Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Best male player never to win a Slam (Open Era) - Talk Tennis
Title speaks for itself
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Nalbandian
Davydenko
Haas
Henman
Rios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, although Rios is far from Sampras level, he can easily beat the others by his No.1 and Masters Series achievements.
Henman?
The former great but unlucky player of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, overrated.
Murray just surpassed him so quickly although I like the good guy and dislike the current great but unlucky player of The I don't think Henman is any better than physically vulnerable Haas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are too many players missing in the list.
In the open era, my top choices would be Miloslav Mecir, Kevin Curren, Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin (with the nod to Mecir), none of which is listed.
Among still active players it's Nalbandian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How would Kevin Curren be one of the best to not win a major.
I am pretty sure his Wimbledon final was his only final an he had an incomplete game and could only play on 1 or 2 surfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nalbandian gets s much love around here and yes when he's on, he's great to watch.
But consistency isn't his strength by a long shot.
That for me takes him out of the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : How would Kevin Curren be one of the best to not win a major.
I am pretty sure his Wimbledon final was his only final Check your facts then.
December 1984, Final Australian Open: Mats Wilander vs.
Kevin Curren 67, 64, 76, 62.
And Curren's rund at Wimbleon 1985 was exceptional, wiping the floor with (in sequence):
Round of 16: Edberg 7-6 6-3 7-6
QF: McEnroe (#1 seed, defending champion) 6-2 6-2 6-4
SF: Connors (#3 seed) 6-2 6-2 6-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Henman? The former great but unlucky player of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, overrated.
He made 6 Grand Slam semis, 4 at Wimbledon, where he lost to the winner each time.
Served and volleyed his way to a semi at the French when he was past his prime, and carried the hopes of a nation single handedly for almost a decade.
Not bad, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : He made 6 Grand Slam semis, 4 at Wimbledon, where he lost to the winner each time.
Served and volleyed his way to a semi at the French when he was past his prime, and carried the hopes of a nation single handedly for almost a decade.
Not bad, eh? Henman was a great player but not good enough to be crowned the best non-slam winner ever.
He didn't make a single slam final.
Actually not making a slam final might not be so crucial seeing as a lot of people in this poll haven't.
But I just don't feel he was as good as many others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : henri leconte How could i forget?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before open era, you have Segura.
Then in chronological order Tom Okker (was at least in sf of all majors, won around 30 singles tournaments including Rome, Hamburg and Toronto, held the doubles record for most wins), then Mecir, Leconte and Rios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Quote: =Lionheart392;3797146]Henman was a great player but not good enough to be crowned the best non-slam winner ever.
He didn't make a single slam final.
Actually not making a slam final might not be so crucial seeing as a lot of people in this poll haven't.
But I just don't feel he was as good as many others.[/ Quote: ]
You may be right.
I just think it is unfair to describe him as overrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : You may be right.
I just think it is unfair to describe him as overrated.
I think it depends.
I live in England (as I see you do too) and I feel he was overrated here.
Sure he was the best Brit, but the press and British commentators always made him out to be better than he was which then led to disappointment when he failed to live up to the British hopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Miloslav Mecir.
He's a good choice unless you sort of include his Olympic Gold Medal as a major of sorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Before open era, you have Segura.
Then in chronological order Tom Okker (was at least in sf of all majors, won around 30 singles tournaments including Rome, Hamburg and Toronto, held the doubles record for most wins), then Mecir, Leconte and Rios.
Okker is also a nice choice (although I would not put him above Mecir).
As for Leconte and Rios, it depends who you define "good".
Both were gifted but chronic underachievers, at least at the slams.
There are several players with no major title and yet better careers yet than either of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When asked about Scud, Pat Rafter said that he could have been a multiple slam winner, he just didn't work hard enough.
He had all the tools to be a dominant force in tennis in the late 90's to early 2000's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|