Which "One Slam Wonder" had the best career? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which "One Slam Wonder" had the best career?

tommyg6
01-05-2012, 10:16 PM
Of the choices listed, which had the best career.
Discuss.

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:17 PM
Roddick probably

theKSHE
01-05-2012, 10:23 PM
C'mon, how can you place Juan Martin del Potro there considering his age and everyone else age?

American278
01-05-2012, 10:25 PM
roddick! he was number 1 , has won the davis cup , 30titles , 10years top 10 , 4 other slam finals , 5 slam semi-finals , won titles on all different surfaces

Dougie
01-05-2012, 10:26 PM
Muster, all things considered.

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:26 PM
1. Roddick
2. Muster
3. Moya
4. Ferrero
5. Ivanisevic


Stich and Chang should be on the list

tommyg6
01-05-2012, 10:30 PM
1. Roddick
2. Muster
3. Moya
4. Ferrero
5. Ivanisevic


Stich and Chang should be on the list

actually i wanted to put chang and stich on the list but i only had 10 choices max to put up.

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:31 PM
actually it's close call between Goran, Ferrero and Moya . Spaniards were #1 but Goran had 3 GS finals. maybe Goran has the edge at the end

Johnny Groove
01-05-2012, 10:31 PM
Clearly Roddick, but I voted Ferrero.

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:33 PM
Groove is expert for the lists like this. I would like to hear top 5 between this players and explanations

tommyg6
01-05-2012, 10:35 PM
actually I think Muster had the best career of all these guys. He was ranked no.1 in the world like Roddick, won a Slam and has more titles overall than Roddick.

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:38 PM
4 slams finals for Roddick and all 4 he lost to Fed . This is big . Ferrero lost slam final to Costa, pretty big black spot for me

Saberq
01-05-2012, 10:39 PM
Murray....wait

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:41 PM
Actually Murray with just one tournament could overtake these guys :lol:

buzz
01-05-2012, 10:42 PM
Muster and Roddick are close. When muster was at the top he was more dominant but Roddick stayed at the subtop way longer.

The come Goran Moya and Ferrero, Goran diddn't get to number one but was closer to win more slams

American278
01-05-2012, 10:43 PM
Actually Murray with just one tournament could overtake these guys :lol:

"could"

HKz
01-05-2012, 10:47 PM
Roddick I think takes this one. Several slam finals, reached #1, finished the year #1, something none of the others really achieved together. The others are pretty close together IMO as some have reached multiple slam finals (Ivanisevic/Stich) while others like Muster reached world #1.

tommyg6
01-05-2012, 10:47 PM
I'll breakit down for some of you,

Muster at his very prime, won 12 titles in a single season including his French Open title. Now that's dominance. Muster won 44 titles.

Roddick at his very best won 6 titles including the US Open title. I say Muster had more dominance than the Duck. The Duck won 30 titles and his career nearly looks finished. I say Muster wins in this one. He has more titles and had more dominance than the Duck.

samanosuke
01-05-2012, 10:52 PM
But Roddick had two surface on which he could beat anybody , Muster just one . And 4 slam finals are big difference

Naudio Spanlatine
01-05-2012, 10:54 PM
roddick wins this one big time

tommyg6
01-05-2012, 10:55 PM
roddick wins this one big time

based on what? Muster had 12 more titles than Roddick. He has 44 while he had only 30. That's a big difference there.

Naudio Spanlatine
01-05-2012, 10:56 PM
i dunno who is thomas muster sry:shrug:

HKz
01-05-2012, 10:57 PM
I'll breakit down for some of you,

Muster at his very prime, won 12 titles in a single season including his French Open title. Now that's dominance.

Roddick at his very best won 6 titles including the US Open title. I say Muster had more dominance than the Duck.

11 clay, 1 carpet

I mean nothing to take away from Muster, but I don't see how Roddick could be placed under Muster if he consider their two careers. Yes Muster won many titles, and had an amazing year in 1996, but Roddick has had some good variety of the surfaces in which has won on. Plus, the majority of Muster's titles came from much smaller tournaments while Roddick has a good portion of his coming from at least 500+ events. Factor Roddick's much better slam record of 9 QFs, 5 SFs, 4 RUs, 1 title vs Muster's 5 QFs, 3 SFs, 0 RUs, 1 title and I think it makes Roddick the clear winner here.

i dunno who is thomas muster sry:shrug:

Oh gosh..

l_mac
01-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Probably Djokovic.

Naudio Spanlatine
01-05-2012, 10:58 PM
:facepalm:

Saberq
01-05-2012, 11:00 PM
Probably Djokovic.

when one facepalm is not enough :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

viruzzz
01-05-2012, 11:06 PM
Muster, no doubts.

JediFed
01-05-2012, 11:22 PM
Roddicks slam performance + 30 titles is greater than Muster.

timafi
01-05-2012, 11:59 PM
Roddick got very lucky to won the USO.

I hope he retires this year

HKz
01-06-2012, 12:01 AM
Roddick got very lucky to won the USO.

I hope he retires this year

No he wasn't. Someone like Thomas Johansson I would consider lucky. Roddick made 5 total finals, he wasn't lucky to take one home. He was rather unlucky Federer was in the way.

Saberq
01-06-2012, 12:11 AM
Roddick got very lucky to won the USO.

I hope he retires this year

both english and logic are taking a serious hit today

rocketassist
01-06-2012, 12:40 AM
Personally Ivanisevic. Probably Muster, his 1995 was Spartan-esque.

Deathless Mortal
01-06-2012, 12:49 AM
based on what? Muster had 12 more titles than Roddick. He has 44 while he had only 30. That's a big difference there.

44-30=14 (not 12), in my math book :p

Johnny Groove
01-06-2012, 12:54 AM
Groove is expert for the lists like this. I would like to hear top 5 between this players and explanations

In terms of slam results:

1. Roddick, (1 slam, 4 finals)
2. Chang (1 slam, 3 finals)
3. Ivanisevic (1 slam, 3 finals)
4. Stich (1 slam, 2 finals)
5. Ferrero (1 slam, 2 finals)

Topspindoctor
01-06-2012, 12:57 AM
Duck... he could actually bag another slam if he didn't choke to Olderer in 2009.

