Best player not to win a Major?

Ok this might be a tad premature but Andy Murray doing so well in his career but missing out on the major's so far has got me thinking, just who is the best player never to have won a major? His quarter final, semi's and final's record is fairly impressive.

Cheer guys!

Rios
Mecir
Leconte
Phillopousis
Haas
Ferrer
Murray!
Henman!
Enqvist
Davydenko
Nalbandian
T.Martin

...who's the best from above? Probably Murray or Nalbandian.

I'd say Nalbandian, for how much of a natural talent he was. Just a shame for him a bit like Roddick at wimbledon that he was in an era that possessed a prime Roger Federer.

Mecir or Nalbandian for Me.

Murray to beat both if he remains slamless.

on accomplishments - Murray

Talent - Nalby

Boggo

Murray technically is the best never to win one at the moment but I dont think he has under achieved, David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko never got the best out of their talent and are the best not to fulfil their potential, especially Nalbandian

Mecir or Rios for me - but Murray will probably over-haul them if he doesn't win a slam.

What about on the women's side? Maybe Dementieva, or any of the three who have been slamless No. 1's so far, Wozniacki, Safina, or Jankovic?

I'd go Dementieva Barry...competed in a much tougher period than the others.

Murray by far, no one else is even close. The number of masters, grandslam finals and top 5 finishes is impressive he has over 20 tournaments by 25 years old. The rest of the people on the lists provided are for the most part getting lapped by Murray in terms of accomplishment.

The more relevant question is not whether Murray is the greatest to not win a slam. That is pretty much established on any objective measure and I would be happy to have that discussion. The more pertinent and broad ranging aspect of this is that Murray is very good evidence for the strength of talent at the top of the game. The fact that a player can win 7 masters and 20 plus tournaments and still be in his prime and never get a slam shows how cut throat the competition at the top is in this era.

Nalbandian, Soderling, Murray, Davydenko, Rios, Mercir, Philipoussis and the list goes on, thanks to Roger Federer he played a part in everybodies fate.

By sheer stats it will be Murray.

But for me its very close between Murray and Nalby, Nalby is a real surprise to be without a slam, on his prime he was defeating the prime Fed even in slams but some how never crossed the final line.

8 Masters socal. But funny how he's won far more than any other slamless player. When you analyse it further, Masters are now Bo3 not Bo5 finals...I think this helps Murray a lot...he seems much stronger in shorter match formats.

Nalby never recovered from that 2002 Wimby loss to Hewitt. Should have won USO2003 as well.

@ Lyd

Nalby's name in slameless list is a real surprise, he was one of the those guys consistently beat Fed but if I am right had a poor h2h against Roddick and Hewitt.

Yep IC, I wouldn't rate Murray more talented than Nalbndian...if only David had knuckled down and physically committed to the sport as it went through transition...he didnt transition with it. Choked that SW19 final and mentally it seemed to break him. Safin was no better, yet got 2 slams, Roddick got one...guess they all applied themselves that little bit better when it counted. At least Nalby got his kind of 'slam' at WTF mid00s but otherwise it was woeful underachievement, particularly before Fed got to prime in 2004. That said, I somehow get the feeling it doesn't bother Nalby. Not like it would/will Murray.

lydian wrote:8 Masters socal. But funny how he's won far more than any other slamless player. When you analyse it further, Masters are now Bo3 not Bo5 finals...I think this helps Murray a lot...he seems much stronger in shorter match formats.

Nalby never recovered from that 2002 Wimby loss to Hewitt. Should have won USO2003 as well.

I don't actually think Murray is hurt by the five set format. I just think that since he gets more chances at masters and the other top three guys aren't all primed and willing to fight as hard he gets breaks through a bit more often. The other three guys have an uncanny level to hit a half gear more in the big matches that murray doesn't have. Those are the guys that for the most part are beating him in slams. And at masters Novak, Nadal, and Fed aren't going to have quite as intense a cutting edge. I think by any objective measure Murray is pretty much way in the lead and especially so when you consider that a good chunk of his career is still remaining.

Some say Tim Henman was just a rain delay away from the Wimbledon 2001 final and a certain slam victory against Patrick Rafterman.

I dont think it was certain he would have beat Rafter, he did have a 3-2 losing head to head and lost their last match at the Aus Open that year 6-2 6-3 6-3. However Henman did beat Rafter at Wimbledon the year Rafter would go on and defend his US Open title, could have been a fascinating match and you feel would have undoubtedly have gone 5

Nore Staat wrote:Some say Tim Henman was just a rain delay away from the Wimbledon 2001 final and a certain slam victory against Patrick Rafterman.

yea thats one of the biggest goof up in the history of the sport, but on the other hand Goran deserved a wimbledon title and it was spectacular to see him win in 2001, I felt sorry for Rafter thou coz he is another gentleman in the sport with a beautiful game and deserved a Wimbledon title, but unfortunately was in the wrong era of Sampras.

It's not often that players wishing to win Slams are up against two guys who are in to double figures in terms of GS titles. Has it happened before in the Open era?
Agree that Nalby is among the most talented to not win a slam. But NO WAY was he more accomplished than Safin who was good enough to win far more than the two Slams he did win.
Alas, the rain-delayed Henman-Goran match is always gonna be talked about in terms of what-might-have-been. Would have loved to see Henman in a SW19 final. Murray should have got to one too, but froze on a set point against Roddick in 09 and the chance was gone.

Santoro. Real genius.

In Tim Henmans day with the fast courts and limited racquet technology etc, you could get blown away (if you didn't hold on to your own serve) in any round where you met a big server on good form.

That is why I don't believe Murray when he says he could have won a slam in an earlier era. His return game would have been taken away from him due to the faster courts and lower racquet technology and head sizes, while his weak second serve and first serve percentage would have been a killer for him.

Murray may very well take this dubious honour but I suspect Murray will be the sort of player who will set a trend.

Given the uniformity of the slams now and the fact only a couple of guys ever win them then you'll find in the furture, a similar player like Murray will emerge where he's not good enough to win slams as he's not in the top few but will be good enough to win practically everything else outside of the slams, especially when the top few aren't participating.

So if Murray remains slamless expect the future to spawn Murrayesque players who will end their career with 30+ titles but no slams because they were never quite as good as the two or three guys at the top.

Super D Boon. Interesting points. But this assumes that the future "guys at the top" will be as talented and multi-Slammy (ghastly phrase, I know) as the present trio. Even taking Nole out of the equation, the other two have chalked up TWENTY SIX GS triumphs. May be some time before we get top players with quite such a good GS record

Sir Fred. I'm not sure if it will be such a long time before we get another mult slammer in the mould of Nole, Nadal and Federer. That;s my point. With the fact that the surfaces play largely the same , or at least are nowhere near as different as they once were then the biggest talents will just keep winning everything because their need to adapt their game diminishes.

In every slam the top 3/4 get to the latter stages of everything now. Think in the 90s/00s if Kuerten won the French you would not expect to see him anywhere near the latter stages of Wimbledon, likewise Sampras Wimbledon, hardly ever in the business end of the French Open. The same faces over and over again winning the big stuff will see the same faces winning the smaller stuff.

I think Murray winning multiple non slam events is a sign of things to come, there will be lots more like him in the future I predict.