Best Player not to win a slam?

It's an old chestnut but with Murray out of the running nowadays and given we are in a slightly calmer phase of the season I thought it might be interesting to revisit this. Have picked out some of the main contenders from the Open era and just adopted a simple formula to see who gets most points. I've awarded points as follows:

- WTF/OG/GSC - 5 points
- Masters title - 3 points
- Grand slam final - 3 points
- Grand slam SF - 1 point
- Tournament win - 1 point
- Davis Cup win - 1 point
- Highest Ranking 1-5 - 10 points for Number 1 down to 2 points for Number 5

The main contenders are:

Marcelo Rios:

Highest Rank: 1 (10 points)
Grand slam cup: 1 (5 points)
Masters wins: 5 (15 points)
Grand Slam Finals: 1 (3 points)
Other titles: 12 (12 points)

Total: 45 points

David Nalbandian:

Highest Rank: 3 (6 points)
Masters Cup: 1 (5 points)
Masters wins: 2 (6 points)
Grand slam finals: 1 (3 points)
Grand slam SF: 4 (4 points)
Other titles: 8 (8 points)

Total: 32 points

Nikolay Davydenko:

Highest Rank: 3 (6 points)
Masters Cup: 1 (5 points)
Masters wins: 3 (9 points)
Grand slam SF: 4 (4 points)
Other titles: 17 (17 points)
Davis Cup: 1 (1 point)

Total: 42 points

Tim Henman

Highest Rank: 4 (4 points)
Masters wins: 1 (3 points)
Grand slam SF: 6 (6 points)
Other titles: 10 (10 points)

Total: 23 points

David Ferrer

Highest Rank: 3 (6 points)
Masters wins: 1 (3 points)
Grand slam finals: 1 (3 points)
Grand slam SF: 5 (5 points)
Other titles: 19 (19 points)
Davis Cup: 3  (3 points)

Total: 39 points

Other contenders:

Medvedev - 26 points
Soderling - 22 points
Mecir - 38 points
Enqvist - 32 points
Haas - 26 points

How about Scud? Had he not had the injuries he had might of won a Slam.

Decent shout. He doesn't fare well on the points system (19 points). However, as you say, there was huge potential which was derailed by his almost constant injuries. I'd find it hard to put him above Rios, who was a far more successful contemporary (despite having his own injury/motivation problems).

In terms of skill or what would have bucked the trend at the time, then Mecir.

However, for me it's Nalbandian. He really should have exploited the woes of Hewitt / Safin around 2005 and done something for me - his record against Federer, shows how good he is

Mecir easily ahead for me - hard to ignore 2 slam finals Wtf win and SF best at other slams during the great 80s. , then maybe nalbandian. Rios I never rated particularly strongly

Mecir won the world tour finals and the Olympics.

I am going to vote for Rios though, he seems statistically ahead anyway. He did the IW-Miami double and took #1 from Sampras from a while when Sampras was in his peak years.

Mecir, Rios, Nalbandian, Davydenko , Ferrer, Soderling and Tsonga should feature the list easy.

Soderling started to make real inroads into this dicussion in 2009 and 2010 had it continued without an injury halt he might have made a strong case but unfortunately thats not the case and hence he lags behind other names big time, so I rule him out.

Tsonga has a big CV and his career is not over yet, so I am ruling him out for the moment and will decide whether he fits into this list or somehow end up winning a slam.

Davydenko , made a strong case of consistency in the mid naughties but when he was peaking up he faltered or injury stuck, I am not convinced he fits in this bill compared to other top heavyweights eventhough his consistency in CV was making a strong case it faded with time.

Nalbandian just by raw talent should have been a GS champ and not be in this discussion, I would say one of the rare guys whom I believed could beat Fed on all surfaces due to his talent till Rafa came up. I rule out Nalbandian coz we don't discuss players like Gasquet, Gulbis etc,.. Nalby is just the better version of the above names but shouldn't top the list.

So it boils down to Mecir, Rios and Ferrer, sadly I haven't seen Mecir play so can't comment on it, I have read a lot about him, so for the moment I keep him off the discussion, so it boils down between Rios and Ferrer, Rios became world No.1 thats a huge count and should get 100 points for that, Ferrer would easily trade all his tour level title for that one title, so Rois wins the case among these two, out of Mecir and Rios I don't know who deserve the title more, but I am gonna go with Rois.