Edda
01-06-2012, 01:09 AM
I would say Juan Carlos Ferrero. He won just one slam but, unlike some other players, he had a good overall record in tennis and has an impressive off-court record of accomplishments, including his hotel, part ownership in the Valencia tournament and the Equelite Tennis Academy. I wouldn't call Juanqui your typical "one slam wonder." That definition applies, IMO, to someone who won one slam and then essentially disappeared off the face of the tennis map.

emotion
01-06-2012, 01:17 AM
Between Roddick and Muster

atennisfan
01-06-2012, 02:24 AM
Roddick slam dunk.
if not for Feds he would have won multiple slams.

BroTree123
01-06-2012, 04:26 AM
Obvious choice

Mystique
01-06-2012, 04:50 AM
Roddick easily. 1 GS title, 4 RUPs, multiple semis in 3/4 slams, 1 yr-end Number 1, Top 10 for what 8. 9? years straight, 30 or so career titles, Davis Cup

Roddick has basically been stopped from becoming a "great" player by one man alone.

Mystique
01-06-2012, 04:53 AM
I would say Juan Carlos Ferrero. He won just one slam but, unlike some other players, he had a good overall record in tennis and has an impressive off-court record of accomplishments, including his hotel, part ownership in the Valencia tournament and the Equelite Tennis Academy. I wouldn't call Juanqui your typical "one slam wonder." That definition applies, IMO, to someone who won one slam and then essentially disappeared off the face of the tennis map.

:rolleyes:

Off court activities dont matter shit when assessing a guy's career

Mountaindewslave
01-06-2012, 05:50 AM
actually it's close call between Goran, Ferrero and Moya . Spaniards were #1 but Goran had 3 GS finals. maybe Goran has the edge at the end

how is it close??? I could see an argument MAYBE just MAYBE between Muster and Roddick but obviously ROddick wins. Muster was only good on clay :o

it's also a rumor that Roddick is really bad on clay, he isn't particularly bad just can't beat the best.

Roddick by far is the most accomplished on this list and of these names he is the one who is truly deserving of multiple slams. it is a crime that Roddick may very well end up with only 1 slam to his name, one of the most disjointed talent/slam ratios.

tjohansson
01-06-2012, 06:19 AM
I voted Tojo but I am just biased :).

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 06:32 AM
Its Close between Muster and Roddick but Roddick has a better career. Muster was really good in what he was good,on Clay, better than Roddick in this aspect who was good on Hard courts but Roddick was way better on other Courts than Muster,i.e, on Grass and Clay,whereas Muster won a paltry of Tournaments on Hard court and they were in places like Adelaide and Austria.

Mountaindewslave
01-06-2012, 06:34 AM
based on what? Muster had 12 more titles than Roddick. He has 44 while he had only 30. That's a big difference there.

you obviously know little about tennis if you are seriously saying that because Muster has more 'titles' that he had the better career.

Muster fails to succeed on anything but clay. and for a player who is so one dimensional, he only got one Roland Garros.

Roddick is and was great on hard court AND grass, missing out on multiple Wimbledon titles to the best player of all time. for that matter Roddick is probably better on clay than Muster was on fast courts...

Roddick is a more talented player. what do you remember about Muster? great athleticism? ROddick has one of the best serves in the history of the game, at times an incredible baseline power game, and many GS finals. the only thing Muster has for him is one great clay season that pushed him to #1 and the 1 Grand SLam. every single of muster's tournaments is on clay too what the heck

ROddick had much more success and unlike Muster was able to stay on the top of the game for a decade. Roddick had the better career and acting like Muster's mickey mouse collection means anything is silly.

ROddick = more talented / better on more surfaces / only stopped from becoming a great multi-slam winning player by GOAT / longevity on the top.

the only thing Muster even has that can be argued is his # of titles, but if you look at Roddick's wins they are more impressive. the fact that Muster failed to adapt to any other surface and never made another Grand Slam final says it all...

Roddick is the most impressive of them all and not even close. it's a shame Roddick's career. sad. he could see it in his eyes at WImbledon 2009 because he knows. that he had horrible luck facing the best player of all time in his prime and otherwise may have been a great player in tennis history

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 06:37 AM
But there has to be an aspect of best Career in terms of Potential also. And if that is the case Thomas Muster would be GOAT.

JediFed
01-06-2012, 06:59 AM
Why is this poll missing Chang?

HKz
01-06-2012, 08:06 AM
Its Close between Muster and Roddick but Roddick has a better career. Muster was really good in what he was good,on Clay, better than Roddick in this aspect who was good on Hard courts but Roddick was way better on other Courts than Muster,i.e, on Grass and Clay,whereas Muster won a paltry of Tournaments on Hard court and they were in places like Adelaide and Austria.

Poll is right anyways as Roddick has like 35 votes versus Muster's 5 votes. It was an obvious answer to begin with. However, determining who has the 2nd best career out of those IMO is the better and harder question. While one might be quick to say Muster, he only made 1 GS final and he was pretty much only great on clay arguably, while many players on the list had success across different surfaces and reached several slam finals.

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 09:57 AM
Poll is right anyways as Roddick has like 35 votes versus Muster's 5 votes. It was an obvious answer to begin with. However, determining who has the 2nd best career out of those IMO is the better and harder question. While one might be quick to say Muster, he only made 1 GS final and he was pretty much only great on clay arguably, while many players on the list had success across different surfaces and reached several slam finals.

Okay.. Lets see now



Most of us can agree. Lets put Thomas Johansson out of the Equation and also Del Potro because he is still very young.

(Titles-Won,GS Finals,Year End Championship)
Muster (44,0,0)
Moya (20,1,0)
Goran (22,3,0)
Ferrero (16,1,0)
Gaudio (8,0,0)
Krajicek([17,0,0)
Chang (34,2,0)
Stich (10,2,1)


Between Moya,Muster,Goran,Ferrero,Gaudio,Krajicek




Safe to say that we could remove Gaudio,Ferrero and Krajicek in terms of sheer numbers.Stich stays in there because of 2 GS Finals and one Tour Finals.


Next Round.. Lets consider their Win Loss Percentage

WL %
Muster 69.4
Moya 64.3
Goran 64.3
Chang 68
Stich 68.6


We could remove Goran and Moya in terms of their Win Loss Percentage


Next Round

Muster
Chang
Stich

According to me,its between them. Muster Chang and Stich.

samanosuke
01-06-2012, 10:07 AM
Shinoj, Stich is maybe the most talented from all these guys but he is too high on the list . His carrier on highest level was pretty short for other guys here . This fact should be considered also

samanosuke
01-06-2012, 10:10 AM
how is it close??? I could see an argument MAYBE just MAYBE between Muster and Roddick but obviously ROddick wins. Muster was only good on clay :o

it's also a rumor that Roddick is really bad on clay, he isn't particularly bad just can't beat the best.

