Opening up SHEEP Debate

[GameSetAndMath]

Since I am too tired with the GOAT debate, I am opening up a SHEEP debate.
The concept is very similar. A SHEEP is the best player EVER to have never won
a Slam Title. Obviously, Nalbandian's retirement made me think about it. It is just
a coincidence that SHEEP have a lot of wool and Nalby has a lot of fat to keep them
warm in winter.

Ok, seriously who do you think deserves the SHEEP title. Nalby is certainly
one of the contenders. But, are we ready to give the title to him. I would
have given the title to Andy, but unfortunately he got disqualified since
last September.

How about Ferrer? He is just a work-horse and so does not seem to deserve
the SHEEP title. How about some players from earlier era such as Tim Henman.

Let the debate begin.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Marcelo Rios :

 

[GameSetAndMath]

By the way, I fogot to specify what SHEEP stands for. It stands for

Slamless, Heroic, Everlasting, Excellent Player.

Marcel Rios is a good candidate. I believe he had #1 ranking at one time. But,
how many Master's title did he accumulate. I guess that number would be one
of the criteria, if not the only one, to get the SHEEP award

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Rios had 5 Masters titles. He had the record for most Masters without a slam until Murray broke that record.
For me Rios was a magical player. Weird dude, yeah, but he did some jaw dropping stuff on a tennis court.

 

[DarthFed]

Rios, Nalbandian, Henman, and Ferrer (hate to say it) are all good candidates since the mid 90's. Any good ones from before then, or ones since mid 90's I might be forgetting?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Ferrer is not a contender for SHEEP. He barely won one Masters title and
that too just an year ago after so many years of toiling.

 

[shawnbm]

Mecir?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rios, Nalbandian.

 

[DarthFed]

I think Ferrer is not a contender for SHEEP. He barely won one Masters title and
that too just an year ago after so many years of toiling.

I'd have him beneath Nalbs and Rios at the very least but not that far off if we are talking career accomplishments.

 

[Front242]

I'd give Soderling an honourable mention based on the way he dispatched his opponents on route to 2 consecutive RG finals. Didn't get to play his best in the finals but then again neither did Nalbandian against Hewitt at Wimbledon.

 

[Didi]

Mecir, Henman and Nalbandian made the semis in all 4 slams. If I add Rios for his incredible talent, that would be my Top 4 contenders. My next tier would be the likes of Haas, Ferrer, Davydenko, Curren and Todd Martin. The next tier the likes of Corretja, Norman, Medvedev, Grosjean, Pioline, Coria, Ferreira, Sanchez, Tsonga etc. I'm sure there are far more who deserve to be mentioned but it's actually really tough to remember them all. There also should be a special category for guys like Jimmy Arias and Slobodan Zivojinovic who were some of the finest players to ever play this game but just couldn't get it together. As for the ultimate sheep? I'll give it to Nalbandian for his sheer shotmaking, closely followed by Mecir and Rios.

 

[Moxie]

Fun thread, GSM. I bet we're going to end up Rios and Nalbandian, or just Nalbandian, (since everyone dislikes Rios.) But what about Alex Corretja in the mix? He was as high as #2, had 17 career titles, RG final twice, and even played a massive 5-set QF v. Sampras that was decided in a long TB. If Gaudio has a RG, then why not Corretja? Or Coria, for that matter.

I love David Ferrer, but I think it's clear why he doesn't have a Slam, though, had he played in one of the more transitional eras, he may well have had one.

 

[Kieran]

Well, Rios holds a special place in tennis - only chap to top the rankings but never win a slam. He has to be given a special seat at the table for this. I think that what should distinguish these SHEEP is that they had the necessary talent but lacked that something that makes a champ. For that reason, I'd be reluctant to include Ferrer, because Ferrer's deficiency is just that everyone else is better than him. Rios, for example, flopped spectacularly against Korda in the Oz final in 1998. I mean, it was a moral capitulation. He just didn't look like he was trying. The occasion thoroughly overwhelmed him - and his talent.

So Rios, certainly, and Nalbandian, just because I'd be scared of reprisals from Cali if I excluded him. But really, Nalbandian had lot of talent but not the two things necessary for greatness: the trouser department.

Outside of these, well, usually players of a certain level of skill can nick one...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Mecir, Henman and Nalbandian made the semis in all 4 slams. If I add Rios for his incredible talent, that would be my Top 4 contenders. My next tier would be the likes of Haas, Ferrer, Davydenko, Curren and Todd Martin. The next tier the likes of Corretja, Norman, Medvedev, Grosjean, Pioline, Coria, Ferreira, Sanchez, Tsonga etc. I'm sure there are far more who deserve to be mentioned but it's actually really tough to remember them all. There also should be a special category for guys like Jimmy Arias and Slobodan Zivojinovic who were some of the finest players to ever play this game but just couldn't get it together. As for the ultimate sheep? I'll give it to Nalbandian for his sheer shotmaking, closely followed by Mecir and Rios.

If you cannot even remember them, they cannot be SHEEP candidates, I suppose.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rios had 5 Masters titles. He had the record for most Masters without a slam until Murray broke that record.
For me Rios was a magical player. Weird dude, yeah, but he did some jaw dropping stuff on a tennis court.

How much Nalby has? Other than the back to back two Masters in 2007 did he win
any other Masters Title (not counting the Masters cup ~ WTF).

 

[Denis]

My list of tennis players I have seen would be:

1. Nalbandian
2. Soderling
3. Tsonga
4. Pioline

Definitely not the enegizer-bunny!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Rios had 5 Masters titles. He had the record for most Masters without a slam until Murray broke that record.
For me Rios was a magical player. Weird dude, yeah, but he did some jaw dropping stuff on a tennis court.

How much Nalby has? Other than the back to back two Masters in 2007 did he win
any other Masters Title (not counting the Masters cup ~ WTF).

He has 2 Masters. 11 titles overall, majority of them 250s.

 

[isabelle]

Nalby, Ferrer, Davydenko, Rios, Coria are good contenders

 

[August]

From the last decade I'd say Nalby and Davy.

Nalby: 1 GS F, 4 GS SFs, 1 WTF title, 2 M1000 titles, 4 M1000 RUPs.
Davy: 4 GS SFs, 1 WTF title, 1 WTF RUP, 3 M1000 titles.

I'd also like to mention Söderling. I don't rate him on Nalby's and Davy's level but he reached two RG finals, where he lost to players he beat in another year at RG. Unfortunately he couldn't beat both Rafa and Roger in the same year, then he'd be a RG champ.

 

[Didi]

[/quote]
If you cannot even remember them, they cannot be SHEEP candidates, I suppose.
[/quote]

I don't think this is mutually exclusive to be honest. There were many players who were incredibly talented but never made a strong case for themselves and thus never made people remember them. I look at guys like Higueras, Solomon, Arias, Luis Clerc, Zivojinovic and even Tommy Haas I see some of the finest players to ever play this sport but just failed to get their act together. I don't see why they shouldn't be mentioned in a special category alongside the obvious contenders for a sheep debate. If you go for legacies alone, than it's an easy contest between Nalbandian, Mecir, Rios, Henman, Ferrer, Davydenko, Corretja, Todd Martin etc. But if you go deeper and go strictly by unfulfilled major talent, you'll find a gazillion of players who beyond doubt should have won slams if they had committed themselves more.