Players Who've Made the Semis at All 4 Slams. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Players Who've Made the Semis at All 4 Slams.

Sophocles
05-27-2010, 09:44 PM
I thought it might be interesting to see which players have managed to reach the semi-finals or better at all 4 slams in the Open Era. Who knows, Murray may join their ranks next week? As you might expect, they're a pretty select bunch. The players are, in rough chronological order:

Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Tony Roche
Tom Okker
Jimmy Connors
Vitas Gerulaitis
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Stefan Edberg
Miloslav Mecir
Boris Becker
Andre Agassi
Pete Sampras
Michael Stich
Jim Courier
Patrick Rafter
Marat Safin
Roger Federer
David Nalbandian
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Andy Murray.

That's 22 players, fewer than the number of players who have reached the top ranking. The most glaring absentee is Borg, who played in Australia once when he was about 17. Wilander (crap at Wimbledon), Vilas (ditto), Nastase (hardly played Australia), Newcombe (crap at R.G.), Roddick (ditto), Ashe (ditto), Hewitt (ditto) are other notable absentees. Of those who did make it, only Roche, Okker, Mecir, Nalbandian & Murray (so far) have failed to win a slam, & Roche won R.G. before the Open Era. Only 8 of the players have made the final of every slam:

Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Ivan Lendl
Stefan Edberg
Jim Courier
Andre Agassi
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal.

That really is a select bunch. I find it particularly impressive that Laver & Rosewall managed it despite being 29 & 30-something when the Open Era started & failing to play in every slam even after it did.

Horatio Caine
05-27-2010, 09:56 PM
Very interesting thread. :yeah:

Certainly a chance that Murray joins that list for SF of all Slams...has a makeable draw this week. Wouldn't be absolutely shocked if he somehow makes the final either (Fed IS beatable by good defence on clay). In which case, all he'd need is a Wimbledon final (has an outside chance of that over the next few years) and he, too, could join that 'all surfaces' list.

But as for winning that elusive final match... :scared: :o

jonas
05-27-2010, 09:58 PM
Nice list, mate! :yeah:

I wouldn't call Wilander crap at Wimbledon, though. He reached 3 straight QF. But I guess for his standards it wasn't great. He just happened to run into tough grass competitiors such as Cash, McEnroe and Mecir.
Wilander won two AO's on grass BTW. :p

Highly interesting that "only" five players have reached all 4 GS finals in the last 40 years or so... Borg would of course have joined that list if AO have had any kind of status back then.

Of today's active players it's hard to see anyone, other than Nadal, be able to reach all GS finals. Maybe Delpo if he gets his body together and finds some kind of grass game. Djoker and Murray has outside chances.

Nathaliia
05-27-2010, 10:06 PM
I think Grosjean was close to getting there :lol:

Apophis
05-27-2010, 10:10 PM
Jim Courier also made all 4 finals in 1991-1993. Moreover, he was the youngest to do this by almost 2 years (wasn't even 23 yet).

For the semifinals, it is interesting that Djokovic was the youngest to reach all 4 semis by no less than 1.5 year (he was 20). He was/is really hugely talented. Nadal is the next youngest at 22.

Krajicek was very close with 3 US Open quarters...

JediFed
05-27-2010, 10:17 PM
Of today's active players it's hard to see anyone, other than Nadal, be able to reach all GS finals. Maybe Delpo if he gets his body together and finds some kind of grass game. Djoker and Murray has outside chances.


It's very, very uncommon. I don't think any of the above will reach the finals of all 4.

jonas
05-27-2010, 10:19 PM
Jim Courier also made all 4 finals in 1991-1993. Moreover, he was the youngest to do this by almost 2 years (wasn't even 23 yet).

For the semifinals, it is interesting that Djokovic was the youngest to reach all 4 semis by no less than 1.5 year (he was 20). He was/is really hugely talented. Nadal is the next youngest at 22.

Krajicek was very close with 3 US Open quarters...

Yup. Courier had some sick years really. Agassi would've made that feat at 22, though, if he'd played AO (had all other three F). Something he didn't do until he was 24, and of course won it.

Borg had reached finals of RG, Wimby and US Open at 20. :worship:

andy neyer
05-27-2010, 10:32 PM
Quality thread.

This reminds me of something Federer said a few fays ago. Quite surprisingly, he thinks his 23-consecutive SF in GS is his most important record. Not the number of GS as some might be tempted to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zO1_h17tI

Apophis
05-27-2010, 10:59 PM
Quality thread.