Roddick by far is the most accomplished on this list and of these names he is the one who is truly deserving of multiple slams. it is a crime that Roddick may very well end up with only 1 slam to his name, one of the most disjointed talent/slam ratios.

close call between Goran, Moya and Ferrero . Roddick isn't included

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 10:26 AM
Samonosuke, i kinda agree on that but i will see what the numbers would suggest

i will break the Titles down. Will segregate it into Masters titles,Normal Titles and the Grand Slam Finals. Would assign a weightage to all three.

500 for a Normal Title,1000 for a Masters Series and 1500 for a Year End and a 2000 for a Grand Slam Final

(Master Series,Normal Title,Year End Championship,GS Final)

Muster (8,36,0,0)
Chang (7,27,0,2)
Stich (3,7,1,2)

It totals to

Muster 26,000
Chang 24,500
Stich 10,000.

It has to be Muster for me.

In the End

Roddick
Muster
Chang

Game set and Match :wavey:

Dougie
01-06-2012, 10:43 AM
you obviously know little about tennis if you are seriously saying that because Muster has more 'titles' that he had the better career.

Muster fails to succeed on anything but clay. and for a player who is so one dimensional, he only got one Roland Garros.

Roddick is and was great on hard court AND grass, missing out on multiple Wimbledon titles to the best player of all time. for that matter Roddick is probably better on clay than Muster was on fast courts...

Roddick is a more talented player. what do you remember about Muster? great athleticism? ROddick has one of the best serves in the history of the game, at times an incredible baseline power game, and many GS finals. the only thing Muster has for him is one great clay season that pushed him to #1 and the 1 Grand SLam. every single of muster's tournaments is on clay too what the heck

ROddick had much more success and unlike Muster was able to stay on the top of the game for a decade. Roddick had the better career and acting like Muster's mickey mouse collection means anything is silly.

ROddick = more talented / better on more surfaces / only stopped from becoming a great multi-slam winning player by GOAT / longevity on the top.

the only thing Muster even has that can be argued is his # of titles, but if you look at Roddick's wins they are more impressive. the fact that Muster failed to adapt to any other surface and never made another Grand Slam final says it all...

Roddick is the most impressive of them all and not even close. it's a shame Roddick's career. sad. he could see it in his eyes at WImbledon 2009 because he knows. that he had horrible luck facing the best player of all time in his prime and otherwise may have been a great player in tennis history

Itīs you who obviously knows very little about the history of the game. Muster didnīt fail to succeed on anything but clay. Itīs easy to say that if look at his clay record, but thereīs a lot behind the numbers.

He would have had a better career on hard courts, if it wasnīt for that freak accident in 1989 that injured his knee badly. By then he had already made it to the semifinals of the Australian Open, and to the final of Key Biscayne. The fact that he managed to do a comeback is a monumental achievement in itself. But because of the accident, he couldnīt play on hard courts for long periods, it was tough for his body. He was a natural clay courter, but the injury forced him to focus on clay even more than he probably would have otherwise.

Roddick is certainly not better than Muster on more surfaces, itīs just that the surfaces are much more similar nowadays than they were back in the 90īs. If Roddick would have played in that era, he wouldnīt have won a single clay title, with all the traditional clay courters around. Muster, on the other hand, did win Key Biscayne on hard, and Essen on carpet ( both TMS-titles).

You call Roddick horribly unlucky for losing to Federer at Wimbledon? Cry me a river. I call getting hit by a drunken driver and getting your knee busted when youīre 22 and just reached the final at Key Biscayne horribly unlucky. But you never heard Muster whining about it. Thatīs why heīs a warrior who will be remembered as a great player in tennis history.

Hesse
01-06-2012, 11:22 AM
Gaudio of course :superlol:

Lurking
01-06-2012, 11:29 AM
Roddick is certainly not better than Muster on more surfaces, itīs just that the surfaces are much more similar nowadays than they were back in the 90īs. If Roddick would have played in that era, he wouldnīt have won a single clay title, with all the traditional clay courters around.


Andrew Stephen Roddick, if presented with the following draw, could not win a Clay event.

Kiawah Island, SC, U.S.A.; 07.05.1990; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R32 Richard Matuszewski (USA) 149 W 3-6, 6-1, 7-5
R16 Craig Campbell (RSA) 391 W 1-6, 6-3, 7-5
Q Jeff Tarango (USA) 139 W 6-2, 6-7, 7-6
S Alexander Mronz (GER) 170 W 2-6, 7-5, 6-2
W Mark Kaplan (RSA) 168 W 6-4, 6-4

MaxPower
01-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Bit harsh to include Del Potro in the poll. Someone got a crystal ball for the coming 7-8 years i guess. He could grab multiple slams even...

Even Roddick still got a chance. But that chance is more like this

KX5jNnDMfxA

Sophocles
01-06-2012, 11:52 AM
Obviously Roddick, with Muster obviously 2nd.

Not sure why people were talking about Muster's "dominance". Yes, he dominated clay for a couple of seasons, but in neither of his best years did he finish No. 1. He didn't even finish No. 2.

Gillouthe best
01-06-2012, 12:56 PM
Roddick, closely followed by Chang & Ferrero.

American278
01-06-2012, 01:01 PM
Andrew Stephen Roddick, if presented with the following draw, could not win a Clay event.

Kiawah Island, SC, U.S.A.; 07.05.1990; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R32 Richard Matuszewski (USA) 149 W 3-6, 6-1, 7-5
R16 Craig Campbell (RSA) 391 W 1-6, 6-3, 7-5
Q Jeff Tarango (USA) 139 W 6-2, 6-7, 7-6
S Alexander Mronz (GER) 170 W 2-6, 7-5, 6-2
W Mark Kaplan (RSA) 168 W 6-4, 6-4

+1 also many people forget that in his early years roddick wasn't bad on clay..just think of his french open match against chang and the first 2sets against hewitt in the next round til he got injured..!

