Is Andy Murray closing in on this dubious distinction? Can he overcome the Djokovic/Nadal/Federer triumvirate to win a major title? Which elite company is he currently in?
For me it's probably Nalbandian. Just can't seem to put it all together at the Grand Slams, even though he's hands down one of the best pure talents in the game. I remember watching him destroy Nadal a few years ago. He has the ability to do things on a court only Federer can.
In terms of achievements, yes, Murray. Mecir, Nalbandian, and Rios are other good candidates. I would also give a mention to Davydenko who never even made a final but was tremendously talented.
On the Men's side I don't think anyone can beat Murray (I'm pretty sure he's the only guy to make three finals and never win, no?). On the women's side you have players like Dementieva (made two finals and an additional 7 semifinals without ever winning), Safina (3 finals, two semis) and Jankovic (1 final, 5 semis)... but even then none of them ever had a sustained spell where they were at the top of the rankings like Murray was.
No. Love him as a player, his fitness is legendary, but he doesn't have the talent of the other players listed here, and he has only made two semifinals in his whole career thus far. Murray, Söderling, Tsonga, and Berdych have all gotten closer and are still bigger threats to win one.
No, good player, but not the best to never have won. Marcelo Rios would probably get my vote. He was #1 for about a month and a half in the late 90's, got to the Australian Open final, and had a tough, tough game, a very good clay court/hard court player.
That's off the top of my head, though. Does anyone know who has been in the most GS finals and semi finals and not won a title. Andy must be getting up there.
Been doing a little research on this one and it is not even close: the correct answer is Andy Murray, and by miles. My central criterion is how many semis and finals of GSs has a player been in without winning a championship. There are some good pretenders to the throne, Todd Martin (4 events, 2 finals), Tim Henman (6 events, 0 finals), Cliff Drysdale (5 events, 1 final), and Tom Okker (4 events, 1 final), in addition to people already mentioned in the thread, none of whom qualified in more than four events or played in more than two finals. Andy's record is 8 events and 3 finals. Plus, nobody else had to face three opponents remotely of this caliber:
Andy's Defeats
Nadal, 3 times
Federer, 2 times
Djokovic, 2 times
Roddick, 1 time
Poor guy.
only once did he lose to a player seeded below him, and that was Roddick at Wimbledon in 2009; surely, no disgrace to lose that player on that surface at that time.
Yes, I think he will win one, but I don't think it is a dead certainty that he will. I'd give him about an 80% chance.
He's currently in an elite group with Federer. The two of them represent all of Tier 2, with Djokovic and Nadal all alone in Tier 1. Or maybe Djokovic is Tier 1 all by himself now.
It is Andy Murray, and it isn't even remotely close. All that is needed is to look at the 9 losses he has in the final/semi finals; 4 were against the first seed, 3 were against the second seed, 1 was against the third and 1 was against the sixth (Roddick). So 1 "bad" loss in there, and even the third seed was new Djokovic at the Aussie Open last year! All that and 8 Masters titles.
Mecir is probably the distant second, I think he lost to the eventual winner of the Slam 7 or 8 times. Just kept on coming up against Edberg, Lendl, Becker etc.
Someone like Rios was unlucky in certain respects, but I don't think he should be anywhere near a conversation like this. He made 1 final, and didn't even get to another semi final. This was at a time ('96-'00) when there was something like 11 different winners of the 20 Slams. To put that into perspective there have been 4 winners of the last 28. So his chance to succeed was much great than what currently exists.
Someone like Rios was unlucky in certain respects, but I don't think he should be anywhere near a conversation like this. He made 1 final, and didn't even get to another semi final. This was at a time ('96-'00) when there was something like 11 different winners of the 20 Slams. To put that into perspective there have been 4 winners of the last 28. So his chance to succeed was much great than what currently exists.
That's an excellent point. I revise my estimate of him. I always did have a weak spot for his game.
