The Greatest Non-Slam Champion of the Open Era

[Kirijax]

One of our followers on Twitter just posted a link to a Tweet Sky Sports Tennis did last year. Quite a few responded. Here are the results:

Sky Sports Tennis
‏@SkySportsTennis
We're debating who the greatest players to have never won a Grand Slam are. Keep the suggestions coming in!

Ferrer 13
Henman 8
Nalbandian 6
Rios 5
Tsonga 3
Soderling 2
Davydenko 2
Martin 1
Corretja 1
Philippoussis 1
Curren 1
Monfils 1
Pioline 1
Mecir 1

Ferrer is still up there. But probably because he is current and everyone knows him.

 

[Federberg]

I have a lot of sympathy for someone like Davydenko moving a bit higher. Without too much thought it seems to me he put up more resistance that Ferrer has done to the top guys. I could be wrong. Also I would still consider Mecir a lot more highly than results might indicate. That guy was of the very highest quality imho

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ has a certain british/contemporary bias.

i'd like to go with Mecir, but i don't really think his results really back that up (Olympics wasn't all that much back then - but he did beat Stefan Edberg in a five setter in the semis...=)

 

[Kirijax]

^ has a certain british/contemporary bias.

i'd like to go with Mecir, but i don't really think his results really back that up (Olympics wasn't all that much back then - but he did beat Stefan Edberg in a five setter in the semis...=)

Definitely. You can tell by all the votes Henman got. :snicker Mecir was so good but so short-lived.

 

[El Dude]

Kirijax, there isn't a good source for rankings before 1973. Wikipedia has this page, which gives world number ones going back to 1877, including runners-up and, in some cases, more.

I also found a discussion on Mens Tennis Forums in which someone posted top 10 rankings according to the 1972 USTA encyclopedia, from 1968-71. Look about halfway down the page. Unfortunately it doesn't have 1972.

According to that list, Okker was #4 in 1968 and 1969, #7 in 1970 and 1971. He might have slipped out of the top 10 in 1972, as he only played in one Slam and just made it to the 3R, but he did win 6 other tournaments so he probably slipped in. Adding in his #4 ranking in 1973 and #6 in 1974 and that's probably top 10 from 1968 to 1974, or seven years in a row.

 

[Kirijax]

Kirijax, there isn't a good source for rankings before 1973. Wikipedia has this page, which gives world number ones going back to 1877, including runners-up and, in some cases, more.

I also found a discussion on Mens Tennis Forums in which someone posted top 10 rankings according to the 1972 USTA encyclopedia, from 1968-71. Look about halfway down the page. Unfortunately it doesn't have 1972.

According to that list, Okker was #4 in 1968 and 1969, #7 in 1970 and 1971. He might have slipped out of the top 10 in 1972, as he only played in one Slam and just made it to the 3R, but he did win 6 other tournaments so he probably slipped in. Adding in his #4 ranking in 1973 and #6 in 1974 and that's probably top 10 from 1968 to 1974, or seven years in a row.

Thanks El Dude. I saw the Wiki list of No. 1s. Someone told me the info would be on stevegtennis.com but I haven't been able to find it.

 

[jhar26]

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

That's because everyone defines "the greatest" differently. Some would say that it's the guys with the best results. Others would say that it's longevity (which makes sense because you can have more great results over ten years than two or three). And then you have those who argue in favor of those who had (in their opinion) the most potential or talent (which is of course hard to define itself). But what is talent worth if it doesn't allow you to do better than someone with less talent but better results?

 

[britbox]

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

That's because everyone defines "the greatest" differently. Some would say that it's the guys with the best results. Others would say that it's longevity (which makes sense because you can have more great results over ten years than two or three). And then you have those who argue in favor of those who had (in their opinion) the most potential or talent (which is of course hard to define itself). But what is talent worth if it doesn't allow you to do better than someone with less talent but better results?

Fair call. I prefer the "best player to have never won a slam" and there are three candidates a tad higher than the rest - Mecir, Rios and Nalbandian.

 

[El Dude]

Here's another problem with greatest = best/most talented, rather than career achievements. It can only be based largely on memory and subjectivity. If the focus is on career achievements, we can actually look that stuff up. If we're talking about best/most talented, then we have to rely upon memory and hearsay from old guys like Fiero.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about talent, but that it should only be a factor within overall greatness, that greatness includes talent, longevity, endurance, health, mentality, and a ton of other factors, and is generally well represented by a player's statistical record.

A historical example that I know Kieran is fond of would be comparing Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall. From what folks like Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, and Rosewall himself say, Hoad was possibly the most talented player of his era. But he wasn't nearly as great as Rosewall, because he lacked so many of the factors that Rosewall had that led him to have such a long and illustrious career.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

When we are talking about "the best player to have never won a slam", surely a huge weight should be given to player who had come close to winning a slam and/or whose games are known to cause trouble or at least stand up to the favorites. To me, that is more important than other achievements like total number of titles or even number of Masters title.