This reminds me of something Federer said a few fays ago. Quite surprisingly, he thinks his 23-consecutive SF in GS is his most important record. Not the number of GS as some might be tempted to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zO1_h17tI

Nice to hear. In terms of hardest to break by someone else, I would personally vote for the 18/19. Though it has the disadvantage of being a little more of a far-fetched record compared to the 23 straight.

tennishero
05-27-2010, 11:31 PM
nalbandian should have a slam... sigh..

DwyaneWade
05-28-2010, 01:13 AM
It's very, very uncommon. I don't think any of the above will reach the finals of all 4.

Nadal could, but he has to do the USO within the next two runs. I doubt Djokovic or Del Potro ever reaches a Wimbledon final, and similarly for Murray at RG. If they all do though, that would generate more fuel for the 'weak' era arguments...

Jim Courier also made all 4 finals in 1991-1993. Moreover, he was the youngest to do this by almost 2 years (wasn't even 23 yet).

For the semifinals, it is interesting that Djokovic was the youngest to reach all 4 semis by no less than 1.5 year (he was 20). He was/is really hugely talented. Nadal is the next youngest at 22.

Krajicek was very close with 3 US Open quarters...

Courier really flamed out, if had a higher success rate in close GS matches he really could have racked up the titles. I had no idea Krajicek ever made the RG semis, wow.

nalbandian should have a slam... sigh..

USO 2003, AO 2006, or RG 2006. But he does not because he simply was not good enough when it coutned.

JediFed
05-28-2010, 01:29 AM
Nadal could, but he has to do the USO within the next two runs.


Interesting stat, out of all the slam winners with more than 2 slams, only two have failed to reach a Final at the USO, Kuerten and Nadal. I think Nadal is better than Kuerten, but I don't think he can fill Borg's shoes, so I don't think he'll reach the USO final.


I doubt Djokovic or Del Potro ever reaches a Wimbledon final, and similarly for Murray at RG. If they all do though, that would generate more fuel for the 'weak' era arguments...


You want to see a weak era, look at Keurten's era. Agassi was still dominating. That should tell you everything you need to know. Federer's era actually did respectably well, while it is too early to tell how Nadal's era will do. On average, the players are only 23-27 in Nadal's era, and their time of domination should be now, with an average of 25. So far Nadal's Era has earned 7 slams, (6 for Nadal, and 1 for Djokovic). Del Potro's generation has won 1.

DwyaneWade
05-28-2010, 01:34 AM
Interesting stat, out of all the slam winners with more than 2 slams, only two have failed to reach a Final at the USO, Kuerten and Nadal. I think Nadal is better than Kuerten, but I don't think he can fill Borg's shoes, so I don't think he'll reach the USO final.



He has only been one win short two years in a row. Yes, he was squashed by Del Potro but the Murray match was not as one-sided as people seem to believe. I am not saying it is definitely going to happen, but it is not THAT unlikely. IMO Nadal is not at Borg's level, he is (hopefully) going to end up on the 2nd tier of elite players with Agassi, Lendl, Connors, etc.



You want to see a weak era, look at Keurten's era. Agassi was still dominating. That should tell you everything you need to know. Federer's era actually did respectably well, while it is too early to tell how Nadal's era will do. On average, the players are only 23-27 in Nadal's era, and their time of domination should be now, with an average of 25. So far Nadal's Era has earned 7 slams, (6 for Nadal, and 1 for Djokovic). Del Potro's generation has won 1.

I am not saying I buy into the weak era arguments. I think Federer and Nadal are absolutely terrific. All I am saying is that if only 6 guys in the last 40 years had done it (reached finals of every slam), and then suddenly 3 more in the same generation (Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro) it would really make one analyze how top-heavy this era really is. Or rather, how sadly homogenized.

Matt H
05-28-2010, 03:28 AM
Thanks Sophocles, for this great and interesting list...and everyone for their excellent posts.

To me, the biggest surprises to make the list are Mecir and Nalbandian.

VolandriFan
05-28-2010, 03:43 AM
Ferrero could join them with a miraculous Wimbledon run.

*bunny*
05-28-2010, 03:48 AM
Yeah JCF is one round shy of joining the group.
He won RG, was runner-up at USO, reached SF in AO, and reached QF twice at Wimbledon.
Hope he'll have a good draw in SW19 this year and will do a Safin/Bjorkman!

