The Greatest Non-Slam Champion of the Open Era

[Federberg]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly that Davydenko was a better player. I also think that Rios, Mecir, Soderling and Nalbandian are too. I guess some clarification needs to made about whether we're talking talent or achievement. Ferrer is huge on achievement, but as we all acknowledge what makes him impressive is that he may not be as talented as some of the others in that list

 

[Kirijax]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly that Davydenko was a better player. I also think that Rios, Mecir, Soderling and Nalbandian are too. I guess some clarification needs to made about whether we're talking talent or achievement. Ferrer is huge on achievement, but as we all acknowledge what makes him impressive is that he may not be as talented as some of the others in that list

Ferrer may not be as talented as some of those others were, but his qualities were in his commitment to keeping himself in shape, his determination to outlast his opponent, his ability to keep away from major injuries, etc. Whatever his qualities may be, they helped him lass this long and do just as well or better in an era that had three of the greatest of all time standing in his way. Pretty impressive if you ask me. If those guys were so good, why didn't they do as well as Ferrer? Or why didn't they last as long as he is?

 

[isabelle]

Nalby

 

[Federberg]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly that Davydenko was a better player. I also think that Rios, Mecir, Soderling and Nalbandian are too. I guess some clarification needs to made about whether we're talking talent or achievement. Ferrer is huge on achievement, but as we all acknowledge what makes him impressive is that he may not be as talented as some of the others in that list

Ferrer may not be as talented as some of those others were, but his qualities were in his commitment to keeping himself in shape, his determination to outlast his opponent, his ability to keep away from major injuries, etc. Whatever his qualities may be, they helped him lass this long and do just as well or better in an era that had three of the greatest of all time standing in his way. Pretty impressive if you ask me. If those guys were so good, why didn't they do as well as Ferrer? Or why didn't they last as long as he is?

Good points. Mecir didn't last long because of injury I believe. Rios was a fruit cake and we all know about Soderling. So there are some mitigating circumstances for at least some of them. Admittedly Ferrer's longevity is also a talent in itself

 

[atttomole]

Nalbandian, Rios, Berdych and Davydenko.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree wholeheartedly that Davydenko was a better player. I also think that Rios, Mecir, Soderling and Nalbandian are too. I guess some clarification needs to made about whether we're talking talent or achievement. Ferrer is huge on achievement, but as we all acknowledge what makes him impressive is that he may not be as talented as some of the others in that list

Ferrer may not be as talented as some of those others were, but his qualities were in his commitment to keeping himself in shape, his determination to outlast his opponent, his ability to keep away from major injuries, etc. Whatever his qualities may be, they helped him lass this long and do just as well or better in an era that had three of the greatest of all time standing in his way. Pretty impressive if you ask me. If those guys were so good, why didn't they do as well as Ferrer? Or why didn't they last as long as he is?

Good points. Mecir didn't last long because of injury I believe. Rios was a fruit cake and we all know about Soderling. So there are some mitigating circumstances for at least some of them. Admittedly Ferrer's longevity is also a talent in itself

I loved Mecir's game and court movement! Still looking to see Becker upset of '86 USO semi! Becker had a lead, I passed out due to my apnea, and the next thing I know it's "MP Miloslov!" I check Classic ESPN all the time and they have played other matches besides finals, but for some reason that one is never re-telecast! :cover :nono

 

[El Dude]

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.

The title of the thread is "greatest" not "most talented." We're back to the old "Does greatest mean total career achievements or talent/peak level at their very best?" To me it really has to be the former, because truly great players are more than just peak talent - they also have endurance, longevity, health, diligence, strong-mindedness, etc. Otherwise we're separating out one component of greatness, and a component that is very difficult to determine - especially when we're talking about players that are long retired.

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

Don't forget that the computer rankings only started in 1973. Okker would have been in the top ten at least four more years, so that gives him six total.

 

[Riotbeard]

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.

The title of the thread is "greatest" not "most talented." We're back to the old "Does greatest mean total career achievements or talent/peak level at their very best?" To me it really has to be the former, because truly great players are more than just peak talent - they also have endurance, longevity, health, diligence, strong-mindedness, etc. Otherwise we're separating out one component of greatness, and a component that is very difficult to determine - especially when we're talking about players that are long retired.

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

Don't forget that the computer rankings only started in 1973. Okker would have been in the top ten at least four more years, so that gives him six total.

I hear ya about longevity near the top, but that should only be one component. Davydenko and Nalbandian only spent one less year to date in the top 10 and had many more significant titles than Ferrer.

 

[Front242]

Yeah, gotta say the fact that Ferrer is leading the poll is a bit laughable, sorry.

 

[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.

The title of the thread is "greatest" not "most talented." We're back to the old "Does greatest mean total career achievements or talent/peak level at their very best?" To me it really has to be the former, because truly great players are more than just peak talent - they also have endurance, longevity, health, diligence, strong-mindedness, etc. Otherwise we're separating out one component of greatness, and a component that is very difficult to determine - especially when we're talking about players that are long retired.

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

Don't forget that the computer rankings only started in 1973. Okker would have been in the top ten at least four more years, so that gives him six total.

