The Greatest Non-Slam Champion of the Open Era

[El Dude]

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

Welcome to the forum.

I find Stevegtennis virtually unusable. I can't find any info on Tom Okker's ranking history.

 

[Kirijax]

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

Welcome to the forum.

I find Stevegtennis virtually unusable. I can't find any info on Tom Okker's ranking history.

I tried this and that and this again. Could not find anything.

 

[El Dude]

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.

But see, now you're narrowing the definition beyond what the thread title says: "Greatest non-Slam Champion of the Open Era." Let's unpack that:

"non-Slam Champion" is easy - a player who never won a Slam.

Open Era is from the French Open in 1968 to the present.

The whole thing hinges on "greatest," which is an open-ended term. But I think it makes more sense to look at it broadly than to narrow it down like you did, as in "the player who had the best chance of winning a Slam but didn't." That also opens the door to other factors, like era and competition - which a player cannot control. For instance, Albert Costa won a Slam in 2002, in the weak era of the late 90s and early 00s, and wasn't the player that many on that list were or are.

I hear the argument about Rios, but I find his Slam record far less impressive than Ferrer considering that Rios peak when Sampras was slipping, while Ferrer was/is at his best during the era of the Big Four.

So I think the question of the thread relates, or should relate, to greatest player as a whole - that is, based upon career achievements. We can then look at numbers and come up with an answer, like I did with my formula. Another question might be, "Who was the most talented player never to win a Slam?" That would be more subjective.

 

[Kirijax]

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.

But see, now you're narrowing the definition beyond what the thread title says: "Greatest non-Slam Champion of the Open Era." Let's unpack that:

"non-Slam Champion" is easy - a player who never won a Slam.

Open Era is from the French Open in 1968 to the present.

The whole thing hinges on "greatest," which is an open-ended term. But I think it makes more sense to look at it broadly than to narrow it down like you did, as in "the player who had the best chance of winning a Slam but didn't." That also opens the door to other factors, like era and competition - which a player cannot control. For instance, Albert Costa won a Slam in 2002, in the weak era of the late 90s and early 00s, and wasn't the player that many on that list were or are.

I hear the argument about Rios, but I find his Slam record far less impressive than Ferrer considering that Rios peak when Sampras was slipping, while Ferrer was/is at his best during the era of the Big Four.

So I think the question of the thread relates, or should relate, to greatest player as a whole - that is, based upon career achievements. We can then look at numbers and come up with an answer, like I did with my formula. Another question might be, "Who was the most talented player never to win a Slam?" That would be more subjective.

Thank you Mr. Dude. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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:

I think we should throw away immediately anyone who has not reached a GS final from the discussion. It does not matter how many times they reach SF, I would not put them on top of the hill (Sorry, Henman).

Of course, this has the undesirable effect of throwing Davy out and keeping Ferru in. But, I am willing to digest it in the name of objectivity (as long as Ferrer does not win lot). What was the uncertainty level in the outcome of the RG final match when Ferrer made it there? :laydownlaughing

 

[the AntiPusher]

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

He won the Australian Open in 1977.

Whew, thanks for the update

 

[Moxie]

I think we should throw away immediately anyone who has not reached a GS final from the discussion. It does not matter how many times they reach SF, I would not put them on top of the hill (Sorry, Henman).

Of course, this has the undesirable effect of throwing Davy out and keeping Ferru in. But, I am willing to digest it in the name of objectivity (as long as Ferrer does not win lot). What was the uncertainty level in the outcome of the RG final match when Ferrer made it there? :laydownlaughing

You can laugh, but you have to be in the final to have a chance. Ask Gaston Gaudio. Or even Stan Wawrinka at the AO. Anything can happen.

An individual can discount for themselves someone who never made a Slam final without mandating it as a requirement for consideration. Personally, I always thought of Davydenko as a pretty workmanlike player, much in the way of Ferrer. He punched above his weight. You just like his style of play better.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I think kevin curren reached 2 major finals..ao1984, w1985.

 

[Kirijax]

I think kevin curren reached 2 major finals..ao1984, w1985.

He reached the '84 AO (lost to Wilander) and the '85 Wimbledon (lost to Becker) if I remember correctly. But I didn't include him because he won only a handful of titles.

 

[Fiero425]

I think kevin curren reached 2 major finals..ao1984, w1985.

He reached the '84 AO (lost to Wilander) and the '85 Wimbledon (lost to Becker) if I remember correctly. But I didn't include him because he won only a handful of titles.

