Best Players Never to Win a Slam

[El Dude]

A couple weeks ago there was some talk about who was the best player ever never to win a Slam - people were using an acronym, which I can't remember. I don't quite have the time or patience right now to put it into an article, but I thought I'd at least do some cursory research and share it with this forum.

I tried to look at all players who had been in Grand Slam finals and/or been in the top 5 during the Open Era - this gave me a group of just over fifty players.

I then assigned points for Slam results and wins in other tournaments, using their total titles as a base and then adding points like so:

Base: total titles
Slams: 3 Final, 2 Semifinal, 1 Quarterfinal
Other tournaments: WTF/Cup 3, Olympics 2, Masters 2, ATP 500 1

This was problematic because data is limited on a lot of older tournaments, but I did the best I could.

I then sorted the total rankings and gave tie-breakers to the highest career rank (in parentheses). Here's the list of players with at least 20 points.

52 David Ferrer (3)
45 Nikolay Davydenko (3)
44 Tom Okker (3)
40 Marcelo Rios (1)
40 Alex Corretja (2)
37 Harold Solomon (5)
35 David Nalbandian (3)
35 Miroslav Mecir (4)
35 Raul Ramirez (4)
34 Brian Gottfried (3)
33 Tommy Haas (2)
32 Thomas Enqvist (4)
32 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (4)
30 Andriy Medvedev (4)
30 Tim Henman (4)
30 Tomas Berdych (5)
29 Todd Martin (4)
27 Greg Rusedski (4)
25 Henri Leconte (5)
24 Robin Soderling (4)
24 Guillermo Coria (5)
24 Mark Philippoussis (9)
23 Brad Gilbert (3)
22 Guillermo Canas (3)
22 Cedric Pioline (5)
21 Magnus Norman (2)
21 Fernando Gonzalez (5)

That's about half of the total players. Just missing the cut are players like Jose Luis Clerc, Sebastian Grosjean, Kei Nishikori, and Gene Mayer. There were two players who played in two finals each that I didn't have enough information to adequately rank - Steve Denton and Kevin Curren - but from what I could tell, both have points in the low 20s at most.

Now I'm not saying that this definitely states that David Ferrer is the greatest player never to win a Slam. One thing I noted is that more recent second tier players tend to go deeper into more Slams than in past eras; I'm not sure why this might be. But looking at second week Slam results, Tsonga has 10, Ferrer 15, Berdych 11. Compare that to similarly great Thomas Enqvist 3, Alex Corretja 6, Marcelo Rios 5, etc.

There are also specialist players, like Tim Henman--who is one of the very best Wimbledon players never to win it. Poor time made it to 4 Wimbledon SF, and 4 QF.

One thing that this list does help us do, I think, is narrow the choices - it gives us a "first round" of candidates, so to speak. While I'm not ready to commit to the "second round," I'm thinking that it would involve a closer look at weighing total titles won vs. big titles, as well as Slam results, H2Hs against top players, longevity, etc.

What do you think? Who was the best player never to win a Slam?

On yeah, what about the worst player to play in a Slam final? By ranking I came up with two names: John Marks, who never won a title in his career but lost in the 1978 Australian Open to Guillermo Vilas. Marks actually lost the first set of his 1R match to 2nd seed Jose Luis Clerc, but Clerc had to retire after the first set. Marks' highest career ranking was #44.

The other is Chris Lewis, who lost to John McEnroe in the 1983 Wimbledon final. Lewis' highest ranking was #46, but he did win three career titles. I'd give the "honor" to Marks.

 

[Front242]

Nice work, El Dude. My own personal choice would be Rios but shouldn't Davydenko be somewhere on that list? He reached number 3 in 2006, won the WTF (was also a runner up) and 3 Masters 1000 titles.

 

[Front242]

And ps: might need to edit this part:
"Now I'm not saying that this definitely states that David Ferrer is the greatest player ever to win a Slam" to never

 

[El Dude]

Nice work, El Dude. My own personal choice would be Rios but shouldn't Davydenko be somewhere on that list? He reached number 3 in 2006, won the WTF (was also a runner up) and 3 Masters 1000 titles.

Crap, how could I forget Kolya?! I've added him in and, as you can see, he's second on the list! My bad.

And ps: might need to edit this part:
"Now I'm not saying that this definitely states that David Ferrer is the greatest player ever to win a Slam" to never

Ha ha. Fixed.

Now what could be interesting would be to compare the worst players to win Slams to the best players on this list. It might be interesting to see how players like Gaston Gaudio, Thomas Johansson, Albert Costa, etc, match-up.

 

[Front242]

^ That'd be very interesting to compare worst players to win a slam to the best on this list alright!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The acronym is SHEEP in contrast to GOAT. It stands for Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player.

I for sure do not believe that Ferrer is the SHEEP. I think Marcelo, Davy and Nalby are definitely better than Ferrer. The thing with numeric schemes that you are so fond of is that, one can always devise a numeric scheme to support the case for a player of their choice.