We all know that Ferrer has no chance (nada, nil) of winning a GS standing up to members of big four or for that matte even Stan. On this alone Ferrer's large number of votes is laughable. It is not about me not liking his style of play (although it is true). It is about assessing reasonably whether he had a puncher's chance of winning a GS, even though he never won.

Surely Davy is better than Ferrer in that regard. However, Davy has never even reached a GS final. Hence, I would not give the award to Davy either. I would give it to Nalby, among the new crop of players. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the old timers in the list and so I choose not to vote (to prevent recent bias). But, I think Mecir probably should win it.

 

[Fiero425]

When we are talking about "the best player to have never won a slam", surely a huge weight should be given to player who had come close to winning a slam and/or whose games are known to cause trouble or at least stand up to the favorites. To me, that is more important than other achievements like total number of titles or even number of Masters title.

We all know that Ferrer has no chance (nada, nil) of winning a GS standing up to members of big four or for that matte even Stan. On this alone Ferrer's large number of votes is laughable. It is not about me not liking his style of play (although it is true). It is about assessing reasonably whether he had a puncher's chance of winning a GS, even though he never won.

Surely Davy is better than Ferrer in that regard. However, Davy has never even reached a GS final. Hence, I would not give the award to Davy either. I would give it to Nalby, among the new crop of players. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the old timers in the list and so I choose not to vote (to prevent recent bias). But, I think Mecir probably should win it.

I can tell you you can take Gottfried off the list! He was a solid enough player, but he was quite classic; no real weapon, but could serve and volley and made more of a name for himself playing doubles with Raul Ramirez! He made the FO final in '77, but BORG wasn't there along with other top players! You already mentioned Davy never even made a major final so he's out too! Mecir is my fave, upsetting Boris Becker at '86 USO semi before going out in "straights" to Lendl! :angel: :dodgy: - He could actually worry top players when on his game and actually beat Lendl in best of 5 in '87 at the Lipton Int'l! Checking stats, I forgot he won the GOLD medal at Seoul Olympics in '88 and defeated McEnroe to win the WCT Chp. in '87! OTTH, I don't think anyone else accomplished this much along with making 2 major finals! :clap

 

[Federberg]

When we are talking about "the best player to have never won a slam", surely a huge weight should be given to player who had come close to winning a slam and/or whose games are known to cause trouble or at least stand up to the favorites. To me, that is more important than other achievements like total number of titles or even number of Masters title.

We all know that Ferrer has no chance (nada, nil) of winning a GS standing up to members of big four or for that matte even Stan. On this alone Ferrer's large number of votes is laughable. It is not about me not liking his style of play (although it is true). It is about assessing reasonably whether he had a puncher's chance of winning a GS, even though he never won.

Surely Davy is better than Ferrer in that regard. However, Davy has never even reached a GS final. Hence, I would not give the award to Davy either. I would give it to Nalby, among the new crop of players. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the old timers in the list and so I choose not to vote (to prevent recent bias). But, I think Mecir probably should win it.

I have to agree with this. Rios, Mecir and Nalbandian all had at least a punchers chance of winning slams. Put it this way... if any of those guys had won slams it wouldn't have been out of place. If Ferrer had (or does) win one, we would all be.... whaaaaat???

 

[GameSetAndMath]

May be we could give the "best player with no chance of winning a GS at any point in his career" award.

 

[Newtownbarry]

I have been following tennis since 1965 and there is no doubt in my mind that Okker is far superior to the rest both in style and wins. He has 31 single wins and 78 doubles (his doubles was a record for 23 years until the Woodies came along and they were doubles specialists, while Okker was both). His highest ranking was 3 in 1969. He also played with very tough opposition. When he turned professional his opponents were Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Ken Rosewall, Fred Stolle, Jan Kodes, Stan Smith, John Newcombe, Tony Roche and Illie Nastase and of course Arthur Ashe. Then when he was 30 in 1974 along came Jimmy Connors, Adriano Panatta, Guillermo Vilas,Vitas Gerulaitis, Bjorn Borg, John MCEnroe and finally Ivan Lendl. He played until he was37 and had a winning record against Rosewall, Kodes, Smith, Vilas, Panatta, Newcombe and broke even with Nastase. He beat Borg in Stovkholm and Rotterdam but lost to him in Wimbledon SF 1978 at 34 and QF in 1979 at 35 and both times Borg won the title. In 1980 he lost 3R to McEnroe and Mack went on to play that great final against Borg with the 20-18 tiebreak .

It is obvious that he is the outstanding player without a slam. It is thought that he played too. U h tennis and World Team Tennis. And didn't focus on the slams as rare.y played in Australian or French open but was a semi finalist in both. He is also won grand slam doubles in oth USOpen and French Open as well as playing in final at Wimbledon at a time when all the top players played doubles.