I was going to ask you about that El Dude. Seems like I saw some rankings for the years before the ATP rankings started in 1973. Do have any links to those rankings?

 

[Newtownbarry]

uzzled


I am voting. For TOM Okker. He actually was in top ten for 7 consecutive years from 1968-1974 and won 31 singles titles and 78 doubles titles (a record for 23 years) but ATP only came into existence when he was 29 so has not been credited with some of his wins. He also had to miss Wimbledon in 1972 when WCT players were banned and in 1973 because of the Pilic ban, when he was at his best. He missed some French Opens because World Team Tennis players were banned. Was runner to Arthur Ashe in 1968 in 5 sets and reached the SF of the four slams also. Has a winning record against Stan Smith, Jan Kodes and Guillermo Vilas as well as having broken even with Nastase. Probably at a disadvantage because nobody under 50 has seen him play.

OK, I somewhat obsessively crunched some more numbers and put a bunch of players through the same formula that I used to rank players in my nation series. It is more detailed, including all Slam results (from Wins to 2R), titles, and year-end rankings. Here is the list, with the point totals for comparison's sake:

1. Ferrer 390
2. Okker ~350*
3. Davydenko 311
4. Berdych 272
5. Gottfried 270
6. Rios 258
7. Nalbandian 257
8. Solomon 256
9. Corretja 253
10. Tsonga 252
11. Henman 248
12. Haas 246
13. Enqvist 231
14. Robredo 225
15. Ramirez 224
16. Martin 222
17. Mecir 210
.... Medvedev 192
.... Philippoussis 178
.... Soderling 174

*incomplete data; a lot of estimation

A couple things. One, I'm fairly certain that 1-17 is complete, but my guess is that there are players that slot in after Mecir and before Soderling.

Two, as you can see, like the simpler system, this one likes longevity over players with short but excellent careers, like Miroslav Mecir (who might have had the highest peak of any player on this list).

Finally, I think it is interesting how clumped together most players are, at least from Berdych down to around Mecir, but especially in the #6-12 range. I think with some error in the system and the fact that it doesn't take into account everything, you could slide people around within those ranges.

But in conclusion, I think it is clear that here are three real contenders for best player never to win a Slam: Ferrer, Okker, and Davydenko. Ferrer and Davydenko are similar - very consistent players with tremendous longevity, but not amazing peaks. Okker is from a different era, playing from the mid-60s to early 80s and thus played during a time when a lot of players skipped the Australian Open and French Open. I think if he had played more of those tournaments his overall number would be equal or higher than Ferrer's.

My vote goes to Tom Okker, with David Ferrer a close second.

 

[Kirijax]

uzzled


I am voting. For TOM Okker. He actually was in top ten for 7 consecutive years from 1968-1974 and won 31 singles titles and 78 doubles titles (a record for 23 years) but ATP only came into existence when he was 29 so has not been credited with some of his wins. He also had to miss Wimbledon in 1972 when WCT players were banned and in 1973 because of the Pilic ban, when he was at his best. He missed some French Opens because World Team Tennis players were banned. Was runner to Arthur Ashe in 1968 in 5 sets and reached the SF of the four slams also. Has a winning record against Stan Smith, Jan Kodes and Guillermo Vilas as well as having broken even with Nastase. Probably at a disadvantage because nobody under 50 has seen him play.

OK, I somewhat obsessively crunched some more numbers and put a bunch of players through the same formula that I used to rank players in my nation series. It is more detailed, including all Slam results (from Wins to 2R), titles, and year-end rankings. Here is the list, with the point totals for comparison's sake:

1. Ferrer 390
2. Okker ~350*
3. Davydenko 311
4. Berdych 272
5. Gottfried 270
6. Rios 258
7. Nalbandian 257
8. Solomon 256
9. Corretja 253
10. Tsonga 252
11. Henman 248
12. Haas 246
13. Enqvist 231
14. Robredo 225
15. Ramirez 224
16. Martin 222
17. Mecir 210
.... Medvedev 192
.... Philippoussis 178
.... Soderling 174

*incomplete data; a lot of estimation

A couple things. One, I'm fairly certain that 1-17 is complete, but my guess is that there are players that slot in after Mecir and before Soderling.

Two, as you can see, like the simpler system, this one likes longevity over players with short but excellent careers, like Miroslav Mecir (who might have had the highest peak of any player on this list).

Finally, I think it is interesting how clumped together most players are, at least from Berdych down to around Mecir, but especially in the #6-12 range. I think with some error in the system and the fact that it doesn't take into account everything, you could slide people around within those ranges.

But in conclusion, I think it is clear that here are three real contenders for best player never to win a Slam: Ferrer, Okker, and Davydenko. Ferrer and Davydenko are similar - very consistent players with tremendous longevity, but not amazing peaks. Okker is from a different era, playing from the mid-60s to early 80s and thus played during a time when a lot of players skipped the Australian Open and French Open. I think if he had played more of those tournaments his overall number would be equal or higher than Ferrer's.

My vote goes to Tom Okker, with David Ferrer a close second.