Davy has won Miami, Shanghai and Paris in addition to the WTF. That clearly shows his quality.

Finally, there is only so much numbers can capture. I think most people who have followed
the careers of both Ferrer and Davy and have seen them both play would say Davy is better.
Note that this is not because of one person being liked and the other not. Both of them
are anticelebrities actually despite their achievements.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Always thought Rios was the guy. Waaay too much talent not to win one but there you go...

 

[Kieran]

Well, in his time, there was an expectations that Rios would win the French, and yet, good as he was on his favourite surface, his best run there was the quarter final. I remember he lost a great match to Moya in the quarters, it might have been the year Moya won it. Even more revealing of Rios, though, was his performance in the only slam final he made, against the drug cheat Korda. Rios basically chickened out, and won only six games.

Some players just aren't built for that level of things...

 

[Front242]

Strange alright that Rios never fared better than 2 QFs at Roland Garros given he won Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg and was the first player to win all three said clay court ATP Masters Series since the format started in 1990. You'd have expected him to at least reach a semi or final at RG based on that.

 

[El Dude]

The acronym is SHEEP in contrast to GOAT. It stands for Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player.

Ah right, thanks.

I for sure do not believe that Ferrer is the SHEEP. I think Marcelo, Davy and Nalby are definitely better than Ferrer. The thing with numeric schemes that you are so fond of is that, one can always devise a numeric scheme to support the case for a player of their choice.

This entails a kind of ulterior motive on the part of the "numeric schemer," which is rather cynical, if not outright untrusting. In this case, I'm just curious. Also, the point of the numeric scheme is to give a starting point for discussion, not to end discussion.

Now I would say that it is at least as problematic to have such discussions without any numbers, because then it is entirely subjective.

Davy has won Miami, Shanghai and Paris in addition to the WTF. That clearly shows his quality.

No doubt! And all this while playing in the heart of Fedal. I believe a few of those titles were won against Rafa and Roger.

Finally, there is only so much numbers can capture. I think most people who have followed
the careers of both Ferrer and Davy and have seen them both play would say Davy is better.
Note that this is not because of one person being liked and the other not. Both of them
are anticelebrities actually despite their achievements.

Yeah, I hear you. But again, when discussing relative greatness we have to weigh and balance peak and career. Its hard to argue with the quantity of Ferrer's resume, even if the quality isn't as vintage as Davydenko or Nalbandian in their primes.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I for sure do not believe that Ferrer is the SHEEP. I think Marcelo, Davy and Nalby are definitely better than Ferrer. The thing with numeric schemes that you are so fond of is that, one can always devise a numeric scheme to support the case for a player of their choice.

This entails a kind of ulterior motive on the part of the "numeric schemer," which is rather cynical, if not outright untrusting. In this case, I'm just curious. Also, the point of the numeric scheme is to give a starting point for discussion, not to end discussion.

Now I would say that it is at least as problematic to have such discussions without any numbers, because then it is entirely subjective.

Don't take it personally. I did not mean to suggest that you are scheming with an ulterior motive.

Having said that, I am not talking about some weird numeric scheme where it is obvious that
there are vested interests. It is very easy to come up with two different numeric schemes, both
of which look quite reasonable way of assigning and adding up numbers, which can produce
different results.

One should indeed look at the numbers. It is the combining of numbers to produce an
"executive summary" that is tricky and dangerous. I am of the opinion that there is not
much need to do it.

 

[nehmeth]

Always thought Rios was the guy. Waaay too much talent not to win one but there you go...

Rios had a major attitude problem and shipwrecked his whole career. Talent without heart or brains = no slams. Personally, I'm glad he never won one.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Always thought Rios was the guy. Waaay too much talent not to win one but there you go...

Rios had a major attitude problem and shipwrecked his whole career. Talent without heart or brains = no slams. Personally, I'm glad he never won one.

He wasn't loved by many, that's for sure. From what I have read about him, he was not the nicest guy. That jumping backhand though, and the touch...the improvs...he had everything excepting the desire seems like. There is that Rios return again:uzzled

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQrT5xsCwX0[/video]

 

[El Dude]

Don't take it personally. I did not mean to suggest that you are scheming with an ulterior motive.

Having said that, I am not talking about some weird numeric scheme where it is obvious that
there are vested interests. It is very easy to come up with two different numeric schemes, both
of which look quite reasonable way of assigning and adding up numbers, which can produce
different results.

One should indeed look at the numbers. It is the combining of numbers to produce an
"executive summary" that is tricky and dangerous. I am of the opinion that there is not
much need to do it.

Yes, I agree - although there is not much "need" for tennis, is there? I find it interesting and enjoyable to come up with numeric schemes that seek to at least give us a tentative picture of performance level, even if realizing that all such schemes are "castles made of sand." In other words, they shouldn't be taken too seriously, but on the other hand they can give us a discussion point. Without some kind of statistical analysis we are left with eye-ball interpretations and personal assumptions - pure subjectivity, in other words. The numbers, including the "executive summaries," give us something to look at and bounced up against.