As a lot of members of this Forum have not seen him play, in fairness to him, maybe he should be excluded, and run the poll from 1973 onwards.

 

[Federberg]

I have been following tennis since 1965 and there is no doubt in my mind that Okker is far superior to the rest both in style and wins. He has 31 single wins and 78 doubles (his doubles was a record for 23 years until the Woodies came along and they were doubles specialists, while Okker was both). His highest ranking was 3 in 1969. He also played with very tough opposition. When he turned professional his opponents were Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Ken Rosewall, Fred Stolle, Jan Kodes, Stan Smith, John Newcombe, Tony Roche and Illie Nastase and of course Arthur Ashe. Then when he was 30 in 1974 along came Jimmy Connors, Adriano Panatta, Guillermo Vilas,Vitas Gerulaitis, Bjorn Borg, John MCEnroe and finally Ivan Lendl. He played until he was37 and had a winning record against Rosewall, Kodes, Smith, Vilas, Panatta, Newcombe and broke even with Nastase. He beat Borg in Stovkholm and Rotterdam but lost to him in Wimbledon SF 1978 at 34 and QF in 1979 at 35 and both times Borg won the title. In 1980 he lost 3R to McEnroe and Mack went on to play that great final against Borg with the 20-18 tiebreak .

It is obvious that he is the outstanding player without a slam. It is thought that he played too. U h tennis and World Team Tennis. And didn't focus on the slams as rare.y played in Australian or French open but was a semi finalist in both. He is also won grand slam doubles in oth USOpen and French Open as well as playing in final at Wimbledon at a time when all the top players played doubles.

As a lot of members of this Forum have not seen him play, in fairness to him, maybe he should be excluded, and run the poll from 1973 onwards.

Thanks Newtonbarry. Welcome to the forum by the way. Very interesting posts.

I don't see any reason why he should be excluded if he straddled the Open era. My lack of firsthand experience of him exposes my natural biases But you have made an excellent case, and I would happily cede the issue in favour of Okker. Sounds like he was some player!

 

[Newtownbarry]

El Dude I actually had to google "Tom Okker + Stevegtennis" to get OKKER'S number of titles and number of times in top ten. Before 1973 and computerisation it was generally compiled for World Tennis Magazine by Bud Collins or Lance Tingay two tennis journalists who attended all the tournaments. At that time there were never two tournaments on grog ether, so it was relatively easy to attend all. So it was done by one British and one American journalist. Obviously they would disagree a bit now and then,but only by maybe one placing, or at the most two.

Love the Forum. Only discovered this week

 

[jhar26]

I have been following tennis since 1965 and there is no doubt in my mind that Okker is far superior to the rest both in style and wins. He has 31 single wins and 78 doubles (his doubles was a record for 23 years until the Woodies came along and they were doubles specialists, while Okker was both). His highest ranking was 3 in 1969. He also played with very tough opposition. When he turned professional his opponents were Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Ken Rosewall, Fred Stolle, Jan Kodes, Stan Smith, John Newcombe, Tony Roche and Illie Nastase and of course Arthur Ashe. Then when he was 30 in 1974 along came Jimmy Connors, Adriano Panatta, Guillermo Vilas,Vitas Gerulaitis, Bjorn Borg, John MCEnroe and finally Ivan Lendl. He played until he was37 and had a winning record against Rosewall, Kodes, Smith, Vilas, Panatta, Newcombe and broke even with Nastase. He beat Borg in Stovkholm and Rotterdam but lost to him in Wimbledon SF 1978 at 34 and QF in 1979 at 35 and both times Borg won the title. In 1980 he lost 3R to McEnroe and Mack went on to play that great final against Borg with the 20-18 tiebreak .

It is obvious that he is the outstanding player without a slam. It is thought that he played too. U h tennis and World Team Tennis. And didn't focus on the slams as rare.y played in Australian or French open but was a semi finalist in both. He is also won grand slam doubles in oth USOpen and French Open as well as playing in final at Wimbledon at a time when all the top players played doubles.

As a lot of members of this Forum have not seen him play, in fairness to him, maybe he should be excluded, and run the poll from 1973 onwards.

No, if he had been excluded from the poll you wouldn't have given us this info about Okker which helps putting him into the proper context. What is said in a poll-thread is always more interesting and informative than who ends up with the most votes imo.

 

[Kirijax]

Some really interesting points of view. Not an easy choice but a lot of you guys know what you value as important and explain it well.

But how about putting in your vote for who think gets the title! Ferrer is leading for four measly points.

First player to 20 votes gets the title.

 

[the AntiPusher]

How about Vitas Gerulaitis..although he won Italian Open titles , he never won a slam

 

[Kirijax]

How about Vitas Gerulaitis..although he won Italian Open titles , he never won a slam

He won the Australian Open in 1977.