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 01:07 PM
In this order:

Muster
Ivanisevic
Moya
Roddick
Ferrero
Del Potro
Krajicek
Gaudio
Costa
Johansson

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 01:17 PM
actually it's close call between Goran, Ferrero and Moya . Spaniards were #1 but Goran had 3 GS finals. maybe Goran has the edge at the end

Moya bigiest rival was only #1 without GS, while Ferrero played vs Verkerk in GS final. For God sake, Verkerk. Roddick was #1 in that crises of tennis too. While Ivanisevic played in the best tennis era ever with best player ever in that time, Pete Sampras.

Muster, no doubts.

This.

Samanosuke and other kids were in the pampers at that time.

how is it close??? I could see an argument MAYBE just MAYBE between Muster and Roddick but obviously ROddick wins. Muster was only good on clay :o

it's also a rumor that Roddick is really bad on clay, he isn't particularly bad just can't beat the best.

Roddick by far is the most accomplished on this list and of these names he is the one who is truly deserving of multiple slams. it is a crime that Roddick may very well end up with only 1 slam to his name, one of the most disjointed talent/slam ratios.


Actually Ivanisevic is that one. Roddick has 4 loss in the finals, and he was close just once (in his last final), all lost to Federer. While Ivanisevic was close in all his finals, 2 lost to Sampras and one to Agassi.

American278
01-06-2012, 01:35 PM
Actually Ivanisevic is that one. Roddick has 4 loss in the finals, and he was close just once (in his last final), all lost to Federer. While Ivanisevic was close in all his finals, 2 lost to Sampras and one to Agassi.

you watched the wimbledon 2004 final? THAT was close!

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 01:38 PM
you watched the wimbledon 2004 final? THAT was close!

Even with that Goran was close in 3 of 3 while Andy in just 2 of 4.

American278
01-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Even with that Goran was close in 3 of 3 while Andy in just 2 of 4.

well but all in all 4>3!
and he lost the wimbledon final 1994 7:7 7:6 6:0! then you could easily call andys final at the us open 2006 close;)

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 01:57 PM
well but all in all 4>3!
and he lost the wimbledon final 1994 7:7 7:6 6:0! then you could easily call andys final at the us open 2006 close;)

That could be 2:0 up for Goran while Andy lost 2-6, 6-4, 5-7, 1-6. He could get 2:1 up, which isn't nowhere that close.

Maybe we can consider what is close. It's not enough to just play decider to be close. For me close was when Roddick had set points for 2:0 up in Wimby final 2009. As I remember he was't any close to break ball in the decider. That 2004 Wimbledon final wasn't close. Ivanisevic had one or 2 break balls at 3:3 in 5th set of Wimbly final 1992 vs Agassi. And he had one inch miss for 2:0 up vs Sampras in final of Wimbledon 1998. He had 2 set balls, and the other one maybe was close too. He first had set balls in that set.

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 02:01 PM
In fact after digging out the statistics i found that Muster is criminally under rated. Granted most of his accomp have come on Clay but in terms of sheer numbers his statistics are very very good.

44 titles at the end of the day is not a small figure. The Man must have done something right.

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 02:10 PM
In fact after digging out the statistics i found that Muster is criminally under rated. Granted most of his accomp have come on Clay but in terms of sheer numbers his statistics are very very good.

44 titles at the end of the day is not a small figure. The Man must have done something right.

He was the king of clay when it was 100% impossible to be that if you are not a Spaniard. He was number oner and he won 44 titles. Enough said.

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 02:18 PM
He was the king of clay when it was 100% impossible to be that if you are not a Spaniard. He was number oner and he won 44 titles. Enough said.


Yup King he was.Apart from the RG, Monte Carlo thrice and Rome twice. And countless other smaller tournaments.

American278
01-06-2012, 02:21 PM
That could be 2:0 up for Goran while Andy lost 2-6, 6-4, 5-7, 1-6. He could get 2:1 up, which isn't nowhere that close.

Maybe we can consider what is close. It's not enough to just play decider to be close. For me close was when Roddick had set points for 2:0 up in Wimby final 2009. As I remember he was't any close to break ball in the decider. That 2004 Wimbledon final wasn't close. Ivanisevic had one or 2 break balls at 3:3 in 5th set of Wimbly final 1992 vs Agassi. And he had one inch miss for 2:0 up vs Sampras in final of Wimbledon 1998. He had 2 set balls, and the other one maybe was close too. He first had set balls in that set.

at wimbledon 2004 roddick led with a break in the third till the match was suspended due to rain! without the rain i'm sure he would have won the third set( not claiming that he would have won the match) and maybe the fourth... well the us open final 2006 had a really competitive 3set with break points for both players! roddick even got to 0:40 on the federer serve!
in which decider? 2009) he had 15:40 at 8:8 i think!

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 03:18 PM
at wimbledon 2004 roddick led with a break in the third till the match was suspended due to rain! without the rain i'm sure he would have won the third set( not claiming that he would have won the match) and maybe the fourth... well the us open final 2006 had a really competitive 3set with break points for both players! roddick even got to 0:40 on the federer serve!
in which decider? 2009) he had 15:40 at 8:8 i think!

Nobody knows would he won that particulary set, especially the match. And 2:1 up is nothing special. You are close when you have break ball and 4 deuces at 3:3 in decider or you have one inch miss for 2:0 like Goran had. Roddick was only close in that 2009 final while Ivanisevic was in 2 of them. And Roddick was really more close when he had that great chance for 2:0 up than at that 8:8, 15:40 in decider, beacause Federer made one service winner and the other one was almost servise winner too. If somebody fired ace or servise winner on break ball that wasn't chance.

samanosuke
01-06-2012, 03:22 PM
This.

Samanosuke and other kids were in the pampers at that time.




says the author of this post

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=11474858&postcount=8

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

samanosuke
01-06-2012, 03:23 PM
i am damn good these days

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 03:25 PM
says the author of this post

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=11474858&postcount=8

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

He had knee-injury.

i am damn good these days


Do not troll, man.

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 03:26 PM
Honestly how does a blond and obscure Austrian who did some good things in a not so mainstream tennis lead to a hot argument 15 years down the line :tape:


And Samonosuke its mine that is rubbing of on you.

Egreen
01-06-2012, 03:32 PM
Roddick, most slam finals.

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 04:00 PM
Goran deserved more because he was real force in Wimbledon, and that was in way tougher competition. Roddick wasn't that good at any GS.

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 04:13 PM
Goran deserved mor because he was real force in Wimbledon. Roddick wasn't that good at any GS.