 

[nehmeth]

Always thought Rios was the guy. Waaay too much talent not to win one but there you go...

Rios had a major attitude problem and shipwrecked his whole career. Talent without heart or brains = no slams. Personally, I'm glad he never won one.

He wasn't loved by many, that's for sure. From what I have read about him, he was not the nicest guy. That jumping backhand though, and the touch...the improvs...he had everything excepting the desire seems like. There is that Rios return again:uzzled

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQrT5xsCwX0[/video]

The bass-ackward return of Rios. :cover

 

[calitennis127]

Well, in his time, there was an expectations that Rios would win the French, and yet, good as he was on his favourite surface, his best run there was the quarter final. I remember he lost a great match to Moya in the quarters, it might have been the year Moya won it. Even more revealing of Rios, though, was his performance in the only slam final he made, against the drug cheat Korda. Rios basically chickened out, and won only six games.

Some players just aren't built for that level of things...

On the other hand, there are overachievers like Nadal whose mindsets are great for that stage but whose talents aren't always the most impressive.....

 

[calitennis127]

A couple weeks ago there was some talk about who was the best player ever never to win a Slam - people were using an acronym, which I can't remember. I don't quite have the time or patience right now to put it into an article, but I thought I'd at least do some cursory research and share it with this forum.

I tried to look at all players who had been in Grand Slam finals and/or been in the top 5 during the Open Era - this gave me a group of just over fifty players.

I then assigned points for Slam results and wins in other tournaments, using their total titles as a base and then adding points like so:

Base: total titles
Slams: 3 Final, 2 Semifinal, 1 Quarterfinal
Other tournaments: WTF/Cup 3, Olympics 2, Masters 2, ATP 500 1

This was problematic because data is limited on a lot of older tournaments, but I did the best I could.

I then sorted the total rankings and gave tie-breakers to the highest career rank (in parentheses). Here's the list of players with at least 20 points.

52 David Ferrer (3)
45 Nikolay Davydenko (3)
44 Tom Okker (3)
40 Marcelo Rios (1)
40 Alex Corretja (2)
37 Harold Solomon (5)
35 David Nalbandian (3)
35 Miroslav Mecir (4)
35 Raul Ramirez (4)
34 Brian Gottfried (3)
33 Tommy Haas (2)
32 Thomas Enqvist (4)
32 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (4)
30 Andriy Medvedev (4)
30 Tim Henman (4)
30 Tomas Berdych (5)
29 Todd Martin (4)
27 Greg Rusedski (4)
25 Henri Leconte (5)
24 Robin Soderling (4)
24 Guillermo Coria (5)
24 Mark Philippoussis (9)
23 Brad Gilbert (3)
22 Guillermo Canas (3)
22 Cedric Pioline (5)
21 Magnus Norman (2)
21 Fernando Gonzalez (5)

That's about half of the total players. Just missing the cut are players like Jose Luis Clerc, Sebastian Grosjean, Kei Nishikori, and Gene Mayer. There were two players who played in two finals each that I didn't have enough information to adequately rank - Steve Denton and Kevin Curren - but from what I could tell, both have points in the low 20s at most.

Now I'm not saying that this definitely states that David Ferrer is the greatest player never to win a Slam. One thing I noted is that more recent second tier players tend to go deeper into more Slams than in past eras; I'm not sure why this might be. But looking at second week Slam results, Tsonga has 10, Ferrer 15, Berdych 11. Compare that to similarly great Thomas Enqvist 3, Alex Corretja 6, Marcelo Rios 5, etc.

There are also specialist players, like Tim Henman--who is one of the very best Wimbledon players never to win it. Poor time made it to 4 Wimbledon SF, and 4 QF.

One thing that this list does help us do, I think, is narrow the choices - it gives us a "first round" of candidates, so to speak. While I'm not ready to commit to the "second round," I'm thinking that it would involve a closer look at weighing total titles won vs. big titles, as well as Slam results, H2Hs against top players, longevity, etc.

What do you think? Who was the best player never to win a Slam?

On yeah, what about the worst player to play in a Slam final? By ranking I came up with two names: John Marks, who never won a title in his career but lost in the 1978 Australian Open to Guillermo Vilas. Marks actually lost the first set of his 1R match to 2nd seed Jose Luis Clerc, but Clerc had to retire after the first set. Marks' highest career ranking was #44.

The other is Chris Lewis, who lost to John McEnroe in the 1983 Wimbledon final. Lewis' highest ranking was #46, but he did win three career titles. I'd give the "honor" to Marks.

There isn't even a debate here. Nalbandian is more talented than all of the Slam winners in his time, let alone all the guys who haven't won Slams.

 

[El Dude]

There isn't even a debate here. Nalbandian is more talented than all of the Slam winners in his time, let alone all the guys who haven't won Slams.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nah, it is not trolling...just a slight confusion between the words "best" and "most talented".

 

[Kieran]

Cali isn't a troll, but he has seriously overrated his man here...