Rios simply the best player not to have won the GS, he had the talent , consistency and hardwork yet somehow the success eluded him which is unfortunate, Ferrer on the other hand in my view made more than whats expected of him, he would be more than happy with his career if it ended today, thats not the case for MR.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Mecir, Rios, Nalbandian, Davydenko , Ferrer, Soderling and Tsonga should feature the list easy.

Soderling started to make real inroads into this dicussion in 2009 and 2010 had it continued without an injury halt he might have made a strong case but unfortunately thats not the case and hence he lags behind other names big time, so I rule him out.

Tsonga has a big CV and his career is not over yet, so I am ruling him out for the moment and will decide whether he fits into this list or somehow end up winning a slam.

Davydenko , made a strong case of consistency in the mid naughties  but when he was peaking up he faltered or injury stuck, I am not convinced he fits in this bill compared to other top heavyweights eventhough his consistency in CV was making a strong case it faded with time.

Nalbandian just by raw talent should have been a GS champ and not be in this discussion, I would say one of the rare guys whom I believed could beat Fed on all surfaces due to his talent till Rafa ca

me up. I rule out Nalbandian coz we don't discuss players like Gasquet, Gulbis etc,.. Nalby is just the better version of the above names but shouldn't top the list.

So it boils down to Mecir, Rios and Ferrer, sadly I haven't seen Mecir play so can't comment on it, I have read a lot about him, so for the moment I keep him off the discussion, so it boils down between Rios and Ferrer, Rios became world No.1 thats a huge count and should get 100 points for that, Ferrer would easily trade all his tour level title for that one title, so Rois wins the case among these two, out of Mecir and Rios I don't know who deserve the title more, but I am gonna go with Rois.

Rios simply the best player not to have won the GS, he had the talent , consistency and hardwork yet somehow the success eluded him which is unfortunate, Ferrer on the other hand in my view made more than whats expected of him, he would be more than happy with his career if it ended today, thats not the case for MR.

I dont really see how Rios can be classed as consistent - he only challenged the top for a short time and made one slam final and a few masters wins, no 1 for only six weeks. More of a streak in 1998 really. Undoubtedly good, but not better than Mecir imo who challenged guys over several years at the top and won WTF and olympics. There's some good footage of him on YouTube that can be seen

Two other guys who maybe wouldn't win, but should be in the list:
Todd Martin 2 slam finals - challenged top players for years
Alex Corretja 2 slam finals plus WTF win

Tom_____ wrote:
I dont really see how Rios can be classed as consistent - he only challenged the top for a short time and made one slam final and a few masters wins, no 1 for only six weeks. More of a streak in 1998 really.  Undoubtedly good, but not better than Mecir imo who challenged guys over several years at the top and won WTF and olympics. There's some good footage of him on YouTube that can be seen

I really have no idea on Mecir and I mentioned clearly its between Rios and Mecir [as I have heard much about Mecir], for me becoming No.1 is the biggest hurdle than anything else, so Rios wins the count, he can't become no.1 with few tournament wins, he was consistent for 12 months to become no.1 [12 months period started from 12 months back since he became no.1 and not from January to December]. Finally I have watched Rios play and he was damn good and hence my statement stands however thats just my opinion since the question was asked I answered.  

Yeah, Martin and Corretja are good shouts. Will work out what they score. Going back a bit in time, there is also Brian Gottfried (before my time but won a lot of titles).

Corretja - 41 points (HR2 - 8 points; 2 x GS finals - 6 points; 1 x GS SF - 1 point; 1 x WTF - 5 points; 2 x Masters - 6 points; 14 tour titles - 14 points; 1 x DC - 1 point)

Martin - 23 points (HR4 - 4 points; 2 x GS finals - 6 points; 4 x GS SF - 4 points; 8 tour wins - 8 points; 1 x DC - 1 point)

Corretja a surprisingly strong contender.

