Interesting article. Do you agree with the writer? Who's your number 1 or top 10?

http://www.411mania.com/sports/other_sports/68817

Across the Net 2.11.08: Who is the Best Single Slam Winner?
Posted by Dan Martin on 02.11.2008

Chang, Cash, Gaudio, Gomez, Ivanisevic, Muster, Krajicek, Korda, Noah, and Stich: Their names are memorable to hardcore fans. Therefore, rating the active and retired single slam winners is a worthwhile task.

Players of the Week:

Russia's Anna Chakvetadze backs up her #7 world ranking by winning a title in France over the impressive Agnes Szavay 6-3, 2-6, 6-2. Agnieszka Radwanska of Poland won in Thailand over Jill Craybas 6-2, 1-6, 7-6. Both players are young and have the potential to mix it up with the WTA's Big 6 of Justine Henin, Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic, Jenelna Jankovic, Serena Williams and Venus Williams. Radwanska already drew blood by eliminating Maria Sharapova at the 2007 U.S. Open in a match that was as notable for gamesmanship as it was for excellent tennis. Chakvetadze beat Venus Williams last summer and seems poised to challenge the top tier of WTA stars as well. I have knocked the WTA for a lack of depth so it is only fair to praise the new depth that is developing.

Ranking Single Slam Winners 1980-Present

My methodology will involve some statistical data revolving around world rankings, deep runs at Grand Slam titles, consistency, and career tournament titles. On the flip side, some of the judgment will be made on subjective terms that take my perception of overall talent into account. Single slam winners still playing on the tour will be evaluated next week as they each have the chance to add to their Grand Slam haul. In the case of Thomas Johansson that haul does not look likely to grow, but Novak Djokovic seems to be a lock to move out of the "one slam wonder" category sooner rather than later. Therefore, retired players will not be ranked against current players. Sorry, no Carlos Moya vs. Thomas Muster breakdown in this column.

Retired Single Slam Winners since 1980

The International Tennis Hall of Fame elected Michael Chang to its 2008 class, but passed on Michael Stich. Each won one Grand Slam title, attained the world #2 ranking and reached multiple Grand Slam finals, but the Hall of Fame must have seen some discernible difference between the two players. It may have come down to contributions to the game or maybe Chang's 4 Grand Slam finals clearly bested Stich's 3. I do not have transcripts of the meetings so this is all speculation on my part. Stich could make a case that his 1992 Wimbledon doubles title and doubles Gold Medal in Barcelona should even things out versus Chang. That debate is not important to this column, what is important is that single slam winners can be ranked. I will do my best to rank them.

Retired Single Slam Winners Produced Down Under: Brian Teacher 1980 and Petr Korda 1998

Retired Single Slam Winners Produced in Paris: Yannick Noah 1983, Michael Chang 1989, Andres Gomez 1990, Thomas Muster 1995, Albert Costa 2002, and Gaston Gaudio 2004

Retired Single Slam Winners Produced in London: Pat Cash 1987, Michael Stich 1991, Richard Krajicek 1996, and Goran Ivanisevic 2001

Retired Single Slam Winners Produced in New York: Null Set

Statistically, the French Open has produced the most single slam winners and this is in part because clay plays differently than other surfaces so winners can at times benefit from being specialists. Then again the French Open is likely the most taxing Grand Slam event so I am not saying the French Open is easy. Its difficulty also allows for upsets and broken draws that permit some unexpected champions to come through the draw. Of the 12 retired solo Grand Slam winners since 1980, I have to plead ignorance on Brian Teacher. The other 11 I am familiar with and can rate. I am placing Teacher 12th given the low status of the Australian Open when he won the title. I admit up front this is unfair as he may have been a great players simply frozen out by Borg, McEnroe and Connors, but I have my doubts.

12. Brian Teacher

11. Gaston Gaudio – I saw him up close at the 2002 event in Cincinnati. Gaudio had a nasty backhand and was exceptionally quick, but his results never grew after 2004. He will always have his spirited comeback win in the French Open final, but he never reached a second Grand Slam quarterfinal let alone final.

10. Albert Costa – I watched him practice in Cincinnati in 2002. Costa is less naturally talented than Gaudio, but had more mental toughness. He won 12 titles and had some Davis Cup and Olympic glory. His 2003 French Open semifinal run cements his status ahead of Gaudio.

