Slamless players better than one (or two) Slam contemporaries

[El Dude]

Marin Cilic got me thinking. In a way he is the luckiest player on tour. I know - his play at the 2014 US Open was amazing, his title well-deserved. But if you look at him as a total player, there are several players who are better, both in terms of their regular peak level and overall careers, but have not--and probably will not win Slams.

The players that come to mind are Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Tomas Berdych, and David Ferrer - all three of whom are better overall players than Cilic, in my opinion. Kei Nishikori, Milos Raonic, and Grigor Dimitrov could end up as better Slamless players than Cilic.

Cilic is a very good player. But in my view he's more comparable to players like Richard Gasquet, Gilles Simon, and Tommy Robredo - what could be called "tier 3" players (tier 1 being elite, tier 2 being contenders/near elites, tier 3 being top 20 types).

Who knows, maybe Cilic will end up adding another big title, a Masters for instance, to cement his level as equal to the Tsongas and Berdychs of the world. But right now he isn't quite there.

And yes, I fully realize that Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer would trade everything for a Slam title. But again, I'm talking about overall level and career.

So what about other players, different time periods even?

I suppose the easiest way would be to look at the worst Slam winners - players like Thomas Johansson, Gaston Gaudio, or Albert Costa. Was Marcelo Rios better than those three? What about Thomas Enqvist or Alex Corretja?

Another player that comes to mind as being better than some Slam winners is Miroslav Mecir, who in my mind was sort of the Robin Soderling of the late 80s. Mecir's problem was that he peaked at a very competitive time, when Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker were all in their prime. Consider that between 1985-89, Mecir's five best years, other than those four players above, only Pat Cash and Michael Chang managed to sneak in a Slam title.

Going back further, there were probably Slamless players who were better than Brian Teacher and Mark Edmondson. Harold Solomon, perhaps? And of course there is the almost-great Tom Okker, who I have argued is the greatest Slamless player in the Open Era. But there aren't many flukish Slam titles in the early 70s. Adrian Panatta?

Just ruminating here....

 

[Kirijax]

Marin Cilic got me thinking. In a way he is the luckiest player on tour. I know - his play at the 2014 US Open was amazing, his title well-deserved. But if you look at him as a total player, there are several players who are better, both in terms of their regular peak level and overall careers, but have not--and probably will not win Slams.

The players that come to mind are Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Tomas Berdych, and David Ferrer - all three of whom are better overall players than Cilic, in my opinion. Kei Nishikori, Milos Raonic, and Grigor Dimitrov could end up as better Slamless players than Cilic.

Cilic is a very good player. But in my view he's more comparable to players like Richard Gasquet, Gilles Simon, and Tommy Robredo - what could be called "tier 3" players (tier 1 being elite, tier 2 being contenders/near elites, tier 3 being top 20 types).

Who knows, maybe Cilic will end up adding another big title, a Masters for instance, to cement his level as equal to the Tsongas and Berdychs of the world. But right now he isn't quite there.

And yes, I fully realize that Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer would trade everything for a Slam title. But again, I'm talking about overall level and career.

So what about other players, different time periods even?

I suppose the easiest way would be to look at the worst Slam winners - players like Thomas Johansson, Gaston Gaudio, or Albert Costa. Was Marcelo Rios better than those three? What about Thomas Enqvist or Alex Corretja?

Another player that comes to mind as being better than some Slam winners is Miroslav Mecir, who in my mind was sort of the Robin Soderling of the late 80s. Mecir's problem was that he peaked at a very competitive time, when Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker were all in their prime. Consider that between 1985-89, Mecir's five best years, other than those four players above, only Pat Cash and Michael Chang managed to sneak in a Slam title.

Going back further, there were probably Slamless players who were better than Brian Teacher and Mark Edmondson. Harold Solomon, perhaps? And of course there is the almost-great Tom Okker, who I have argued is the greatest Slamless player in the Open Era. But there aren't many flukish Slam titles in the early 70s. Adrian Panatta?

Just ruminating here....

Yeah, Cilic just makes me shake my head. He has never even made a Masters semifinal in his career. A slight cough in the history of tennis. The slamless Trifecta: Berdych-Ferrer-Tsonga. All three have won a Masters, made a Slam final, won ten or more titles and have been ranked in the Top Ten for years. They may never win a Slam but you have to respect what they have done. I respect these three more than Cilic by far.

 

[tented]

If you check Wikipedia for the aphorism concerning being in the right place, at the right time, they should have a picture of Cilic.

