennis I could see and everybody who saw that final will tell you that the crowd saved Agassi.

I wish you could see beyond the slam count and judge shot for shot as many other factors can influence a career.

Tenez...dont come to me with H2H to prove a point between 2 players when Nadal is 17-9 up on Federer

Also...if you READ my post it covered alot more than just slam count. Kafelnikov achieved alot more than Medvedev across the whole tennis spectrum. Yes Medvedev was talented...but he wasnt better than Kafelnikov. And if Medvedev couldnt handle the crowd as a pro then it just reinforces he wasnt mentally tough enough. Besides which Agassi raised his game in the last 3 sets...after all, you're not telling me that Medvedev is now more talented than Agassi are you? Although it wouldnt surprise me if you did!

lydian wrote:Tenez...dont come to me with H2H to prove a point between 2 players when Nadal is 17-9 up on Federer

That what I call being obsessed!

So you are teh one contradicting yourself. H2H don;t count bt then count? H2H always say a story. It says that Nadal has Fed's number on clay. It says Davydenko can teach Nadal lessons, and it says that Kafel was not such a better player than Medv and nor was Bruguera.

Unlike you I look at tennis ability. This is why I am not surprised when a fit Nalby cream Nadal or a Blake has great H2H v Davydenko which in turn has a very good H2H v Nadal.

I can analyse the game of the players while you seem to base your views solely on silver earned which means you cannot explain those weird results.

The fact is Medv was 2 games away to win a slam v Agassi. And it woudl have been no surprise to me. Whereas you seem to believe it's perfectly normal that Medv never won a slam. The result itself and the score shows how wrong you are once again.

Tenez wrote:
So you are teh one contradicting yourself. H2H don;t count bt then count? H2H always say a story. It says that Nadal has Fed's number on clay.

And outdoor hard.

Tenez, you have no idea how I judge players abilities although silverware is actually one important element of course. I have actually played tennis at a high level so you think I just look at results? You think I dont know how to assess various aspects of the game we're all fans of? But we're also talking pro-sport here...never forget that. All these pro-players you go on about couldnt care less what you or I write here...do you know what motivates them all? Winning...and winning brings silverware. Hence I also judge them on the very thing they pursue.

BTW...you were the one that brought H2H into it, not me. Andrei was 2 games but that's not really near the line is it...its not like he was serving for the match or held match points. When the crunch came, he folded and Agassi...to use your parlence...came back and creamed him. But besides all that, you wouldnt get many people saying he was a better player than Kafelnikov - you say ignore the achievements but how can you when the difference in their careers is so obvious! It seems to me that sometimes all you value is the promise of potential...you give little credit to those players who maximise their potential and actually achieve great things. You have a strange outlook on professional sport in my opinion.

The main factor, when judging the legacy of any professional sportsperson must surely be the achievement. You can have all the talent in the world, and as impressive as that might be, or as nice as it is to watch, it's achievement that defines greatness. Whether that be through talent, fitness, mental strength etc etc.
In my very humble opinion.

Yawn.

If you're going to put Henman on the list how about two others?

Mayotte - yes the other Tim. Made several Wimbledon semis in the McEnroe era so came just as close as our one to winning a slam.

Rusedeski- yes he actually made a slam final!

The reality of course is that none of these guys are in with a shout as they simply weren't good enough.

Mecir would have won one without his early injury problems as would have the Scud. Confusing these two with players of more questionable ability doesn't do them justice.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The main factor, when judging the legacy of any professional sportsperson must surely be the achievement. You can have all the talent in the world, and as impressive as that might be, or as nice as it is to watch, it's achievement that defines greatness. Whether that be through talent, fitness, mental strength etc etc.
In my very humble opinion.

But judging the legacy is one thing. Judging how good a player was at his peak is another. One could win all the olympic golds and World championships available, having the World record in one discipline is an amazing achievement worth of an OG for instance. In tennis unfortunately, there is no WR but it is possible to assess that one player plays simply better than another who won slams. It's like when Bubka had all teh records in the world but was always struggling winning OG (from memory). He was still the best vault jumper in the world despite not having OG.

In tennis it's very tricky cause draws are of big importance and there is no measuring stick like we have a stopwatch in track racing or simply a meter.

Some posters are good in seeing who has potential and who has not. Who has produced the best tennis and who has not. I liked Guga but Normam was another victim of a crowd who influenced his record. He certainly could have won the French like Medv. Had the USO been in Argentina Roddick maybe slamless and Nalby may have won a slam. The USO crowd may have played its part in the 2 MPs he could not convert v Roddick.

Here we are talking about player who coulda/shoulda have won slams. It's the very purpose to speculate and imo Medvev is certainly in teh top 10 scorewise and his game was simply the best I had seen on clay. A kind of World record holder. Just watch him ridicule Agassi before the crowd intervene, it;s not close 61 62. It;s a kind of McEnroe v Connors W84 that turned ugly because the crowd wanted more play.