9. Yanick Noah – His 1983 French Open title was impressive. He reached the 1990 Australian Open semifinal and was a 3 time U.S. Open quarterfinalist. As an aside, Noah's son Joakim plays basketball for the Chicago Bulls (with some controversy) and won 2 NCAA titles at the University of Florida.

8. Petr Korda – His 1998 Australian Open run was impressive as he crushed an in form Marcello Rios in the final. Korda also reached the 1992 French Open final losing to Jim Courier. His backhand was lethal and he took Pete Sampras down at the 1997 U.S. Open in five sets. He was also part of a controversial Agassi match at the 1990 U.S. Open where Agassi spit on an umpire's leg. Korda could be placed higher but a violation of the banned substance list hurts his status.

7. Richard Krajicek – His run at Wimbledon in 1996 was impressive as he beat both Michael Stich and Pete Sampras in straight sets. Krajicek reached the semifinals at the Australian and French Opens, won Wimbledon, and he also posted a Wimbledon semifinal in 1998 and reached 5 other Grand Slam quarterfinals. His serve was nasty and he rushed the net with great intensity. Had he been healthier who knows? Injuries hampered his movement and playing schedule. Still, he had a nice career.

6. Andres Gomez – He won the 1990 French Open and posted an impressive career record of 21 singles titles and 33 doubles titles. The big left-handed Ecuadorian struggled vs. Ivan Lendl but managed to take the French Open when Lendl skipped in order to pursue a Wimbledon title in 1990. Gomez beat Muster in the semifinals and Andre Agassi in the final match to capture his solo slam. Playing along side Wilander and Lendl really skew his results as Gomez reached 3 French Open quarterfinals prior to winning the big prize.

5. Thomas Muster – Muster is the best clay court player on this list. His 1995 French Open was only part of a nasty clay court run that included 11 titles on clay and a 65-2 record on the dirt. Muster was an Australian Open semifinalist in 1989 and reached the final at Key Biscayne before a car crashing into a pedestrian Muster nearly ruined his career. Had his knee not been mangled he may have won a lot of hard court titles as well. Muster did finish with 2 Australian Open semifinals and 3 U.S. Open quarterfinal appearances. Muster even held the #1 ranking for part of 1996. His title at the 1995 Paris Indoor included a semifinal win over Pete Sampras on a fast indoor court and proved 1995 was more than a clay court parade for Muster.

4. Goran Ivanisevic – If Muster was a crazy left-handed player who owned clay court tennis, Goran was a crazy left handed player who nearly owned grass court tennis. Goran burst onto the scene in 1990 beating Boris Becker in the first round of the French Open only to lose to Muster in the quarterfinals. Goran then reached the Wimbledon semifinals pushing Boris Becker hard in an explosive match. In 1992, Goran aced his way to a Wimbledon final beating Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras along the way only to lose to Agassi 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4. This loss haunted Goran for a long time. He lost to Pete Sampras in straight sets at Wimbledon 1994. His five set losses to Pete Sampras in the 1995 Wimbledon semifinal and 1998 Wimbledon final only cemented his self-imposed snake bitten status. Goran reached 3 Australian and 3 French Open quarterfinals, along with a U.S. Open semifinal. Before 2001 his career would be considered a tragic disappointment. In 2001, Goran beat a loaded draw of Carlos Moya, Andy Roddick, Greg Rusedski, Marat Safin, and Tim Henmen consecutively to reach his 4th Wimbledon final. There he overcame personal demons and a game Patrick Rafter to win 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 2-6, 9-7. Goran's nerves nearly undid his quest as he lost his marbles in the 4th set and had difficulty serving the match out in the 5th set. Few players took fans on the emotional roller coaster Goran did.

3. Pat Cash – Many fans dismiss Cash's 1987 Wimbledon victory over Ivan Lendl as a case of Lendl failing to complete his career Grand Slam by playing poorly. Cash's 7-6, 6-2, 7-5 victory over Lendl sealed that Wimbledon title, but earlier in 1987 Cash beat Lendl on grass at the Australian Open 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 en route to his first runner-up finish at the Australian Open. Cash lost the 1987 Aussie Open final in five sets to Stefan Edberg 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3. Cash was runner-up at the inaugural hard court Australian Open in 1988 as well. He beat world #1 Lendl in the semifinals in 1988 only to lose to Mats Wilander 6-3, 6-7, 3-6, 6-1, 8-6 in an epic final. Cash ranks 3rd for two reasons. First, he defeated a dominant #1 to win his only Grand Slam final. Second, Cash was becoming a major factor in tennis in 1984 where he lost to Ivan Lendl 3-6 6-3 6-4 6-7 7-6 in the 84 U.S. Open semifinals. Cash also reached the 1984 Wimbledon semifinals. Like Krajicek, Cash was hampered by a series of injuries. He had back, knee, and shoulder problems, but worst of all he snapped his Achilles tendon. Had Cash been healthier I am confident he would have won more than one Grand Slam title.