Sure, he played well, blah, blah, blah, but he also got lucky with a thirty-something Federer having to go five against Monfils. Had Roger won that in straights, he probably would have taken down Cilic.

 

[herios]

If you check Wikipedia for the aphorism concerning being in the right place, at the right time, they should have a picture of Cilic.

Sure, he played well, blah, blah, blah, but he also got lucky with a thirty-something Federer having to go five against Monfils. Had Roger won that in straights, he probably would have taken down Cilic.

Not sure about that. Roger could have it tighter affair, but Cilic was almost unplayable in that match.
And luck always was part of the sport, playing havoc and influencing the end results.

 

[El Dude]

The US Open was all about right timing. All professional players have "performance spikes" when they play the best they possibly can play. Cilic played the best tennis of his career during that tournament, and peaked just at the right time.

Since then he's been a better player than he was before, but more as a borderline top 10 player.

I wonder if he's the only Slam winner who hasn't won anything else above an ATP 250. 1 Slam, 13 ATP 250s...a weird record.

 

[Kieran]

It's an interesting rumination. I think that there's a certain mindset that wins slams - and Tsonga never had it. Not even on a lucky day. He'd have to rise above himself, above all, but the big occasion scares him. But that mindset is within Cilic.

And winning majors is all done between the ears. Forget this nonsense about match-ups etc. So some super-talented blokes (and Lord knows, Nalbandian was talented, though not to the levels brother Cali says ) might never win a slam, even if they faced a broken-backed Rafa. Even if they faced themselves in a slam final, they'd lose. Talent only goes so far, but anyway, they're all talented. All of them. But a two-note player like Borg won 11 slams by just sticking to a simple A-B game, no deviations, just wearing players down.

But he had nuts like gold nuggets.

Cilic isn't like that but - yes - he was lucky but he was also a bloke capable of benefiting from the luck he got. He had it within him. I think Ferrer could too, but he hasn't got a big enough game, so there'll always be somebody to beat him with sheer force and muscular heft. Some players only have one great run in them, but they still have to have the wherewithal to finish. I expect even more from Cilic, but I doubt I'll see it...

 

[El Dude]

Nice followup ruminations, Kieran.

I think there's a definite similarity between Borg and Rafa. Not knowing Borg's era all that well, who would have been players with enormous talent that didn't translate into great results? Vitas Gerulaitis is the only name that comes to mind - maybe he is the David Nalbandian of that era.

The stars would have to align for David Ferrer to win a Slam. He simply couldn't beat Novak or Roger in a Slam final. He'd be the underdog against Andy, but if it was on clay it might be 50-50. Rafa is a wildcard. He used to be unbeatable for Ferrer, but he's 2-3 against Rafa in their last five matches. Still, I think he'd be hard-pressed to beat Rafa - but it is possible. Any other player and he'd at least have a shot.

Berdych and Tsonga are both players with big games, but who seem to fold an the last moment. Both have the game to go on a "Cilic Rampage" but neither seems to have the mentality. Monfils fits in this category, but to a lesser extent. He has similar talent as those two, but an even worse mentality.

Gasquet I'd put more in the Ferrer category, but a slightly lesser version. There is just nothing he does that can match an elite player playing reasonably well.

Raonic would have to serve amazingly for an entire tournament, but even then I don't think he could serve his way past Novak, Roger, Andy, and Rafa.

Nishikori is an interesting possibility, but he seems diminished from last year. Too frail, or something. But he definitely has the ability to "Do a Cilic."

Grigor Dimitrov...nevermind.

 

[Front242]

If you check Wikipedia for the aphorism concerning being in the right place, at the right time, they should have a picture of Cilic.

Sure, he played well, blah, blah, blah, but he also got lucky with a thirty-something Federer having to go five against Monfils. Had Roger won that in straights, he probably would have taken down Cilic.

Not sure about that. Roger could have it tighter affair, but Cilic was almost unplayable in that match.
And luck always was part of the sport, playing havoc and influencing the end results.

Yeah, I'd say he'd have at best won a set. Cilic was a total beast in that match. Roger was never beating him that day.

 

[nehmeth]

Tsonga and Monfils both have incredible talent, but they are at best mentally tough on a given day, and more often plain stupid in their choices on court.

Cilic and Wawrinka and Del Potro all have the tools to be in the upper echelons of the sport. For years the first two were lacking mentally, and DP's body just won't stay together for him.

Now Gaston Gaudio?? There were many players better than he in his day... and I mean just on clay. :cover