Ok....Roddick reached the Wimbeldon Final thrice

V.H.
01-06-2012, 04:22 PM
Muster clearly. MTF, whats wrong with you guys? Roddick!?

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 04:23 PM
Ok....Roddick reached the Wimbeldon Final thrice

But Goran has title and one semis more which is big difference. And don't forget that was in way tougher competition.

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 04:26 PM
Muster clearly. MTF, whats wrong with you guys? Roddick!?

This.

Muster, no doubt.

Shinoj
01-06-2012, 04:57 PM
But Goran has title and one semis more which is big difference. And don't forget that was in way tougher competition.

He may be marginally better than Roddick in Wimbeldon. So?

selyoink
01-06-2012, 04:58 PM
Roddick definitely had the best career despite his shit game.

Gaudio shouldn't be a poll option, the fact that he has a slam disgraces the sport.

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 05:05 PM
He may be marginally better than Roddick in Wimbeldon. So?

I wouldn't say title of Wimbledon and one semis more is just marginally better. No way.

TheBoiledEgg
01-06-2012, 05:08 PM
Michael Stich & Richard Krajicek

Mystique
01-06-2012, 05:10 PM
Goran deserved more because he was real force in Wimbledon, and that was in way tougher competition. Roddick wasn't that good at any GS.

He didnt deserve it more. People just hype up his one title because of the emotional quotient in it and because it was an unlikely fairytale run.
And u say tougher competition:rolleyes:. Goran wouldnt have been able to make the final in today's field.

Roddick is a very good grass court player, just abt as good as Goran was really and with a far superior ground game in his prime, and Roddick was stopped by the GOAT. He deserves a wimbledon title just as much as Goran did, just that life isnt fair and deserve has got nothing to do with it.

Sophocles
01-06-2012, 05:13 PM
Going beyond the poll options, Chang & Stich were arguably better than any save Roddick & arguably Muster. Andres Gimeno won the French Open late in his career in 1972 but had been the 3rd best player behind Laver & Rosewall for much of the '60s. Orantes won 1 slam I think, as did Gerulaitis - they were both pretty good, especially the latter, who was unlucky to be around in the Connors/Borg/Mac era. There must be others. Tony Roche for example (amateur French in 1966). But I can't immediately think of anybody who's clearly above Roddick.

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 05:48 PM
He didnt deserve it more. People just hype up his one title because of the emotional quotient in it and because it was an unlikely fairytale run.
And u say tougher competition:rolleyes:. Goran wouldnt have been able to make the final in today's field.

Roddick is a very good grass court player, just abt as good as Goran was really and Roddcik was stopped by the GOAT. He deserves a wimbledon title just as much as Goran did, just that life isnt fair and deserve has got nothing to do with it.

How bad these sentences are.

Look this, his competition, big players in the Wimbledon in 90's, almost all of them were real grass court players:

Sampras 7 W, 1 S, 1 QF, 1 1/8
Becker 3 F, 2 S, 2 QF, 1 1/8
Agassi 1 W, 1 F, 3 S, 2 QF, 2 1/8
Edberg 1 W, 2 S, 1 QF
Stich 1 W, 1 S, 2 QF, 1 1/8
Krajicek 1 W, 1 S, 1 QF, 2 1/8
Rafter 2 F, 1 S, - , 2 1/8
Henman 4 S, 4 QF, 1 1/8
Courier 1 F, 1 QF, 1 1/8 (not so good like others but was #1 in that time, so they were afraid of him)
Pioline 1 F, 3 QF, 1 1/8
Martin 2 S, 2 QF, 3 1/8
Philippoussis 1 F, 3 QF, 2 1/8


Who Roddick had? Federer, Hewitt. Nadal wasn't good on grass till 2006. He made just one final from time when nadal, Djokovic and Murray become power in Wimbledon.
One more thing, Sampras is the best grass court player ever and was GOAT in that time. And all he made in such a great competition.

HKz
01-06-2012, 07:01 PM
How bad these sentences are.

Look this, his competition, big players in the Wimbledon in 90's, almost all of them were real grass court players:

Sampras 7 W, 1 S, 1 QF, 1 1/8
Becker 3 F, 2 S, 2 QF, 1 1/8
Agassi 1 W, 1 F, 3 S, 2 QF, 2 1/8
Edberg 1 W, 2 S, 1 QF
Stich 1 W, 1 S, 2 QF, 1 1/8
Krajicek 1 W, 1 S, 1 QF, 2 1/8
Rafter 2 F, 1 S, - , 2 1/8
Henman 4 S, 4 QF, 1 1/8
Courier 1 F, 1 QF, 1 1/8 (not so good like others but was #1 in that time, so they were afraid of him)
Pioline 1 F, 3 QF, 1 1/8
Martin 2 S, 2 QF, 3 1/8
Philippoussis 1 F, 3 QF, 2 1/8


Who Roddick had? Federer, Hewitt. Nadal wasn't good on grass till 2006. He made just one final from time when nadal, Djokovic and Murray become power in Wimbledon.
One more thing, Sampras is the best grass court player ever and was GOAT in that time. And all he made in such a great competition.

Oh gosh, let us take intangible aspects and put this into the equation.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WHO HAD THE BEST CAREER.

Did Goran reach #1? No
Did Goren reach a final at a different slam? No
Roddick has 5 MS titles vs Goran's 2.

Goran vs Andy should be obvious. In fact, Andy being the top choice should be obvious as hell which is indicated by the poll anyways. The fact that people dislike his game, consider him a mug for failing so many finals (which is helping his case here in this topic) and so forth are blinding those random posters from actually saying anything positive about Roddick.

Roddick is the only one out of that list with decent success across the surfaces, multiple slam finals at different events, world #1 and year end #1 all together.

Yolita
01-06-2012, 09:11 PM
Why is Delpo one of the options?

He's only 23. Surely we should give him the benefit of the doubt?

American278
01-06-2012, 11:18 PM
Goran deserved more because he was real force in Wimbledon, and that was in way tougher competition. Roddick wasn't that good at any GS.

well even roddick of 2001(19years old) did win a set against ivanisevic;) so i see no reason to believe that goran was a bigger threat in wimbledon than andy;)

petar_pan
01-06-2012, 11:45 PM
well even roddick of 2001(19years old) did win a set against ivanisevic;) so i see no reason to believe that goran was a bigger threat in wimbledon than andy;)

I know you are kidding, but you accepted real state of things.

