The Greatest Non-Slam Champion of the Open Era

[Kirijax]

I posted this on Twitter and David Ferrer is by far the most popular answer.

 

[Fiero425]

I posted this on Twitter and David Ferrer is by far the most popular answer.

Popular as in the consensus or definitive candidate for "this honor?" Personally I can't stand the guy; mainly because of the way he plays! Like Berdych, neither has any imagination or inkling that they need to press their advantage when ahead instead of allowing the elites to "come back" and beat them 9 times out of 10! Some may have thought certain players had turned a corner because of beating Nadal recently, but the thing is "who isn't beating him these days?" It's getting embarrassing and I just wonder how long this "funk" will last before he either "returns to prominence" or limps out of the game in disgrace after electrifying the sport for so many years? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

I posted this on Twitter and David Ferrer is by far the most popular answer.

Popular as in the consensus or definitive candidate for "this honor?" Personally I can't stand the guy; mainly because of the way he plays! Like Berdych, neither has any imagination or inkling that they need to press their advantage when ahead instead of allowing the elites to "come back" and beat them 9 times out of 10! Some may have thought certain players had turned a corner because of beating Nadal recently, but the thing is "who isn't beating him these days?" It's getting embarrassing and I just wonder how long this "funk" will last before he either "returns to prominence" or limps out of the game in disgrace after electrifying the sport for so many years? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

A swift yellow card is handed out to Fiero for trying to steer the thread into Nadalville. Step behind the line Sir.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I just cannot go with Ferrer simply because of his ceiling. I know his best. It is nowhere near a Rios or a Nalby best.

 

[Billie]

I would go with Rios or possibly Nalby as well from the perspective of tennis talent alone. But Ferrer has been so much more professional therefore he was able to achieve what he has even if he is a bit physically challenged. I have to admire that also.

During this Wimbledon, I had a pleasure of reading blogs and interviews with tennis people from a Serbian reporter that are unlike anything offered in English language. Just on top on my head there are interviews with Fernando Gonzales and Ivo Karlovic and both say that tennis has become more professional and more physical in the last few years. Gonzales said that 10-15 years ago players could get away with some things and not being completely prepared for a tournament and still do well, but it is highly impossible to do the same nowadays. Today you have to be highly professional if you want to succeed. Karlovic also said that playing tennis was easier 10 years ago. Which makes sense as we can see that young guys are having a lot harder time to break through than Nole and Andy did. I refuse the notion that they are all not talented!!!

Maybe if Rios and Nalby started playing now and were as professional as today's top 20-30, maybe they would have done better. One never knows.

 

[El Dude]

The problem with a poll like this is that there's inevitable "recent bias." People know Ferrer, remember Nalby and even Rios. But Okker?

My issue with Rios is that while he was #1 ,won five Masters and a Grand Slam Cup, he really only had five good years and, aside from one Slam final, never made it past the quarterfinals. Ferrer's absolute peak was below that, but he has been good for over a decade.

 

[Billie]

No big deal, everybody posts what they feel like is the best answer for them. It is nothing official, by the way. I can't really vote for somebody I didn't watch or know so little about, can I? I can see his wiki page, but it still doesn't tell me much about Okker. He was never ranked higher than #3 I see.

 

[Fiero425]

No big deal, everybody posts what they feel like is the best answer for them. It is nothing official, by the way. I can't really vote for somebody I didn't watch or know so little about, can I? I can see his wiki page, but it still doesn't tell me much about Okker. He was never ranked higher than #3 I see.

That #3 is a little misleading since the pros had just been entered into the OPEN era in late '68 in time for the USO! Okker was a better doubles player for the people who never got to see "The Flying Dutchman" with his highlight making USO final in '68! He lost in 5 sets to Arthur Ashe! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Billie]

No big deal, everybody posts what they feel like is the best answer for them. It is nothing official, by the way. I can't really vote for somebody I didn't watch or know so little about, can I? I can see his wiki page, but it still doesn't tell me much about Okker. He was never ranked higher than #3 I see.

That #3 is a little misleading since the pros had just been entered into the OPEN era in late '68 in time for the USO! Okker was a better doubles player for the people who never got to see "The Flying Dutchman" with his highlight making USO final in '68! He lost in 5 sets to Arthur Ashe! :angel: :dodgy:

Thank you, I love reading your posts because I learn something from them. I was oh so little in 1968.

I actually remember Rios very well and I was a fan of his. Well he had a temper and lots of injuries to deal with, so those can be attributed to him underachieving. I think he could have done a whole lot better. But he was #1 in both juniors and as a professional.

And Coria was another one of my favorites from Latin America. Then Safin, Rafter...lots of underachievers and lots of broken hearts for me....until Nole came. He was on his way of underachieving as well.....just when I was giving up on his glory in middle of 2010 and almost had to agree with people that he was 1 slam wonder - well the rest is history.

 

[Fiero425]

No big deal, everybody posts what they feel like is the best answer for them. It is nothing official, by the way. I can't really vote for somebody I didn't watch or know so little about, can I? I can see his wiki page, but it still doesn't tell me much about Okker. He was never ranked higher than #3 I see.