Curren was one of those players that was quite average, but if he was "in the zone" and serving out of his mind; he could embarrass anyone! He was very fluid in his play and sometime you could be mesmerized by it! Along the way at that '85 Wimbledon, he took out Connors and McEnroe in "straights!" They couldn't touch his serve and his volleying was impeccable! I can still see John rolling around on the grass; made me think he was on drugs at the time! He didn't seem like himself; worse yet didn't seem to care! :eyepop :nono :angel:

 

[Kirijax]

Just wondered what the record is for number of years in the top ten without a Slam. If Ferrer can stay in there this year, it will be his seventh year. Has to be or if not getting near the record.

 

[isabelle]

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 don't think Ferrer is an overachiever, with the talent he has, he should have won mor big tourneys than he did and played more than 1 GS's final . He could have done better but he seems to lack of selfconfidence : once a journalist asked him if he thought to be able to win a GS, he looked surprised and answered : Oh no, I'm not good enought . Typically Ferrer's answer !! He doesn't seem to realize the potential he has, for me he's an underachiever because he's just too modest

 

[britbox]

I can't go with Ferrer because I never felt he had it in him to win a slam even at his best regardless of whether he made the final or not. Nalbandian, Rios and Mecir all had a much higher ceiling than Ferrer even if they were less consistent.

 

[isabelle]

I can't go with Ferrer because I never felt he had it in him to win a slam even at his best regardless of whether he made the final or not. Nalbandian, Rios and Mecir all had a much higher ceiling than Ferrer even if they were less consistent.

Both Mecir and Nalby were plagued by various injuries, that's probably why they missed some parts of the seasons. Impossible to be consistent if you're injured all the time

 

[jhar26]

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 don't think Ferrer is an overachiever, with the talent he has, he should have won mor big tourneys than he did and played more than 1 GS's final . He could have done better but he seems to lack of selfconfidence : once a journalist asked him if he thought to be able to win a GS, he looked surprised and answered : Oh no, I'm not good enought . Typically Ferrer's answer !! He doesn't seem to realize the potential he has, for me he's an underachiever because he's just too modest

One probably could say that Ferrer has often been a mental midget when facing one of the big four and a mental giant against anyone else. But I think there's more to it than that. Early on in slams David has to invest so much physical and emotional energy to get through that he's spend by the time that he gets to the business end of them. And then there's the old cliche that he lacks the big weapon which you need to worry the best of the best.

 

[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 don't think Ferrer is an overachiever, with the talent he has, he should have won mor big tourneys than he did and played more than 1 GS's final . He could have done better but he seems to lack of selfconfidence : once a journalist asked him if he thought to be able to win a GS, he looked surprised and answered : Oh no, I'm not good enought . Typically Ferrer's answer !! He doesn't seem to realize the potential he has, for me he's an underachiever because he's just too modest

One probably could say that Ferrer has often been a mental midget when facing one of the big four and a mental giant against anyone else. But I think there's more to it than that. Early on in slams David has to invest so much physical and emotional energy to get through that he's spend by the time that he gets to the business end of them. And then there's the old cliche that he lacks the big weapon which you need to worry the best of the best.

Nah... that won't wash jhar. Mr Energiser Bunny isn't losing to the top guys because of stamina issues. Most of his matches against Federer are mercifully quick for him. He has a decent record against Murray. He's caused a few problems to Novak, but that was some time ago. And once in a blue moon he beats Rafa

 

[Newtownbarry]

Kirjax TOM Okker was 7 years in top ten so Ferrar would have to do 8 years. Also not improbable, Ferer could still win a slam! He is as good as Cilic. Luck plays a part also!

 

[Federberg]

^Against the field he's better than Cilic. But on his best day... which is what is needed in a slam final, he doesn't come close to what Cilic can bring forth. But I don't think anyone would argue that his default level is higher than Marin's

 

[Riotbeard]

^Against the field he's better than Cilic. But on his best day... which is what is needed in a slam final, he doesn't come close to what Cilic can bring forth. But I don't think anyone would argue that his default level is higher than Marin's

I think you meant isn't higher.

 

[Federberg]

^Against the field he's better than Cilic. But on his best day... which is what is needed in a slam final, he doesn't come close to what Cilic can bring forth. But I don't think anyone would argue that his default level is higher than Marin's

I think you meant isn't higher.

No I meant his tournament to tournament level is higher than Cilic's. What I mean is that at the start of a tournament who would you think will go deeper? I think most would bet on Ferrer. But if we're talking a slam, at this stage, I suspect that most would rather place an outside punt on Cilic winning the whole thing. When Marin is good, he's better than Ferrer can ever be. But most of the time Ferrer is likely to go deeper. Does that make sense?