Welcome to Tennis Frontier Newtownbarry! And also for the info on Tom Okker. I was going with Open Era players so the players who were active in the 60s and early 70s definitely get the short end of the stick sometimes. If you have any links to the yearly rankings before the ATP rankings came out, I would be very grateful if you posted it! El Dude is our tennis history expert and knows what he's talking about! You guys voted for Okker so the rest of us definitely need to catch up on some Okker!

I found the 1968 US Open final between Ashe and Okker so i posted it here.

 

[Fiero425]

^^Very informative! I didn't start watching tennis on TV until '73! "Thanks Newtown; will make my blog!"

 

[Moxie]

I hear ya about longevity near the top, but that should only be one component. Davydenko and Nalbandian only spent one less year to date in the top 10 and had many more significant titles than Ferrer.

Yeah, gotta say the fact that Ferrer is leading the poll is a bit laughable, sorry.

I don't know that it's fair to say that Davydenko and Nalbandian have "many" more significant titles than Ferrer. Davy won a YEC and 3 MS, yes, but 16 of his 21 titles were in 250s. He also had no grass titles, and never made a Major final. Nalby has 1 YEC and 2 MS, 1 Major final and he never won a grass title, either. Ferrer has 25 titles, of which 9 are 500s. He's won titles on grass, clay and HCs. He's also made 5 Major SFs and 9 QFs, to Davydenko's 4 and 6, or Nalbandian's 4 and 5. He's certainly been close to winning a Major more often than those 2.

I'm not making the case for Ferrer as the one answer to the question, but it's surely not "laughable" that he leads the poll. The question isn't about whether or not you like their playing style. I noticed even Soderling got a couple of mentions on the thread, and one of his "talents" was being 6'4".

 

[Kirijax]

Could longevity be as great a talent as beautiful strokes or technique? To be able to take care of yourself, know your limits, pace yourself and have the body that can withstand the hardships of the tour is underrated maybe?

 

[Moxie]

Could longevity be as great a talent as beautiful strokes or technique? To be able to take care of yourself, know your limits, pace yourself and have the body that can withstand the hardships of the tour is underrated maybe?

Longevity is admirable, but I don't think that's the opposite comparison to beautiful strokes/technique. Fabrice Santoro is the example. He was 21 years on your, had a record 70 appearances in GSs, and was a crazy and entertaining shot-maker. But he didn't have the results. I would say the opposite number to contrast with lovely technique is solid wins. Win "ugly" or "pretty," it's all the same. But a lot of pretty without the results is just indulging in bonbons, whereas wins. the meat and potatoes are the wins.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Longevity is a talent of sort, sure. It doesn't happen by coincidence. But the main factor in this context is "never winning a slam." So in that regard, greatness is measured with relation to slams, and whether a player was expected to win one, or was good enough to win one, etc...

As such, talent and capabilities are going to be factored in more than longevity. Yes, Ferrer's longevity is amazing, but say, Nalbandian had a much higher ceiling that was more likely to carry him to winning slams, but he didn't win one.

 

[Kirijax]

Could longevity be as great a talent as beautiful strokes or technique? To be able to take care of yourself, know your limits, pace yourself and have the body that can withstand the hardships of the tour is underrated maybe?

Longevity is admirable, but I don't think that's the opposite comparison to beautiful strokes/technique. Fabrice Santoro is the example. He was 21 years on your, had a record 70 appearances in GSs, and was a crazy and entertaining shot-maker. But he didn't have the results. I would say the opposite number to contrast with lovely technique is solid wins. Win "ugly" or "pretty," it's all the same. But a lot of pretty without the results is just indulging in bonbons, whereas wins. the meat and potatoes are the wins.

So a player like Ferrer should be given recognition for lasting as long as he has and for having:
24 ATP titles
1 Grand Slam Final Appearance
5 Grand Slam Semifinals
10 Grand Slam Quarterfinals
1 Masters 1000
6 Masters 1000 Finals
9 Masters 1000 Semifinals
1 World Tour Finals Final Appearance
3 Davis Cups
6 (Going on 7) Year-End Top Ten Finishes
Most weeks ever at No. 5 (129 weeks as of July 20, 2015)

Ferrer may not have had brilliance in short burts like Mercir or Rios, but he more than made that up with his commitment to staying on the tour and making the most of his ability. Saying his choice as greatest non-Slam champion is laughable is....laughable.

 

[Newtownbarry]

Re: Tom Okker

If anybody interested there is a bio on TOM Okker at www.stevegtennis.com showing that TOM has won 31 titles and was in the top ten for 10 consecutive years from 1968-1974. Steve is a tennis analyst/historian . One of the interesting parts of his website is that he also does head to head results for all the players. Here Nadal has a fantastic record against Federer.

 

[Kieran]

Re: Tom Okker

If anybody interested there is a bio on TOM Okker at www.stevegtennis.com showing that TOM has won 31 titles and was in the top ten for 10 consecutive years from 1968-1974. Steve is a tennis analyst/historian . One of the interesting parts of his website is that he also does head to head results for all the players. Here Nadal has a fantastic record against Federer.

I was on that site just yesterday, looking up old H2H stuff relating to Borg, it's very good...