The Magician
05-28-2010, 03:51 AM
Shows you how underrated Edberg is. He was so close to the career slam and choked against Chang at the FO. He was extremely talented and had to play in an extremely tough era (much tougher than Sampras's imo). Lendl too of course but he's always been underrated, even when he was playing :p

GuiroNl
05-28-2010, 04:48 AM
Edberg is underrated?

n8
05-28-2010, 04:52 AM
I'm guessing that when players are missing one Slam, it is least liking to be the US Open. Australian Open is common because of its prior status (or lack of), and Wimbledon and Roland Garros because of the surface (yes, I know the surfaces of the other ones have changed over the years).

That's why Grosjean is usual, he made the semis of all but the US Open, and never even made the 4th round there. Henman and Pioline have got all but the Australian Open (best 4th round).

rafa_maniac
05-28-2010, 05:37 AM
Ferrero could join them with a miraculous Wimbledon run.

Didn't he make the QF in 07 and take a set off Federer in that match? Probably missed his best chance then.

Viky-cro
05-28-2010, 06:51 AM
Newcombe (crap at R.G.), Roddick (ditto), Hewitt (ditto) are other notable absentees.

and Roddick and Hewitt will make semis this year :haha:
:banana:

just joking ;)

Shirogane
05-28-2010, 07:30 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=104584

HNCS
05-28-2010, 07:45 AM
Although I'm not a tennis expert by any means, I'm actually very surprised how few have actually achieved this. That is a very select list man.

I guess puts 23 consecutive SF in perspective....

Great thread, very interesting.

Acer
05-28-2010, 08:05 AM
Yeah JCF is one round shy of joining the group.


So is Hewitt

tennishero
05-28-2010, 09:21 AM
USO 2003, AO 2006, or RG 2006. But he does not because he simply was not good enough when it coutned.

USO 2003 - bad line calls, terrible crowd and overules.. match was handed to roddick eventhough he was getting completely outplayed.
RG 2006 - stomach cramps, had to retire eventhouh he was beating federer.
AO 2006 - im not sure what happened here.. it looked like a cruise to victory.

you forgot Wimbledon 2002 - first time on center court.

Sophocles
05-28-2010, 09:24 AM
Jim Courier also made all 4 finals in 1991-1993. Moreover, he was the youngest to do this by almost 2 years (wasn't even 23 yet).

Yeah, you're right, left Courier off the list of finalists, my mistake - I'll edit the original posting.

Sophocles
05-28-2010, 09:27 AM
I wouldn't call Wilander crap at Wimbledon, though. He reached 3 straight QF. But I guess for his standards it wasn't great. He just happened to run into tough grass competitiors such as Cash, McEnroe and Mecir.
Wilander won two AO's on grass BTW. :p

That's true, I was just in a rush, & I know he could play on grass. His Wimbledon quarter-final against McEnroe in 1989 is one of the most entertaining matches I have ever seen. Both played very well. There are highlights on Youtube.

Sophocles
05-28-2010, 09:29 AM
He has only been one win short two years in a row. Yes, he was squashed by Del Potro but the Murray match was not as one-sided as people seem to believe. I am not saying it is definitely going to happen, but it is not THAT unlikely. IMO Nadal is not at Borg's level, he is (hopefully) going to end up on the 2nd tier of elite players with Agassi, Lendl, Connors, etc.

I agree, I shouldn't be surprised if Nadal made the U.S.O. final, particularly if he avoids ball-bashers en route. At the same time, I shouldn't be surprised if he didn't.

Sophocles
05-28-2010, 09:31 AM
I'm guessing that when players are missing one Slam, it is least liking to be the US Open.

Although weirdly that's where Krajicek fails. Lots of good American players around at the time of course.

Sophocles
05-28-2010, 09:31 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=104584

Okay, maybe this thread should be merged with that one.

DwyaneWade
05-28-2010, 11:46 AM
USO 2003 - bad line calls, terrible crowd and overules.. match was handed to roddick eventhough he was getting completely outplayed.
RG 2006 - stomach cramps, had to retire eventhouh he was beating federer.
AO 2006 - im not sure what happened here.. it looked like a cruise to victory.

you forgot Wimbledon 2002 - first time on center court.

Excuses do not carry any weight.

He was not good enough to beat Lleyton in 2002, he fell apart against Roddick in the 4th and 5th sets, his fitness cost him against Federer, and he lost the plot against Baghdatis.

That is a large enough sample size against enough varied opponents to say he just was not consistently good enough to win a Slam.

Har-Tru
05-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Interesting.

Some curious stuff like Krajicek making the FO semis but failing to get past the USO QFs.

Har-Tru
05-28-2010, 11:52 AM
Okay, maybe this thread should be merged with that one.

Don't see why. :shrug: This thread is specifically about players who reached the SFs.

Federerhingis
05-28-2010, 12:47 PM
Thanks Sophocles, for this great and interesting list...and everyone for their excellent posts.

