Who has reached the top ten rankings without winning a single title? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who has reached the top ten rankings without winning a single title?

Buddy
01-13-2004, 12:14 AM
I was wondering if there's a male version of Anna Kournikova. One who reaches to loads of finals and semis but never win a title before, yet manages to obtain enough points to enter the top ten.

Anyone?

WyverN
01-13-2004, 12:54 AM
I doubt it

Reason it happened in the women's game is just about all the bigger titles are swept up by the same 4 or 5 women

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 12:56 AM
Cedric Pioline it took ages for him to win a title it was in 1996, and he made 2 Slam finals. He made the top 10 without winning a title in 1993.

Fedex
01-13-2004, 01:11 AM
I believe Nalbandian did this year! :)

Fedex
01-13-2004, 01:12 AM
Actually last year in 2003

MisterQ
01-13-2004, 01:18 AM
Steve Denton never won a singles title, but in 1982 he reached the Australian Open final and made the 4th round of both Wimby and the USO. I wonder if he reached the top ten that year...

MisterQ
01-13-2004, 01:20 AM
I believe Nalbandian did this year! :)

But Nalbandian won 2 titles previously.

Fedex
01-13-2004, 01:27 AM
Yes, but none in 2003 which is the ist year he made the top ten ;)

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 01:43 AM
What the OP I think was asking has there been a player who has never won A title, that has made the top 10.

As, MisterQ said Nalbandian has won 2 titles, and though he didn't win one in 2003, he has previously which doesn't mean he has reached the top 10, without winning a title.

tangerine_dream
01-13-2004, 01:55 AM
I was wondering if there's a male version of Anna Kournikova. One who reaches to loads of finals and semis but never win a title before, yet manages to obtain enough points to enter the top ten.


That's how sad the WTA is. :(

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 02:05 AM
Tangerinus, mark this day down on the calendar. It is a huge occassion we actually agree on something.

WyverN
01-13-2004, 02:38 AM
WTA is often more interesting then the mens at the quarter final stage and far more rivalries develop.

Round 1-4 is total snooze though

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 02:47 AM
So Wyver, you would agree with Rios's comments about the WTA early rounds then?

I don't really care about the rivalries too much, let the marketing and the media people concern themselves with that. As long as I see good matches, and the unpredictably adds to the enjoyment, though a few closer Slam finals wouldn't be a bad thing.

WyverN
01-13-2004, 02:49 AM
Yeah you might as well bypass the first 4 rounds. The gap between the top 5 girls and the rest is staggering

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 02:51 AM
The thing is, it was actually worse than it is now.

WyverN
01-13-2004, 02:54 AM
I don't really care about the rivalries too much, let the marketing and the media people concern themselves with that.

I prefer the best to battle it out.

Yes it was probably worse in the Graf days - back then a lot of the lower ranked females were totally unprofessional and even not in the best physical shape so the standard has risen

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by WyverN
I prefer the best to battle it out.

Fair enough, but if the players peak at the right times ,then more of than not they will meet in the big matches. Though I still think the rivalry thing is overplayed by the media and marketing. It can be boring when it's the same 3 or 4 players in the finals year in and year out, diversity isn't a bad thing.

I am not a fan of the WTA, so I won't comment on it too much.

WyverN
01-13-2004, 03:11 AM
Fair enough, but if the players peak at the right times ,then more of than not they will meet in the big matches. Though I still think the rivalry thing is overplayed by the media and marketing. It can be boring when it's the same 3 or 4 players in the finals year in and year out, diversity isn't a bad thing.


Diversity is good as long as the players who have played well to get to the final, play at the same standard during the final.
Last years AO and RG finals were disasters and not good for tennis.

Action Jackson
01-13-2004, 03:22 AM
I said earlier in one of my posts a few close Slam finals, wouldn't be a bad thing and yes the above examples you used clearly llustrate that claim.

But there have been some very good and surprising winners of Slams which came out of nowhere. Wilander winning 82 FO, Guga winning in 97 FO, Goran winning Wimbledon, Pete winning 90 USO are examples.

Just because you have two top players in a Slam final, it doesn't guarantee a quality match.

Fedex
01-13-2004, 03:26 AM
But wasnt Ferrero vs. Roddick SUCH a high quality match??

WyverN
01-13-2004, 03:29 AM
it was better then France and AO

Buddy
01-13-2004, 03:32 AM
But with the quality points being part of the points added to determine rank, do you think it would be better to have quality points or it is better to just have round points?

I think that is one of the many reasons why some are able to reach the top ten without winning a title for the women's tour. cos if they upset the world number one, they get 100 points...even without winning the title.