FairWeatherFan
01-07-2012, 05:07 AM
Wimbledon is clearly the greatest tournament of them all, at least prior to Nadal's victory there, and therefore the choice is between Krajicek and Ivanisevic. Personally I would lean towards Ivanisevic due to his consistency at the tournament, although Krajicek is also a reasonable choice due to his victory over Sampras, one of the most stunning results in tennis history.

Please do not bother putting clowns like Costa, Gaudio and Muster in a poll like this, it is an absolute joke to include them.

tommyg6
01-07-2012, 05:15 AM
Why are you all clowns listed the Duck as the top choice? The guy is a freakin loser and can't even win a Slam outside of the US Open and all you people discredit Goran for what??? cuz unlike the Duck, he won Wimbledon and made 3 more finals there, something the Duck couldn't do. Jesus Christ, so many morons on mtf.

atennisfan
01-07-2012, 05:17 AM
Next Round.. Lets consider their Win Loss Percentage

WL %
Muster 69.4
Moya 64.3
Goran 64.3
Chang 68
Stich 68.6


Win/loss percentages can be misleading.

Unless the sample size is very large and equal, it is not very reliable.

For example, a player plays a lot of MM tournaments in his favorite court, so he has much higher w/l percentage than a player who plays mostly bigger tournaments in all courts.

petar_pan
01-07-2012, 07:04 AM
Why are you all clowns listed the Duck as the top choice? The guy is a freakin loser and can't even win a Slam outside of the US Open and all you people discredit Goran for what??? cuz unlike the Duck, he won Wimbledon and made 3 more finals there, something the Duck couldn't do. Jesus Christ, so many morons on mtf.

Don't bother about that too much, they are just young. You know, in every poll younger player win.

When you would take this results you would think Roddick had 6 times better career than Muster and Goran haha.

Chirag
01-07-2012, 07:14 AM
Why are you all clowns listed the Duck as the top choice? The guy is a freakin loser and can't even win a Slam outside of the US Open and all you people discredit Goran for what??? cuz unlike the Duck, he won Wimbledon and made 3 more finals there, something the Duck couldn't do. Jesus Christ, so many morons on mtf.
Goran is a freakin loser and can't even win a Slam outside of Wimbledon and you discredit Roddick for what??? cuz unlike Goran, he won US Open and made 3 finals at Wimbledon along with 1 at the US Open and 4 semis at Australia, something Goran couldn't do. Jesus Christ, you are a moron on mtf. ;)

Just changed your post a bit to show you how rude you are :rolleyes: Respect others opinion please

HKz
01-07-2012, 07:50 AM
Why are you all clowns listed the Duck as the top choice? The guy is a freakin loser and can't even win a Slam outside of the US Open and all you people discredit Goran for what??? cuz unlike the Duck, he won Wimbledon and made 3 more finals there, something the Duck couldn't do. Jesus Christ, so many morons on mtf.

Don't bother about that too much, they are just young. You know, in every poll younger player win.

When you would take this results you would think Roddick had 6 times better career than Muster and Goran haha.

What utter clowns. This thread has nothing to do with:

1. You liking the player
2. How clownish they are in finals
3. One tournament
4. auto-90s player = win

This thread merely is asking:

1. Who
2. Had
3. The
4. Most
5. Successful
6. Career

Is this that hard to comprehend? Somehow Muster's 1 GS win, zero finals, no year end #1, majority on clay career and Invanisevic's 1 GS win, 3 finals all at Wimbledon, #2 highest ranking are somehow considered MORE SUCCESSFUL (note the keyword here) than Roddick's 1 GS win, 4 GS finals at two different events, #1 ranking, year end #1 ranking? Who gives a crap about your favorite players here, this isn't what the thread is asking. If you really consider what Muster and Ivanisevic have achieved to be MORE successful than what Roddick has achieved, you're both extremely delusional. Who cares if you hate the guy, think his playing style is shit, believe that achieving anything in the 90s is more commendable, think that Roddick is a clown/mentally weak player or whatever the case is.

petar_pan
01-07-2012, 10:36 AM
What utter clowns. This thread has nothing to do with:

1. You liking the player
2. How clownish they are in finals
3. One tournament
4. auto-90s player = win

This thread merely is asking:

1. Who
2. Had
3. The
4. Most
5. Successful
6. Career

Is this that hard to comprehend? Somehow Muster's 1 GS win, zero finals, no year end #1, majority on clay career and Invanisevic's 1 GS win, 3 finals all at Wimbledon, #2 highest ranking are somehow considered MORE SUCCESSFUL (note the keyword here) than Roddick's 1 GS win, 4 GS finals at two different events, #1 ranking, year end #1 ranking? Who gives a crap about your favorite players here, this isn't what the thread is asking. If you really consider what Muster and Ivanisevic have achieved to be MORE successful than what Roddick has achieved, you're both extremely delusional. Who cares if you hate the guy, think his playing style is shit, believe that achieving anything in the 90s is more commendable, think that Roddick is a clown/mentally weak player or whatever the case is.

Roddick made that in competition of some Janko and Marko (how we in Croatia say for nobody) in 2003 or so. When Federer came he couldn't do nothing. And than came Rafa, Nole and Andy. No way he was/is near to these guys. When they came he just droped to 7th or 10th place while Muster was NUMBER ONE in era of Sampras (only Courier, Agassi and he menaged to do that in Sampras's prime, from 1993 till 1998). That is more than anything some player can do.
Goran was #2 twice, in 3 years spear, in that time. He beated Becker x 2, Edeberg x 2, Lendl, Sampras in GS. He even beat Muster on clay in best of 5 when Muster was #2 (DC rubber, hold in Austria 1997). No way Roddick would beat them, I am not sure would Roddick beat Rafter in best of 5, or Krajicek and Safin at theirs prime.
When we talk about tennis class, not most succesfull players, it's easy to conclude that Roddick is nowhere near to Del Potro's class.
That's like we talk who is more succesfull: Batistuta or Christian Brocchi (ex Milan player). Brocchi is because he has more titles haha.

samanosuke
01-07-2012, 10:48 AM
So much crap in this thread . Kudos to Muster, but how can be even compared 4 slams finals to non . this isn't the question about the competition, just about success...