Bubka won Olympic Gold in 88, but didn't win another medal after that.

djlovesyou wrote:Bubka won Olympic Gold in 88, but didn't win another medal after that.

I know he did..but he had failed before and even the one he won in Seoul he was very close to lose it despite being the WR holder by a long margin. I was just trying to make a parallel and that was the best example I could think off.

The OP was intended to ask the posters to produce a list that they can justify. The Medvedev/Kafelnikov debate seems a bit narrow for such an intention.

Any one know who Jiro Satoh is or was? No googling or wiki, if I may ask for a favour.

Sorry Tenez but your athletics analogy just doesnt work and it feels like you're moving goalposts.
Who is to say that a WR is worth a gold medal? Thats just your opinion.
But lets look at the core topic...achievement.
WR, Gold, World Championships are all achievement.
Bubka had plenty of achievement! Won Olympic Gold too. Even if he didnt win OG he still dominated his sport for a decade. Medvedev didnt. Bubka dominated his sport because he achieved things at a high level - consistently. He converted the potential of his talent. Look at his World Championships. Medvedev wasnt even getting to Masters Cups which we might see as an equivalent. Getting to these high level event finals is a talent in itself, no?

Your analogy doesnt work because you're trying to argue about talent and potential...that Medvedev had the talent to win a slam. Yes he did. But when we look at his overall achievement record its not like Bubka or even Kafelnikov is it? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Yes draws in tennis are luck but over a decade that luck tends to even itself out. And Medvedev didnt achieve much outside clay. Was that all bad luck?

I think its an arrogant assertion to state some posters are good or not good at things. Who are you to judge? I'm sure most people on here recognise good talent when they see it. They also see conversion of talent into achievement as well.

But you started this discussion by saying that Medvedev was better than Kafelnikov. Regarding achievements absolutely not...regarding potential talent...I dont even agree there but that is impossible to quantify. That's why we look at records achieved...and for professional sportspeople it is all about WINNING! Forget the level of events...Medvedev won 11 titles, Kafelnikov 29 titles...across ALL surfaces. That speaks to much greater talent and achievement to me. Also...when you look at their H2H in the only slam they played at USO Kafelnikov beat him in straights...with a bagel and breadstick.

Many players have gone 2 sets down in slams due to bad form to begin with then they get into the match an hour later. You have no proof the crowd actually caused him to lose that match. You also negate the comeback by Agassi in that match. As I said Medvedev was never anywhere near serving for that match...you cannot say he lost it because of the crowd.

Finally, you say the best talent on clay...but he didnt beat his main rival in the 90s when he was in his prime...another Sergi....not Bubka but Bruguera at the pinnacle clay event - the French Open. Twice he was beaten by Bruguera in straight sets including a bagel, the matches werent even close. Yes Medvedev did ok at lesser events but when the time came to be truly measured in his blue riband event he couldnt make his talent count. Bruguera, and Kafelnikov, did....thats the difference between talent and achievement.

LF - Medvedev is a non slam winner so is part of the OP discussion.
If we are to strictly stick to OP on every thread then the forum would be less busy and all the poorer in many cases...just my opinion.

No idea who Jiri Satoh is! A non-slam winner?

lydian wrote:LF - Medvedev is a non slam winner so is part of the OP discussion.
If we are to strictly stick to OP on every thread then the forum would be less busy and all the poorer in many cases...just my opinion.

Sorry, Lydian. My intention was not to restrict debate, but make it a bit congenial.

lydian wrote:No idea who Jiri Satoh is! A non-slam winner?

"Even in that brilliant period of superlative performers, Satoh had become internationally known as a giant-killer, with victories over such champions as Fred Perry, Jack Crawford, Bunny Austin, Henri Cochet, Sidney Wood and Ellsworth Vines. Now he was bound for Europe to lead Japan against Australia in the second round of the Davis Cup and to make his fourth bid for that most coveted tennis prize, the Wimbledon crown."

Much before Nishikori. People who saw him play, marvelled at his abilities. A rather sad and tragic loss for Tennis.

No worries LF, I wasnt having a go at you either...just asserting an opinion. Sorry if you interpreted it thay way

Good info. about Satoh - did he die young?

lydian wrote:No worries LF, I wasnt having a go at you either...just asserting an opinion. Sorry if you interpreted it thay way

lydian wrote:Good info. about Satoh - did he die young?

He commited hara-kiri in the Straits of Malacca. Just reading about it, and my eyes well up. No one, not even an enemy should suffer in such silence.

Eventually a radio message went out from the liner stating that Japan's finest tennis player and national hero was believed to have committed suicide by throwing himself overboard. It added, "On April 6, as the sun set, his friends assembled on deck to pray for his soul."

