From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis
------=_Part_0_86104125.1781334957593
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Whisper <
whisper999@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
On 12/06/2026 5:46 pm, *skriptis wrote:> Of "best player never to have wo=
n a slam", assuming it was his to begin with.> > So who got "the title back=
" now that Zverev isn't the guy anymore?> > I know this is something sawfis=
h doesn't particularly enjoy, it's kinda statistical, but these kinds of di= scussion set the boundaries.> > I see couple of routes to discuss this.> > =
First of all, sympathy.> > People feel it towards players who came up sho=
rt multiple times, who lost many slam finals, possibly even in a heartbreak= ing manner.> > It's those guys that stick out.> > A hypothetical player dom= inating the tour, winning lots of ATP1000s or even being ranked highly, pos= sibly even number 1, won't incite strong feelings among fans when it comes =
to slam failure if his failures are quite apparent, say never going past QF=
In that sense all of the success he achieved outside of slams would ki=
nda be irrelevant.> > > That's why many consider Rios more of a trivia (rea= ching #1 but not winning slams) than a truly best player never not to have = won a slam.> > I'm not saying it's the correct view, perhaps he is actually=
the best, but I'm saying he's not seen as such as I think fans prefer the = "tragic element" of losing many slam finals and overall coming up short yet=
being always there in latter stages of slams.> > > > > So if it's all abou=
t the slams, then there's only one dilemma, similar to the Olympic medal ta= ble dilemma.> > Do we count in strict order, gold, silver, bronze, or do we=
make up some sort of weighting scheme to account for e.g. weight of 10 sil= ver medals vs 1 gold?> > > > In strict order, at least for open era, I will=
list guys with multiple finals lost:> > Gast=C3=B3n Gaudio=091010101> Tony=
Roche=0930812> Casper Ruud=0930404> Todd Martin=0920610> Stefanos Tsitsipa= s=0920608> C=C3=A9dric Pioline=0920408> Miloslav Me=C4=8D=C3=AD=C5=99=09204=
=C3=80lex Corretja=0920306> Kevin Curren=0920304> Robin S=C3=B6derling=
=0920206> Mark Philippoussis=0920205> Kevin Anderson=0920203> Steve Denton= =0920202> > > I included lowest ranked slam winner under this criteria, to = get a sense on numbers with titles, finals (not runner ups), semis , quarte=
rs and it's Gaudio as the "worst slam champion ever". Some could troll and = claim he's the best for excellent conversion rate.> > > Anyway, Roche actua= lly won a slam in amateurs so he's out, and so it's Casper Ruud, 0 titles, =
3 finals, 4 semis and 4 quarters.> > 3 finals seems a lot, but he actually = made slam QF only 4 times, that's actually surprising and quite weak.> > Co= mpare to Zverev> Alexander Zverev=091041117> > Even without this FO, Zverev=
had been in 16 QFs to Ruud's 4.> > > So you wonder if a weighting scheme i=
s necessary?> > Of course, you can pick anything you want so it's not reall=
y objective, but let's say we do 8, 4, 2, 1 for a title, final, semi, quart=
er then it's:> > > 26=09Tony Roche=090%> 26=09Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Berdych=090%>=
25=09Juan Carlos Ferrero=0932%> 25=09Roscoe Tanner=0932%> 25=09David Ferre= r=090%> 24=09Pat Cash=0933%> 23=09Jo-Wilfried Tsonga=090%> 22=09Sergi Brugu= era=0973%> 21=09Manuel Orantes=0938%> 20=09Todd Martin=090%> > > Again Roch=
e, but once he's filtered out, we see it's Berdych, with 26 pts under this = scheme (8,4,2,1).> > Of course, Gaudio is the "worst slam winner regardless=
, he's on mere 8 pts for his sole title run, compare that to Berdych's 26 p=
Percentages represent pts that come from titles. E.g. Bruguera 2 s=
lam titles (16 pts) and 22 in total so 16/22=3D0.73> > > > > So Ruud or Ber= dych.> > But considering Rios was number 1, made slam final and has won ATP= 1000s, he could also be a logical pick.> > > > I'd exclude Roche as he won =
a slam and made 6 finals, like Medvedev. In open era he lost 2 slam finals=
to Laver and 1 to Rosewall. That's as hard as it gets. He also is arguab=
ly the best volleyer of all time. From the others my gut feeling is Mecir a=
nd Tsitsipas are the best to not win a slam, in terms of talented players. =
Mecir absolutely slayed all the Swedes for a few years there, pity he fuck=
ed his back. He lost 2 slam finals to Lendl. Tsitsipas led Novak 76 62 in=
FO final and fell away. Also lost AO final to him. If I had to pick 1 guy=
for the title it would be Mecir. Yes Ruud made 3 slam finals, but as you = said he only had about 4 good slam results overall. Plus he was well beate=
n in those finals. Mecir is the guy who could beat anyone at his best, not=
sure I can say the same about Ruud and the rest?
Good insight.
In the end it's all about numbers and giving yourself as many chances as yo=
u can.
4 chances is a lot more than 2.
(Thiem and Zverev won title in their 4th final, Ruud is still on 3, and Tsi= tsipas on 2)
Thiem had it tough, 2 FO finals vs Nadal and 1 AO vs Djokovic. No shame in = losing those. In his 4th, he got rookie Zverev and did the job.
Zverev lost his first slam final, which is not tragic I guess, then lost 2 =
to Alcarez and Sinner and now did the job vs a rookie Cobolli.
It's a decent, record for both.
--=20
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html ------=_Part_0_86104125.1781334957593--
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2