The toughest draws in history

Looking at Andy Murrays draw to a first Wimbledon title, I was wondering over the years what were the toughest routes to victory for an eventual slam champion? The most impressive succession of victories a player has achieved to take home the trophy, can anyone think of such victories?

1980 USO Borg (he did not win though).
1989 FO Chang
1992 USO Edberg
2009 AO Nadal
2009 FO Federer

Will try and think of some earlier and later ones.

Kuerten RG 1997. He had played 3 main draw matches in slams before the tournament, where he beat the immediate former champs Muster (1995), Kafelnikov (1996), and Bruguera (1993-1994) as well as Medvedev who was a very good clay-courter of the time. From R32-R8 Kuerten was taken to 5 sets.

barrystar wrote:Kuerten RG 1997. He had played 3 main draw matches in slams before the tournament, where he beat the immediate former champs Muster (1995), Kafelnikov (1996), and Bruguera (1993-1994) as well as Medvedev who was a very good clay-courter of the time. From R32-R8 Kuerten was taken to 5 sets.

IIRC, Keurten was ranked #66.

These sort of things are subjective though as in what may be a tough match for one player another may be able to breeze through it as their game matches up better.

Ivanisevic draw must've been difficult. More importantly who played most number of sets when they won a slam? We all know time on court is manipulated,

CaledonianCraig wrote:These sort of things are subjective though as in what may be a tough match for one player another may be able to breeze through it as their game matches up better.

Yes and no - anyway Kuerten's progress to the title in 1997 suggests that he found Muster, Kafelnikov, and Medvedev as difficult to beat as you might expect.

Sticking to my theme, it was great to see Kuerten confirm in subsequent years that 1997 was no flash in the pan. His achievement of making y/e No. 1 in 2000 was remarkable, not least because he managed that by winning only 9 matches at slams in the year, i.e. a mere 2 slam match wins outside RG. You can't imagine that now.

What was Kuerten like at other slam events? Was he just too lazy to give a rats a$$? Should have done better on the other 3 with his talents. Kuerten v Nadal wouldve been epic.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Ivanisevic draw must've been difficult. More importantly who played most number of sets when they won a slam? We all know time on court is manipulated,

He had the toughest draw to a Slam win. Henman/Rusedski/Moya/Rafter

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Ivanisevic draw must've been difficult. More importantly who played most number of sets when they won a slam? We all know time on court is manipulated,

He had the toughest draw to a Slam win. Henman/Rusedski/Moya/Rafter

What? You don't mean that do you? With respect to those four guys, they had 3 slams between them dating from 4-3 years ago, none of them on grass. Rafter was obviously a worthy opponent for any title contender at Wimbledon 2001, but the others were more interesting 'hurdles' for a slam winner rather than genuine contenders for the title at Wimbledon. None of them would have been favourite to beat Rafter in the final. Compare that to Kuerten facing the guys who had won the last 4 titles at RG plus Medvedev - no contest I say.

Kuerten's draw looks tougher than Ivanisevic but there might be worst ones out there.

sampras 2002 us open was quite tough especially considering his form going in

Del Potro in 2009 USO


Started with Monaco in the 1st round
Melzer [no Mug in Hard courts] in 2nd round
3rd round kinda easy one, some unknown Köllerer .
4rth round, former World no.1 and GS champion in Ferrero

QF -
Then the World no.3 in and top class Hard court player in Murray [ofcourse Murray didn't make it the QF thou, but he was in draw to meet] in QF

He however Met Cilic who was in prime form after beating Murray in 4th round.

Semi's -
The legend in Rafa at semi's [No.2]

Finals -
He had to face the King of Hardcourts in Fed at finals

Remember the semi's and finals were back to back matches against two legends of the Game.

To me this is the toughest draw I have seen in last 20+ years.

iC... Nadal's injury and Federer's meltdown did not help @USO 2009. Del Po made the best of the situation. Well deserved win @USO.

How do you define an injury lavefan? If you are injured, you should be limping around the court, not running at the ball like Usain Bolt.