Nalbandian in full flow was just incredible. I still think he was one of the great talents and a phenomenal ball striker. Will never forget his performances winning Madrid and Paris masters back to back. In his prime he took nadal and federer out of their comfort zones, says a lot

yes Nalby was a very good ball-striker, but tennis is about a lot more than just ball-striking, and in most other areas he was sadly lacking. If we're talking just best ball-striker never to win a slam, or most "talented" (whatever that means), then he would be right up there. But best player? Nope, not for me. Rios, Mecir and Corretja streets ahead of him IMO.

Out of interest, I did some maths and I think Murray would have had 72 points before winning the US Open last year.

Born Slippy wrote:Corretja - 41 points (HR2 - 8 points; 2 x GS finals - 6 points; 1 x GS SF - 1 point; 1 x WTF - 5 points; 2 x Masters - 6 points; 14 tour titles - 14 points; 1 x DC - 1 point)

Martin - 23 points (HR4 - 4 points; 2 x GS finals - 6 points; 4 x GS SF - 4 points; 8 tour wins - 8 points; 1 x DC - 1 point)

Corretja a surprisingly strong contender.

Soderling dind't do bad either

HR [4th Rank] - 6 points , 2 x finals = 6 points , 1 WTF semifinals - 1 , 1 x Masters - 3 points , 10 tour level titles = 10 points

so 6 + 6 +1 +3 +10 = 26 points

Its pity he amassed 90% of his points in those 2 years streak and it got stopped coz of injury, if not for injury he would surely accumulated more points than this, but no ways I see him ahead of contenders like Rios , Mecir or Nalbandian.  

Great reading on this post and interesting to see people's comments, opinions.

I did watch the whole careers of all the people mentioned in this list/thread, umpired for a handful of them - chair and lines - and Rios takes it hands down for me. The comment above stating that Rios did well enough over an extended period of time, to get to No 1 - over the brilliant but shorter "flashes" of Nalbandian - Rios takes it for me.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda - Rios, with Lendl's work ethic - a v v v scary thought indeed!

Corretja or Rios agreed.
Anyone who could take Sampras to a 5th set TB at USO in his prime was clearly ridiculously talented.
Rios was simply lazy...relied of his talent but it wasn't enough to get him through 7 long matches in a row. He was also brittle at key moments.

However, I have to throw in Coria too. How he never won FO04 I'll never know, it must haunt him to this day.

lydian wrote:

However, I have to throw in Coria too. How he never won FO04 I'll never know, it must haunt him to this day.

I guess that haunted his career and he could never overcome that disappointment.

R we forgetting Mark Philippoussis then?

Lemme calculate his points on the basis of this thread's theme

Best Ranking - 8 gives 3 points [I guess 10 is 1, 9 is 2 and 8 is 3]
Best Slam results 2x Finals - 6 points
Career titles - 11 - gives 11 points

On his best could clearly down both Agassi and Sampras on the biggest of stage, a Soderling of 90's.

Scud gets no points for a best ranking of 8 - I only gave points for top 5 rankings. He scores 19 points in total:

2 x slam final : 6 points
1 x masters title : 3 points
10 x other titles : 10 points

Personally I wouldn't go for Corretja or Coria here on the grounds they were only ever likely to win one slam. I guess my criteria is for a more rounded player. Howevrr, a different question is the best player never to win on each surface. Could be something like:

Hard: Mecir or Davydenko
Clay: Correjta Coria or Rios
Grass: Henman or Scud

While Davydenko was the most consistent on his days among all competitors listed here he never threatened to win a slam, I would never put him as the best to have not won a slam, for instance Del Po easily won a slam but could never mitigate the consistency of Davydenko or a Ferrer, so I would just rule him out.

Hard - Mecir
Clay - Rios
Grass - Scud, remmeber the Goat won his first Wimbledon title beating the Scud in 2 tie breakers, if only both would have gone Scud's way the career of both men could have been different.  

scud?

Scud is Philippoussis' nickname - due to the power of his serve and groundstrokes.

Born Slippy wrote:Scud is Philippoussis' nickname - due to the power of his serve and groundstrokes.

Also his looks, it was heard he was one of the hottest among chicks and was bettered only by the one and only Radek Stephanek. .