Great players with a single GS

[mightyjeditribble]

With Andy Roddick's induction in to the Tennis Hall of Fame, I was wondering - which "one-slam wonders" are actually great players of the game, but did not win considerably more majors due to the quality of the opposition they faced?

In the "Federer era" (since 2003 Wimbledon), there have been three one-slam winners: Roddick, del Potro and Cilic.

Roddick definitely belongs in the above category - he lost 4 grand slam finals against Federer, and lost 8 times in total against him in Grand Slam tournaments. So it's easy to imagine that he could have won, say, 5 GS titles if Roger hadn't been around.

I wouldn't put Cilic in the above category - and while Del Potro has certainly shown signs of greatness, his injuries may have prevented him from serial GS success even without the "big 4".

What about earlier times? Ivanisevic seems an obvious choice. Also Chang, maybe Stich? Of these, only Chang is a Hall of Famer.

Any thoughts? What about previous eras?

 

[El Dude]

Well, I would argue that the definition of "great" would exclude one-Slam wonders. I think the best a one-Slam wonder can be is "almost great," or "very, very good."

But yeah, Roddick is at or near the top of the list. By my estimation, the candidates for greatest single Slam winners of the Open Era in terms of overall accomplishments are: Roddick, Chang, and Thomas Muster. After that you have players like Manuel Orantes, Vitas Gerulaitis, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Stich, and Carlos Moya. Finally, I'd give honorable mention to Andres Gimeno and Tony Roche, both of whom would be in contention, but played half or more of their careers before the Open Era.

So yeah, Muster, Chang, or Roddick in some order.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Well, I would argue that the definition of "great" would exclude one-Slam wonders. I think the best a one-Slam wonder can be is "almost great," or "very, very good."

But yeah, Roddick is at or near the top of the list. By my estimation, the candidates for greatest single Slam winners of the Open Era in terms of overall accomplishments are: Roddick, Chang, and Thomas Muster. After that you have players like Manuel Orantes, Vitas Gerulaitis, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Stich, and Carlos Moya. Finally, I'd give honorable mention to Andres Gimeno and Tony Roche, both of whom would be in contention, but played half or more of their careers before the Open Era.

So yeah, Muster, Chang, or Roddick in some order.

I'd be interested to know why you would put Muster in there but not Goran? Muster only reached the one GS final, and only three further SF. He's also the only #1 player to never win a men's singles match at Wimbledon.

 

[El Dude]

I'd be interested to know why you would put Muster in there but not Goran? Muster only reached the one GS final, and only three further SF. He's also the only #1 player to never win a men's singles match at Wimbledon.

Mainly because Muster won twice as many titles overall: 44 to 22. And it isn't just low level titles: Muster has eight Masters to Goran's two, although Goran has two more ATP 500s and one Grand Slam Cup. But Muster has 31 ATP 250s to Goran's 11.

But you are right: Goran's overall Slam results are superior. They both have one title and three SFs, but Goran has three finals and two more QFs.

As for rankings, they're close. Thomas did manage to reach #1, but Goran has slightly better year-end rankings.

All things tolled, the rankings are a wash (or a slight edge for Muster, due to the #1), Goran has a solid edge in Slam results and Thomas has a large edge in titles. So I'm giving the edge to Muster.