The only difficulty for Delpo in 09' were the finally two matches (notwithstanding Nadal/Delpo is a good match up for the latter on a hard court).

However, Ferrero has not been a force in tennis since 06' and has only one good showing at flushing meadows which was eons ago. And Cilic whilst yes he can hit the ball very hard, has a lack of mental strength which means his game is very inconsistent - if you remember he started off well (winning the first set) but then proceeding to get thrashed 6-3, 6-2, 6-1.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Ivanisevic draw must've been difficult. More importantly who played most number of sets when they won a slam? We all know time on court is manipulated,

He had the toughest draw to a Slam win. Henman/Rusedski/Moya/Rafter

What? You don't mean that do you? With respect to those four guys, they had 3 slams between them dating from 4-3 years ago, none of them on grass. Rafter was obviously a worthy opponent for any title contender at Wimbledon 2001, but the others were more interesting 'hurdles' for a slam winner rather than genuine contenders for the title at Wimbledon. None of them would have been favourite to beat Rafter in the final. Compare that to Kuerten facing the guys who had won the last 4 titles at RG plus Medvedev - no contest I say.

Right barry this was Ivanesvic's route in 2001.

R1 - Jonsson
R2 - Moya
R3 - Roddick
R4 - Rusedski
QF - Safin
SF - Henman
F - Rafter

Now don't be stupid to dismiss that. 2 Semi finalists. 2 Finalists. 4 Slam winners. Beating 2 home favourites. Safin, Henman, Roddick could easily compete with Rafter on grass. Rafter was 31 at the stage too. So please don't dismiss that draw as anything but easy.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Ivanisevic draw must've been difficult. More importantly who played most number of sets when they won a slam? We all know time on court is manipulated,

He had the toughest draw to a Slam win. Henman/Rusedski/Moya/Rafter

What? You don't mean that do you? With respect to those four guys, they had 3 slams between them dating from 4-3 years ago, none of them on grass. Rafter was obviously a worthy opponent for any title contender at Wimbledon 2001, but the others were more interesting 'hurdles' for a slam winner rather than genuine contenders for the title at Wimbledon. None of them would have been favourite to beat Rafter in the final. Compare that to Kuerten facing the guys who had won the last 4 titles at RG plus Medvedev - no contest I say.

Right barry this was Ivanesvic's route in 2001.

R1 - Jonsson
R2 - Moya
R3 - Roddick
R4 - Rusedski
QF - Safin
SF - Henman
F - Rafter

Now don't be stupid to dismiss that. 2 Semi finalists. 2 Finalists. 4 Slam winners. Beating 2 home favourites. Safin, Henman, Roddick could easily compete with Rafter on grass. Rafter was 31 at the stage too. So please don't dismiss that draw as anything but easy.

Now I see all 7 I agree it looks a bit more respectable (I was there for the Safin match, fancy forgetting that one). But still, it's a sight different from beating 3 Champions who have done it on the very same surface at the same tournament over the last 4 years. I'd still argue of those 7 only Rafter (and Roddick subsequently, but not in 2001) were genuine Wimbledon Title challengers, rather than difficult guys for a true champion to beat on the way - I really don't think you can say that Henman or Rusedski were ever real threats for the title at Wimbledon. I'm not dismissing it as a difficult run, but it's not as tough as Kuerten's, or as Del Boy's, nothing like.

Sorry barry but it is. Henman at 2001 not a threat? Seriously? That was his best chance and he was at his best on Grass that year. Made the final at Queens that year.

I think anyone to rate Delpo's or Guga's above that is sheer silliness. Nadal at the US Open had just come back from injury and not a threat. Monaco? Nope not a threat on the hard stuff. Melzer? Nope.

Let me point out barry 6 our of those 7 at that time were ranked in the top 30 in the world.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:How do you define an injury lavefan? If you are injured, you should be limping around the court, not running at the ball like Usain Bolt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/usopen/6171904/US-Open-2009-rain-delays-injury-hit-Rafael-Nadals-quest-for-semi-final-place.html

PS: Was Federer injured during his match with Falla @W?