Shinoj
01-07-2012, 04:47 PM
What utter clowns. This thread has nothing to do with:

1. You liking the player
2. How clownish they are in finals
3. One tournament
4. auto-90s player = win

This thread merely is asking:

1. Who
2. Had
3. The
4. Most
5. Successful
6. Career

Is this that hard to comprehend? Somehow Muster's 1 GS win, zero finals, no year end #1, majority on clay career and Invanisevic's 1 GS win, 3 finals all at Wimbledon, #2 highest ranking are somehow considered MORE SUCCESSFUL (note the keyword here) than Roddick's 1 GS win, 4 GS finals at two different events, #1 ranking, year end #1 ranking? Who gives a crap about your favorite players here, this isn't what the thread is asking. If you really consider what Muster and Ivanisevic have achieved to be MORE successful than what Roddick has achieved, you're both extremely delusional. Who cares if you hate the guy, think his playing style is shit, believe that achieving anything in the 90s is more commendable, think that Roddick is a clown/mentally weak player or whatever the case is.


The Word is Ivantards.

HKz
01-07-2012, 05:02 PM
Roddick made that in competition of some Janko and Marko (how we in Croatia say for nobody) in 2003 or so. When Federer came he couldn't do nothing. And than came Rafa, Nole and Andy. No way he was/is near to these guys. When they came he just droped to 7th or 10th place while Muster was NUMBER ONE in era of Sampras (only Courier, Agassi and he menaged to do that in Sampras's prime, from 1993 till 1998). That is more than anything some player can do.

Did you even read my post? This isn't about the competition, this isn't about what he couldn't or could not do against a player. If he was able to do something against Federer, then he probably wouldn't have 1 slam and wouldn't be included in this discussion. But instead, he was very close to a 2nd title and for the point of this thread, he is arguably by far the most accomplished. Is this really that hard to wrap your mind around? Who cares if Muster did it in an era of Sampras, that is all subjective and has nothing to do with having the "best career" not to mention the fact that Muster even reached the #1 ranking in February of 1996, showed how flawed the system was as Sampras was defending champion of 2 slams and 2 MS events at that time, while Muster played like a trillion small clay events.

Goran was #2 twice, in 3 years spear, in that time. He beated Becker x 2, Edeberg x 2, Lendl, Sampras in GS. He even beat Muster on clay in best of 5 when Muster was #2 (DC rubber, hold in Austria 1997). No way Roddick would beat them, I am not sure would Roddick beat Rafter in best of 5, or Krajicek and Safin at theirs prime.
When we talk about tennis class, not most succesfull players, it's easy to conclude that Roddick is nowhere near to Del Potro's class.
That's like we talk who is more succesfull: Batistuta or Christian Brocchi (ex Milan player). Brocchi is because he has more titles haha.

Again, you talk about the same crap with Ivanisevic. Who cares who Goran beat, this thread isn't about that.

When we talk about tennis class, not most succesfull players, it's easy to conclude that Roddick is nowhere near to Del Potro's class.
That's like we talk who is more succesfull: Batistuta or Christian Brocchi (ex Milan player). Brocchi is because he has more titles haha.

Holy crap, where do these people come from? Can they read English? What the hell are you talking about class for? Where did I read that this thread has to do with the class of a player? Nowhere. And why would you bring football into the mix? Team sports are absolutely incomparable to individual sports. Holy crap man, you need to like fix your comprehension.

Mystique
01-07-2012, 05:18 PM
How bad these sentences are.

Look this, his competition, big players in the Wimbledon in 90's, almost all of them were real grass court players:

Sampras 7 W, 1 S, 1 QF, 1 1/8
Becker 3 F, 2 S, 2 QF, 1 1/8
Agassi 1 W, 1 F, 3 S, 2 QF, 2 1/8
Edberg 1 W, 2 S, 1 QF
Stich 1 W, 1 S, 2 QF, 1 1/8
Krajicek 1 W, 1 S, 1 QF, 2 1/8
Rafter 2 F, 1 S, - , 2 1/8
Henman 4 S, 4 QF, 1 1/8
Courier 1 F, 1 QF, 1 1/8 (not so good like others but was #1 in that time, so they were afraid of him)
Pioline 1 F, 3 QF, 1 1/8
Martin 2 S, 2 QF, 3 1/8
Philippoussis 1 F, 3 QF, 2 1/8


Who Roddick had? Federer, Hewitt. Nadal wasn't good on grass till 2006. He made just one final from time when nadal, Djokovic and Murray become power in Wimbledon.
One more thing, Sampras is the best grass court player ever and was GOAT in that time. And all he made in such a great competition.

I am sorry, I didnt make it clear in my post. I was merely refering to his 2001 run, not his entire wimbledon history. I dont think Goran would have made the final of 2011 with that 2001 run. I am NOT discrediting his title by any stretch of imagination. I like him as a player and it was great to see him win the title in '01, easily the best Wimbledon moment of the last 20 year IMO.
But, I stand by point. While I fully agree that the 90s grass was truer and the field much stronger, that doesnt actually present the full picture. Its like how Sampras fans keep saying clay field in 90s was stronger when the actual fact was Pete used to lose to mugs, not those really good clay courters on clay. What I am saying here is that, merely looking at the number of good players in the so called "competition" doesnt explain facts. That isnot how competition actually works.

Anyway, we are digressing from the topic here, I just wanted to clarify my comment though.

Saberq
01-07-2012, 05:36 PM
grass field in the 90s was not stronger...Check some Wimbledon finalists from the 90s...dear god

samanosuke
01-07-2012, 05:46 PM
grass field in the 90s was not stronger...Check some Wimbledon finalists from the 90s...dear god

wrong

Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Goran, Krajicek,Rafter... all of them are better grass court player than Roddick . on 90's grass a way better than Nadal

would like to see Roddick even against guys like Pioline , Tod Martin or even great volleyer like Haarhuis

swebright
01-07-2012, 06:15 PM
muster is one trick clay pony.

petar_pan
01-07-2012, 11:43 PM
wrong

Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Goran, Krajicek,Rafter... all of them are better grass court player than Roddick . on 90's grass a way better than Nadal

would like to see Roddick even against guys like Pioline , Tod Martin or even great volleyer like Haarhuis

He wouldn't have any chance vs Henman, too.

petar_pan
01-07-2012, 11:45 PM
grass field in the 90s was not stronger...Check some Wimbledon finalists from the 90s...dear god

Hahaha.