Someone like Rios was unlucky in certain respects, but I don't think he should be anywhere near a conversation like this. He made 1 final, and didn't even get to another semi final. This was at a time ('96-'00) when there was something like 11 different winners of the 20 Slams. To put that into perspective there have been 4 winners of the last 28. So his chance to succeed was much great than what currently exists.
Rios was never going to win Wimbledon (And it's not like he played much there anyway) or the US Open in that era. He probably would have had a much better chance these days, though we'll never know that. And on clay, guys like Kuerten, Corretja and Moya were just better in his prime. He was stuck in an era where specialists dominated, compared to now where they are barely relevant.
Rios was never going to win Wimbledon (And it's not like he played much there anyway) or the US Open in that era. He probably would have had a much better chance these days, though we'll never know that. And on clay, guys like Kuerten, Corretja and Moya were just better in his prime. He was stuck in an era where specialists dominanted, compared to now where they are barely relevant.
Yup. The clay and grass court specialists of today suck. It goes back to the surfaces again. Grass played much much faster and clay played slower. Big tournaments want Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray to make the semifinals because those are the most popular players. The court homogenization helps ensure all those players make the semis every time, even on surfaces to which their games wouldn't have been suited in the past. It somewhat tempers Murray's claim for me. Can you imagine Murray making the semifinals at RG in the '90s? Yeah, neither can I.
Yes, I think he will win one, but I don't think it is a dead certainty that he will. I'd give him about an 80% chance.[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with this only because (assuming the trend continues) of the 'big 4' Murray should have the least amount of wear and tear on his body in 2-3 years at which point I suspect the play of Nadal and even Djokovic may begin to fall off.
I'm gonna go out on a limb right now and say Murray ends his career with multiple slams including at least one Aussie and one US.
Rios was never going to win Wimbledon (And it's not like he played much there anyway) or the US Open in that era. He probably would have had a much better chance these days, though we'll never know that. And on clay, guys like Kuerten, Corretja and Moya were just better in his prime. He was stuck in an era where specialists dominated, compared to now where they are barely relevant.
The general point of it being a time when specialists dominated, of course I agree. However, it isn't an argument for Rios.
Clay was his surface, so just look at Roland Garros. During his peak years, the 4 years between 1996 and 1999, 16 different players made the semi finals of Roland Garros. So every year it was 4 different names, and he couldn't get there once! With so much parity, and failure to progress to the latter rounds ahead of guys like Arazi and Pioline, I just can't see the argument for him.
I do hate the fact all the courts are so similar now though.
The general point of it being a time when specialists dominated, of course I agree. However, it isn't an argument for Rios.
Clay was his surface, so just look at Roland Garros. During his peak years, the 4 years between 1996 and 1999, 16 different players made the semi finals of Roland Garros. So every year it was 4 different names, and he couldn't get there once! With so much parity, and failure to progress to the latter rounds ahead of guys like Arazi and Pioline, I just can't see the argument for him.
I do hate the fact all the courts are so similar now though.
Clay wasn't his only surface, not as he matured. Clay was his best surface initially, but by his fourth year on the tour he had developed into a player who was almost as proficient on hard courts as he was on clay. In fact, of the 13 titles that he won from '98 on, six were on hard courts and five were on clay. For his career his success on both surfaces was very close:
179-81, .688 on clay
175-86, .670 on hard courts
He came closer to winning the Australian Open, where he was a finalist in 1998 than he did to winning the French Open where he was a quarter-finalist twice.
On the Men's side I don't think anyone can beat Murray (I'm pretty sure he's the only guy to make three finals and never win, no?). On the women's side you have players like Dementieva (made two finals and an additional 7 semifinals without ever winning), Safina (3 finals, two semis) and Jankovic (1 final, 5 semis)... but even then none of them ever had a sustained spell where they were at the top of the rankings like Murray was.
Well, on the women's side Wozniacki is getting there...but she's got a lot of time to get a major and no set of absolutely dominant players in front of her.