I wouldn't say injured, Roger in that match looked like he'd been throwing up the night before. Falla should have won that in 4 sets really, lucky win.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Sorry barry but it is. Henman at 2001 not a threat? Seriously? That was his best chance and he was at his best on Grass that year. Made the final at Queens that year.

I think anyone to rate Delpo's or Guga's above that is sheer silliness. Nadal at the US Open had just come back from injury and not a threat. Monaco? Nope not a threat on the hard stuff. Melzer? Nope.

Let me point out barry 6 our of those 7 at that time were ranked in the top 30 in the world.

Henman - I stand by my views. An excellent player, a very dangerous trap for the unwary, but a man you'd back to fall at the ultimate hurdle 99/100. That is not a criticism or a comment on his cojones - I think he made the very best of his considerable talents, but that he never had enough when push came to shove against the better guys. He lacked power and a reliable go-to winning tactic to fall back on. For him to win he had to get a pretty delicate game firing in all compartments, which was nearly always too much against the top guys in the matches that mattered. Examples of this include his failure to take advantage of the collapse of the Aus Open 2002 draw when he was the highest seed standing, his record of 11 final wins to 17 final losses (losses coming on the bigger stages and/or against the better opponents). You refer to Queen's 2001 guess what, he lost to Hewitt then, as he did in 2002 and 2006 (part of his 1-9 H2H). A consistent and excellent nearly man, Britains best for 70 years until Murray, but never in my view a genuine slam title contender.

However, the stat in the final sentence is, I agree, not unimpressive.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Sorry barry but it is. Henman at 2001 not a threat? Seriously? That was his best chance and he was at his best on Grass that year. Made the final at Queens that year.

I think anyone to rate Delpo's or Guga's above that is sheer silliness. Nadal at the US Open had just come back from injury and not a threat. Monaco? Nope not a threat on the hard stuff. Melzer? Nope.

Let me point out barry 6 our of those 7 at that time were ranked in the top 30 in the world.

Henman - I stand by my views. An excellent player, a very dangerous trap for the unwary, but a man you'd back to fall at the ultimate hurdle 99/100. That is not a criticism or a comment on his cojones - I think he made the very best of his considerable talents, but that he never had enough when push came to shove against the better guys. He lacked power and a reliable go-to winning tactic to fall back on. For him to win he had to get a pretty delicate game firing in all compartments, which was nearly always too much against the top guys in the matches that mattered. Examples of this include his failure to take advantage of the collapse of the Aus Open 2002 draw when he was the highest seed standing, his record of 11 final wins to 17 final losses (losses coming on the bigger stages and/or against the better opponents). You refer to Queen's 2001 guess what, he lost to Hewitt then, as he did in 2002 and 2006 (part of his 1-9 H2H). A consistent and excellent nearly man, Britains best for 70 years until Murray, but never in my view a genuine slam title contender.

However, the stat in the final sentence is, I agree, not unimpressive.

For me Henman was in his pomp Grass wise in 2001. I agree he made the best of his talents. For me he remains quite under-rated given that later in his career reaching the Semi's of the French Open and US Open at 30. I agree that mentally he showed too much vulnerability to his opponents.

I think the reason this draw for me was the toughest purely because Ivanesivic facing big servers on still what was a fast track on Grass in Rusedski and Roddick. S&V in Henman and Rafter. Baseliners in Safin and Moya. Talk about variation in opponents and high ranking opponents. Yes Kuerten in 1997 at the French Open yes difficult, but for me 3 of his opponents were not a real threat or what I would call a contender for the title. He faced 5 players who were ranked in the top 30 at that time. Yes previous champions on that surface in Muster and Bruguera and then defending champion Kalfenikov is a top and tall order. Medvedev form on Clay was patchy, Bjorkman wasn't a great clay courter.