Shinoj
01-08-2012, 03:00 AM
Its a travesty of justice if Michael Chang is not yet included in the Poll. Michael Chang's career was better than Goran. Goran's massive Serve took him to latter stages in Wimbeldon which was still played on a Fast Fast grass but beyond that he wasnt Mentally inept to grind out matches. The Whole world knew about it.

On the other Hand Chang maximised his talents and that showed in the number of Titles won.

petar_pan
01-08-2012, 10:15 AM
Its a travesty of justice if Michael Chang is not yet included in the Poll. Michael Chang's career was better than Goran. Goran's massive Serve took him to latter stages in Wimbeldon which was still played on a Fast Fast grass but beyond that he wasnt Mentally inept to grind out matches. The Whole world knew about it.

On the other Hand Chang maximised his talents and that showed in the number of Titles won.

And he has just 9 finals more (58:49), 12 titles. That isn't so big difference like Muster's double more. But you are right, Chang and Stich should be in the poll. They should be insted Costa and Johansson (I don't really get why they are in the first place).
But if we are talking who more deserved 2nd Slam, that's Goran. Nobody has that dominance at above guys at any GS. Goran was so dominant to everybody in Wimbledon except Sampras. And even with Sampras he was 50:50 to win. All matches were so close. Don't forget he beat him. One ball (that one inch miss for 2:0 up in 1998 final) and it would be 2:2 in H2H.
And it that Slam you had a bunch of "competitors" like anybody of this players had at any GS.

PS. God I just loved to wach Stich's vs Goran, they really suit each other and that was best matches for me I have ever seen.
Stich was pure talent, only Federer is more talented.

samanosuke
01-08-2012, 10:21 AM
Its a travesty of justice if Michael Chang is not yet included in the Poll. Michael Chang's career was better than Goran. Goran's massive Serve took him to latter stages in Wimbeldon which was still played on a Fast Fast grass but beyond that he wasnt Mentally inept to grind out matches. The Whole world knew about it.

On the other Hand Chang maximised his talents and that showed in the number of Titles won.

one of the best tie break players in history can't be mentally weak . everybody here basing the assumption about Goran's mentality on his temperament . Mentally weak player couldn't reach 3 Wimby finals on fast grass where the hole match was decided by point or two

petar_pan
01-08-2012, 10:32 AM
one of the best tie break players in history can't be mentally weak . everybody here basing the assumption about Goran's mentality on his temperament . Mentally weak player couldn't reach 3 Wimby finals on fast grass where the hole match was decided by point or two

He was mentally weak vs Sampras from 1993, that's for sure. Pete owned him. But Sampras was King of the grass, GOAT in that time and he owned everybody. While Goran owned all others in Wimbledon.
And with all of that, Goran would have 2:2 with just one ball. He is 2:4 down on grass overall.
Goran was 5:2 up vs Sampras and they were at 7:7 while Goran was in the top of the game. All the matches were tight, but Sampras won almost every big match (GS, MTF and GSC we can put).

TNT96
01-30-2012, 02:29 AM
It's also a rumor that Muster was only good on clay. Hard court champion in 1997 at Miami besides runner up finish on Miami in 1989 (but couldn't compete because of drunk driver hitting him, , Champion in Dubai 1997, Champion in Adelaide in 1990, 1996 ATP Master Series Champion in Essen (indoor Carpet), 3 runner up finishes in Vienna on Carpet, Runner Up in 1997 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati also a semi and quarterfinal, 2 Semifinals and 1 Quarterfinal in Australa, 3 Quarterfinals at US Open, 2 Semifinals and 2 Quarterfinals at Indian Wells, etc. There is no doubt his career would have been even greater without that injury to his knees from getting hit by the drunk driver. He was not even supposed to play on Hard Courts. If Muster had had any success on Grass (with the exception of two semis at Queens Club), people would rank him higher than Roddick.

TennisGrandSlam
01-30-2012, 02:55 AM
Muster - More titles (44) including Roland Garros 1995, Clay dominant between 1995-96
Roddick - US Open 2003 + 4 GS Finals (Grass + Hardcourt, all losts to FEd, Wimbledon 2004, 2005, 209; US Open 2006)
Chang - Roland Garros 1989 + 3 GS Finals (Clay + Hardcourt, all losts to career NO.1 : Roland Garros 1995 to Muster, Australian Open 1996 to Becker, US Open 1996 to Sampras)
Stich - Wimbledon 1991 + 2 GS Finals (Clay + Hardcourt, all losts to career NO.1: Roland Garros 1996 to Kafelnikov, US Open 1994 to Agassi)

Mongoose
01-30-2012, 06:42 PM
considering Gaudio saved tennis in 2004 and thus paved the ways for the careers of all future players, you would have to say Gaudio

Hypnotize
01-30-2012, 07:37 PM
Muster by a long way. Apart from the French, he won 8 Masters Series titles, 44 titles in total and was almost unstoppable on clay for 2 years. He would probably have won even more if he hadn't been hit by a drunk driver at the Miami tournament. If he played on today's grass, he would probably have done really well at Wimbledon as well.

Noleta
01-30-2012, 08:58 PM
Andy R.

Purple Rainbow
01-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Roddick
(Chang)
Ivanisevic
Muster
Ferrero
Moya
Krajicek
(Stich)
Albert Costa
Del Potro (*)
Johansson
Gaudio

* Del Potro will be a lot higher on this list when his career is over (and he'll probably have more than one slam anyway)

Source: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043

Roddickominator
01-30-2012, 09:04 PM
Roddick, and pretty easily at that. Everyone knows that Roddick has 5+ Slams if Federer isn't there to ruin it. Not to mention the added confidence that would have given him, which probably would have caused him to go on a Federer-like run ending up with 18-20 Slams.

Sauletekis
01-30-2012, 09:24 PM
Andy Murray.




Oh, wait...

Friday16
01-30-2012, 09:26 PM
Andy Roddick. He deserved a Wimbledon title.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 09:40 PM
grass field in the 90s was not stronger...Check some Wimbledon finalists from the 90s...dear god

You know absolutely nothing about this sport and its history.
90's grass court: Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Agassi, Stich. Wonderful players.
2000's is a lot weaker overall. It's not even a question, Federer fans can agree with this.

NID
01-30-2012, 10:12 PM
Djokovic

Naudio Spanlatine
01-30-2012, 11:02 PM
I have to say Andy roddick, he was in the top 10 longer than those players and plus he was a tough guy back then to beat