That #3 is a little misleading since the pros had just been entered into the OPEN era in late '68 in time for the USO! Okker was a better doubles player for the people who never got to see "The Flying Dutchman" with his highlight making USO final in '68! He lost in 5 sets to Arthur Ashe! :angel: :dodgy:

Thank you, I love reading your posts because I learn something from them. I was oh so little in 1968.

I actually remember Rios very well and I was a fan of his. Well he had a temper and lots of injuries to deal with, so those can be attributed to him underachieving. I think he could have done a whole lot better. But he was #1 in both juniors and as a professional.

And Coria was another one of my favorites from Latin America. Then Safin, Rafter...lots of underachievers and lots of broken hearts for me....until Nole came. He was on his way of underachieving as well.....just when I was giving up on his glory in middle of 2010 and almost had to agree with people that he was 1 slam wonder - well the rest is history.

You are too kind! :hug If you weren't around when I said it, I put Safin right "up there" in skill; sorta like the Ilie Nastase of his time! He had every shot; power and touch! The only thing that he suffered from was concentration and confidence in himself; too many options, but he still won 2 majors and got to #1! That's the problem with players like that who can do it all; things get scrabbled at times! He's comparable to Nastase, Mandlikova, Navratilova, Mecir, and others who are considered "gifted!" :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No one in the right mind would say Ferrer is the best player not to have won a slam.
I don't care what formula El Dude uses. I see him play and so I can say for sure. No grinder, with such an unimaginative game can be called the best player not to have won a slam.

Having said that I agree with the comments that he milked as much from his potential as he could. He deserves applause for that. But, we are not voting on that here.

 

[Kirijax]

No one in the right mind would say Ferrer is the best player not to have won a slam.
I don't care what formula El Dude uses. I see him play and so I can say for sure. No grinder, with such an unimaginative game can be called the best player not to have won a slam.

Having said that I agree with the comments that he milked as much from his potential as he could. He deserves applause for that. But, we are not voting on that here.

Like I tried to say before, what we are voting on is not ability. "The Greatest" in this case implies who left behind the best body of work without winning a Slam. "The Best" would be Mecir or Rios I guess. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about who was able to stay injury-free and leave behind the most distinguished career. Longevity does have its rewards. You can be the most wondrous player the ATP has ever seen, but if you are too much of a head case or a injury bitten doctor's delight, you don't deserve to be called the greatest. IMHO

 

[Billie]

Sorry Kirijax, I misunderstood then (wouldn't be the first time). At least we are talking tennis and not snapping at each other.

Well, Rios won all 3 Masters clay 1000 tournaments (Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome), I think Indian Wells one year as well, he has a major final so his achievements (in shorter time frame due to injuries) are greater than Ferrer's whole career so far if I am not mistaken?

But I am fine with whatever choices people have, really.

 

[Kirijax]

Sorry Kirijax, I misunderstood then (wouldn't be the first time). At least we are talking tennis and not snapping at each other.

Well, Rios won all 3 Masters clay 1000 tournaments (Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome), I think Indian Wells one year as well, he has a major final so his achievements (in shorter time frame due to injuries) are greater than Ferrer's whole career so far if I am not mistaken?

But I am fine with whatever choices people have, really.

There is no wrong choice!

 

[Fiero425]

Sorry Kirijax, I misunderstood then (wouldn't be the first time). At least we are talking tennis and not snapping at each other.

Well, Rios won all 3 Masters clay 1000 tournaments (Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome), I think Indian Wells one year as well, he has a major final so his achievements (in shorter time frame due to injuries) are greater than Ferrer's whole career so far if I am not mistaken?

But I am fine with whatever choices people have, really.

For those who didn't know it, Rios won the double Masters of IW and Miami; defeating Agassi in Key Biscayne and becoming the #1 player in the world for a few weeks! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

Personally, I'm shocked that calitennis127 hasn't made 50 accounts to stuff Nalbandian's ballot box.

 

[Fiero425]

Personally, I'm shocked that calitennis127 hasn't made 50 accounts to stuff Nalbandian's ballot box.

I must have missed something; what's this all about Nalbandian all of a sudden? Is he on his deathbed or something? He won a WTF over an injured Roger Federer and a couple of Masters I can't remember! I liked his game enough, but that disqualification at Queens will haunt him forever! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Borehamwood]

I voted for David Ferrer. But my heart feeling the love for tiny Tom Okker. The flying dutchman one of my very favorite players ever.

 

[Kirijax]

Years in the Top Ten

Corretja 2 years
Davydenko 5 years
Enqvist 4 years
Ferrer 6 years
Gottfried 3 years
Mecir 3 years
Nalbandian 5 years
Okker 2 years
Rios 3 years
Solomon 4 years

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ferrer is a huge overachiever. He's done amazingly well to do as well as he did given his limitations, even at an advanced age. However, there's overachieving, and there's achieving miracles, the latter would have been required for him to win a slam in the era he played in. Maybe if his peak coincided with the post-Sampras pre-Federer era then he could have maybe stolen a French Open or something (and even that would have been difficult) but there's just no way he's the best anything not to win a slam. Is he even better than Davydenko? He had more longevity, but he was never as good.