I think Ivanesivic coming from nowhere after disappointments in previous finals to beat a mixture of young and older players makes that victory the more remarkable. Take his 1992 draw when he beat Edberg, Lendl and Sampras on the way to the final. Had he overcome Agassi, maybe that would've been considered one of the toughest draws for a winner.

How about Nadal's 2006 French Open draw?

R1 - Soderling
R2 - Kim
R3 - Mathieu
R4 - Hewitt
QF - Djokovic
SF - Ljubicic
F- Federer

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Sorry barry but it is. Henman at 2001 not a threat? Seriously? That was his best chance and he was at his best on Grass that year. Made the final at Queens that year.

I think anyone to rate Delpo's or Guga's above that is sheer silliness. Nadal at the US Open had just come back from injury and not a threat. Monaco? Nope not a threat on the hard stuff. Melzer? Nope.

Let me point out barry 6 our of those 7 at that time were ranked in the top 30 in the world.

Henman - I stand by my views. An excellent player, a very dangerous trap for the unwary, but a man you'd back to fall at the ultimate hurdle 99/100. That is not a criticism or a comment on his cojones - I think he made the very best of his considerable talents, but that he never had enough when push came to shove against the better guys. He lacked power and a reliable go-to winning tactic to fall back on. For him to win he had to get a pretty delicate game firing in all compartments, which was nearly always too much against the top guys in the matches that mattered. Examples of this include his failure to take advantage of the collapse of the Aus Open 2002 draw when he was the highest seed standing, his record of 11 final wins to 17 final losses (losses coming on the bigger stages and/or against the better opponents). You refer to Queen's 2001 guess what, he lost to Hewitt then, as he did in 2002 and 2006 (part of his 1-9 H2H). A consistent and excellent nearly man, Britains best for 70 years until Murray, but never in my view a genuine slam title contender.

However, the stat in the final sentence is, I agree, not unimpressive.

For me Henman was in his pomp Grass wise in 2001. I agree he made the best of his talents. For me he remains quite under-rated given that later in his career reaching the Semi's of the French Open and US Open at 30. I agree that mentally he showed too much vulnerability to his opponents.

I think the reason this draw for me was the toughest purely because Ivanesivic facing big servers on still what was a fast track on Grass in Rusedski and Roddick. S&V in Henman and Rafter. Baseliners in Safin and Moya. Talk about variation in opponents and high ranking opponents. Yes Kuerten in 1997 at the French Open yes difficult, but for me 3 of his opponents were not a real threat or what I would call a contender for the title. He faced 5 players who were ranked in the top 30 at that time. Yes previous champions on that surface in Muster and Bruguera and then defending champion Kalfenikov is a top and tall order. Medvedev form on Clay was patchy, Bjorkman wasn't a great clay courter.

I think Ivanesivic coming from nowhere after disappointments in previous finals to beat a mixture of young and older players makes that victory the more remarkable. Take his 1992 draw when he beat Edberg, Lendl and Sampras on the way to the final. Had he overcome Agassi, maybe that would've been considered one of the toughest draws for a winner.

I really see where you are coming from now, you have constructed your argument pretty well if I may be so bold. I think Goran's achievement was extraordinary, but I still think it's more difficult to beat 3 genuine contenders for the title/former Champions than to deal with a host of very good players of whom only one is a true title contender on the particular specialised surface. For me Goran's his age and the fact that he came back from so much disappointment (especially the 1998 heart-breaker) that made it a great win - although he could look over the net at every single one of his opponents and know that he still had his serve and had done more at Wimbledon than any of them. Kuerten was not in that boat in 1997.

I can honestly say that I never expected Goran to win a Slam after losing as you say in 1998. I think the fact that Goran I remember at the time saying that he had an un-shakable belief in winning it and that he used the mens lockeroom for lower ranked players all the way through the tournament despite being offered the more luxurious changing room for the past finalists/champions.

4 setters against Moya/Roddick/Safin

5 setters against Henman/Rafter

That is some going for a guy when we have been spoilt with champions like Federer/Nadal/Djokovic and we would look back on and wonder how on earth he mustered that title.