To me, the biggest surprises to make the list are Mecir and Nalbandian.

I don't think either of the two having this distinct accomplishment is surprising at all. Both are among the most talented players in the open era and were and still is, albeit coming back from injury among the most talented in their respective eras.

tennishero
05-28-2010, 02:16 PM
Excuses do not carry any weight.

He was not good enough to beat Lleyton in 2002, he fell apart against Roddick in the 4th and 5th sets, his fitness cost him against Federer, and he lost the plot against Baghdatis.

That is a large enough sample size against enough varied opponents to say he just was not consistently good enough to win a Slam.

he was not good enough is not an argument when he had to retire against federer, and the crowd and umpires decide the fate of a match.

he is good enough just really unfortunate...

DwyaneWade
05-28-2010, 02:19 PM
he was not good enough is not an argument when he had to retire against federer, and the crowd and umpires decide the fate of a match.

he is good enough just really unfortunate...

Fitness is part of being good enough. Part of what makes federer so great is not just his tennis game, it is his durability and amazing match fitness.

The Roddick match? Roddick hit an ace of match point. The crowd yelled a bit at 7-7, bit of bad luck but he still had a 2 sets to 1 lead. Nalbandian lost 1 set. He fell apart after that.

He has had more than enough opportunities deep in slams and has repeatedly come up short. To be that indicates that he simply is not good enough (maybe not his game, but the combination of his game, fitness, and mentality).

fran70
05-29-2010, 12:35 AM
Excuses do not carry any weight.

He was not good enough to beat Lleyton in 2002, he fell apart against Roddick in the 4th and 5th sets, his fitness cost him against Federer, and he lost the plot against Baghdatis.

That is a large enough sample size against enough varied opponents to say he just was not consistently good enough to win a Slam.

All this rubbish again. Just a bloody way to ruin such interesting thread.

Sophocles
06-02-2011, 10:24 PM
I have pleasure in editing the opening post with the addition of Andrew Murray.

tennishero
06-02-2011, 10:29 PM
murray has a big asterisk over his RG run thats for sure.

Sophocles
06-02-2011, 10:34 PM
murray has a big asterisk over his RG run thats for sure.

Do tell us why.

tennishero
06-02-2011, 11:07 PM
Do tell us why.

even i can reach the semis with his cake draw.




ok not really, but you get the point.

rocketassist
06-02-2011, 11:19 PM
Nalbandian's Wimbledon draw bar Malisse in 02 was wank. And I'm a fan of Davey.

Clydey
06-02-2011, 11:20 PM
even i can reach the semis with his cake draw.




ok not really, but you get the point.

You're acting as if no other player has ever had a favourable draw. Murray showed enough during the clay stretch to show everyone that he was a likely semi-finalist regardless of his draw.

janko05
06-02-2011, 11:38 PM
I have pleasure in editing the opening post with the addition of Andrew Murray.

Now you can edit it again and add Nadal to the second list :wavey:

Sophocles
06-02-2011, 11:42 PM
Now you can edit it again and add Nadal to the second list :wavey:

Done. It did hurt though.

janko05
06-02-2011, 11:52 PM
:Done. It did hurt though.

:haha::haha::haha:

It would be shame not to do that

Pipsy
06-03-2011, 05:11 AM
It's curious that Tim Henman reached 6 semis including one at Roland Garros and yet only reached 4R at Aussie Open even on Rebound Ace...

n8
06-03-2011, 06:31 AM
It's curious that Tim Henman reached 6 semis including one at Roland Garros and yet only reached 4R at Aussie Open even on Rebound Ace...

Henman's 2004 Roland Garros run was a charmed one; he didn't play a top 75 player until the quarter-finals. In the quarter-finals he played Chela who is 0-11 at that stage in big events (Grand Slams and Masters 1000s).

His SF run at the US Open was similarly fortuitous, winning three 5 set matches and his highest ranked opponent, 20th ranked Nicolas Kiefer, retired in the 5th set.

I don't see Henman's record as unusual for not having an Australian Open QF or better, I see it as fortunate as having RG and US Open SFs. Although, it must be said that he was an excellent player at Wimbledon and deserved at least one Wimbledon final!

tennishero
06-03-2011, 11:09 AM
The smelly Argie immigrant strikes again.

Nalbandian's Wimbledon draw bar Malisse in 02 was wank. And I'm a fan of Davey.

racist much?

rocketassist
06-05-2011, 03:17 PM
racist much?

No, I love jayjay and Pablo. You're just a ****, and a smelly one who should be deported.