News of the suicide shocked Japan and stunned the entire tennis world. What terrible soul-searching anxiety could have driven a champion in his prime to the ultimate act of despair? It seemed so utterly out of character. In paying tribute to his skill and sportsmanship, numerous tennis stars remarked on Satoh's essentially happy nature. "He was one of the cheeriest men I have ever known," said Fred Perry. "He had a great sense of humor." "He always gave the impression that he would be the last man on earth to come to such an end," said Bunny Austin. Ryuki Miki, Satoh's successor as cup captain, added that "he loved jokes and making people laugh."

If you care to read more, here is a link.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1085241/index.htm

Great article LF - sad story.

For those who don't remember Medv or who have never watch him play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbuaFhPNmo0

Inflicting a 60 to Edberg at 19!

v Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpmVC4bqYsg

I had never seen someone time the ball as well. His balls were very heavy purely hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVR0dbR7UfA&feature=related

Shame there is not many video about him and some biased poster only put the second part of his Agassi match when he has BP at 4 all in the 3rd set.
The commentator calls it "virtual MP".

Anyway I though clips woudl describe better the talent that was this player before injuries cripped in.

And he was not a clay only player.

1994 Wimbledon
England Grass R16 Becker, Boris
6-7(5), 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-7(3), 7-5 Stats

Boris was accused of gamesmanship by the journalist after this match. He used all the tricks to edge out a young 20 yo Medv.

Beats Agassi at 19 in their first encounter and only other encounter bar teh FO final.
1993 New Haven
CT, U.S.A. Hard S Medvedev, Andrei
7-6(3), 3-6, 6-4 Stats

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:No worries LF, I wasnt having a go at you either...just asserting an opinion. Sorry if you interpreted it thay way

lydian wrote:Good info. about Satoh - did he die young?

He commited hara-kiri in the Straits of Malacca. Just reading about it, and my eyes well up. No one, not even an enemy should suffer in such silence.

Eventually a radio message went out from the liner stating that Japan's finest tennis player and national hero was believed to have committed suicide by throwing himself overboard. It added, "On April 6, as the sun set, his friends assembled on deck to pray for his soul."

News of the suicide shocked Japan and stunned the entire tennis world. What terrible soul-searching anxiety could have driven a champion in his prime to the ultimate act of despair? It seemed so utterly out of character. In paying tribute to his skill and sportsmanship, numerous tennis stars remarked on Satoh's essentially happy nature. "He was one of the cheeriest men I have ever known," said Fred Perry. "He had a great sense of humor." "He always gave the impression that he would be the last man on earth to come to such an end," said Bunny Austin. Ryuki Miki, Satoh's successor as cup captain, added that "he loved jokes and making people laugh."

If you care to read more, here is a link.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1085241/index.htm

Great post LF.

I recommend a read on Cliff Richey. A player regarded as 'fiercely competitive and had struggles off the court with depression. I think read somewhere that Connors was a fan of his mindset and the competitive 'streak' he had. He even wrote a book about his experiences. I have read some parts of it. I would like to buy the book as I think it would be an intriguing read. When you read Agassi's book and wonder how much of his 'depressive' episodes were emotionally linked to his 'childhood' and how much of it shaped the way he percieved things. It almost felt that he showed no emotional bond to tennis, bar the dislike and disdain he had for it.

I have some stats from the FedEx reliability index for grand slams that indicate the following as the top 5 male players never to have won a slam:

Players with highest grand slam win/loss ratios without a slam
17. Andy Murray .765 0 78-24 .................first
21. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga .742 0 49-17 ........second
23. Tony Roche .736 0 67-24 ...................third ?? (but wikipedia says he won the French Open in 1966)
27. David Nalbandian .720 0 85-33 ..........fourth
30. Tom Okker .716 0 73-29 ...................fifth

Everybody else in the top 30 list have won one or more grand slam titles.

Great stat!

The stats must be wrong/ imperfect as I just checked Tony Roche's wiki page and it says he won the French Open singles title in 1966.

I took the Fedex reliability stats from the ATPworldtour web page:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Gland-Slams-Career-List.aspx

So maybe the Fedex reliability stats are unreliable

Nore Staat wrote:The stats must be wrong/ imperfect as I just checked Tony Roche's wiki page and it says he won the French Open singles title in 1966.

I took the Fedex reliability stats from the ATPworldtour web page:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Gland-Slams-Career-List.aspx

So maybe the Fedex reliability stats are unreliable

Possibly it only measures the Open era.

JuliusHMarx wrote:... Possibly it only measures the Open era.

That must be it

From Wiki "The Open Era began in 1968, when the Grand Slam tournaments agreed to allow professional players to compete with amateurs. Since the beginning of this era, professionals have been able to compete alongside amateurs in all tournaments. ... The first event to go "open" was held on April 28, 1968 at The West Hants Club in Bournemouth, England, while the first Grand Slam tournament to do so was the 1968 French Open (Roland Garros) starting May 27."

The ATP page for Tony Roche only contains titles/finals from 1968 onwards: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ro/T/Tony-D-Roche.aspx?t=tf