Ivanisevic played Roddick in 2001 but Roddick was an up and coming young player at the time, a bit like playing Tomic or Raonic today.

And he didn't play a true legend of the game at all.

Coming into the tournament as a wilcard you can expect a tough draw.

Henman Bill wrote:Ivanisevic played Roddick in 2001 but Roddick was an up and coming young player at the time, a bit like playing Tomic or Raonic today.

And he didn't play a true legend of the game at all.

Coming into the tournament as a wilcard you can expect a tough draw.

And Kuerten did? Because I am not putting Muster, Bruguera or Kalfelnikov as Legends and certainly not above Rafter!

Roddick was serving bombs in that match. Both players piped up a combined 64 aces!!!

laverfan wrote:iC... Nadal's injury and Federer's meltdown did not help @USO 2009. Del Po made the best of the situation. Well deserved win @USO.

Yea I understand luck favoured a bit for Del Potro, but he certainly had the toughest draw yet produced results, two legends in 2 days is a remarkable feet in itself.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Ivanisevic played Roddick in 2001 but Roddick was an up and coming young player at the time, a bit like playing Tomic or Raonic today.

And he didn't play a true legend of the game at all.

Coming into the tournament as a wilcard you can expect a tough draw.

And Kuerten did? Because I am not putting Muster, Bruguera or Kalfelnikov as Legends and certainly not above Rafter!

Roddick was serving bombs in that match. Both players piped up a combined 64 aces!!!

It's easy to forget quite how separate clay court excellence was in the 1990's from the game on other faster surfaces. Those guys that Kuerten faced in 1997 had something Rafter never had at Wimbledon, they were former champion and Muster was undoutedly a clay legends. Furthermore, for all his merits Rafter was a brittle player who won far fewer tournaments than his talent might otherwise have merited (it did not help playing in the Sampras era, but you can't say it was only Sampras who stood between him and more slams and he was quite lucky with his opponents in the two USO finals he won). The joy of watching Rafter in full flight tends to obscure his seeming inability to gut it out for the win more often.

You have to remember that Murray's draw is only really tough if the players he is expected to meet actually make it to that stage. Often players lose unexpectedly and then as a result the draw can actually open up. Look at Berdych going out in 1st round, very unexpected but these things happen.

Kevin Anderson who was expected to meet Murray in round 3 and is a big server is already out. who is to say other seeds wont fall in the next few days? On paper, Murray's draw is very tough but only if those players do their part and make it through to play him

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Ivanisevic played Roddick in 2001 but Roddick was an up and coming young player at the time, a bit like playing Tomic or Raonic today.

And he didn't play a true legend of the game at all.

Coming into the tournament as a wilcard you can expect a tough draw.

And Kuerten did? Because I am not putting Muster, Bruguera or Kalfelnikov as Legends and certainly not above Rafter!

Roddick was serving bombs in that match. Both players piped up a combined 64 aces!!!

It's easy to forget quite how separate clay court excellence was in the 1990's from the game on other faster surfaces. Those guys that Kuerten faced in 1997 had something Rafter never had at Wimbledon, they were former champion and Muster was undoutedly a clay legends. Furthermore, for all his merits Rafter was a brittle player who won far fewer tournaments than his talent might otherwise have merited (it did not help playing in the Sampras era, but you can't say it was only Sampras who stood between him and more slams and he was quite lucky with his opponents in the two USO finals he won). The joy of watching Rafter in full flight tends to obscure his seeming inability to gut it out for the win more often.

Yes it is, but for me Rafter made the Semi's of all 4 Slams. Muster and Kafelnikov managed 1 FO and Bruguera managed 2.

I think when we use the term 'Legend' it needs perspective. Take Del Potro, yes granted he beat Nadal and Federer in a Slam, but so has Djokovic on 2 occasions. Kuerten for me seemed destined for success on Clay whereas for me Ivanesivic after his failures looked a million miles away from winning a Slam in 2001.