2. Michael Stich – What to do with a massive underachiever? I do not know, but his accomplishments and multi-surface acumen place him near the top. Stich won Wimbledon in 1991 beating Boris Becker in the final and was a quarterfinalist at Wimbledon in 1992 and 1993. He reached the Wimbledon semifinals in 1997. The German reached the French Open final in 1996 beating defending champion Thomas Muster along the way and also reached the French Open semifinals in 1991. Stich reached the Australian Open semifinals in 1993 and quarterfinals in 1992. He was U.S. Open runner-up in 1994 and was a quarterfinalist in 1991. Stich was a finalist at 3 of the 4 slams and was solid Down Under as well. Stich finished 1993 #2 in the world beating Pete Sampras for the ATP World Championship. Impressively, he held a 5-4 head-to-head lead over Pete Sampras. In many ways, Stich's game was similar to Sampras'. Each player had a huge serve, strong ground strokes and good net play. Stich never had the drive for consistent excellence that Sampras had even if he possessed similar capabilities. If one throws in Stich's 1992 Olympic Gold in doubles, 1992 Wimbledon doubles title, and 1993 Davis Cup title, Stich has to rank highly. He made a serious assault on all four Grand Slam events during his career, but I cannot help but feel his success was almost in spite of his general indifference. Beating Boris Becker at Wimbledon, beating Muster at the French Open and Sampras on carpet demonstrates that Stich could beat anyone anywhere, but that raises the question of why so few big wins for a guy with such a complete big game? I have no idea. He should have retired with 3-5 slam titles had he been more dedicated. Instead, here he is at #2 on the single slam winner list.

1. Michael Chang – Similar to Stich, Chang reached #2 in the world and reached the final round at 3 different slams. Chang was even 1 match removed from the world #1 ranking. Had he beaten Pete Sampras in the 1996 U.S. Open championship match he would have been #1. Chang won the French Open under highly improbable circumstances in 1989. His 5 set wins over Lendl and Edberg defied logic. Chang also needed 4 sets to beat Andrei Chesnokov in the semifinals. Chang even beat a very green Pete Sampras 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 in the second round of the 1989 French Open. Chang reached the French Open final in 1995 losing to an in form Muster. He added quarterfinal showings in Paris in 1990 and 1991. Chang reached the Australian Open final in 1996 where he lost to Boris Becker in 4 sets. In 1995 and 1997, he reached the semifinals Down Under. In addition to his 1996 U.S. Open runner-up, Chang nearly beat Stefan Edberg in the 1992 U.S. Open semifinals and also fell to Patrick Rafter in the 1997 U.S. Open semifinals. Chang even reached the 1994 Wimbledon quarterfinals where he fell to Pete Sampras. Chang won 34 singles titles, including 7 Masters Series events, finished 9 consecutive years in the world's top 15, was runner-up at 24 events, and was a consistent threat on the men's tour. Consistency places Chang above the others. Like Ivanisevic, Chang reached 4 Grand Slam finals, but he did it at 3 different Grand Slam events rather than reaching 4 Wimbledon finals. If Chang played Ivanisevic, Stich or Krajicek on a fast surface, I would not bet on Chang, but his career was more consistent and more excellent than those of his three contemporaries

No doubt Goran for me. He could have won 4 Wimbledons with a bit more luck. 5 even if we account for his semi loss versus Becker when he was only 19 and had an easy volley for 2 sets to love. That in my view was the point that deprived him from a great career. This point haunted him till 2001 and beyond I am sure!

Chang? I m so glad he got only one slam! I was not a big fan of his underarm serving at the FO. Lendl and Edberg shoudl have put him away!

Krajicek.

Not just did he play the best tennis to win his one Slam in my opinion, but he was simply a better all-round player than the other guys - could well have added to his tally if he wasn't so injury-prone. I'd leave Stich in second place, move Goran up to third and Chang down a bit, who was a bit of a flash in the pan.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/head...playernum2=K214

Interesting stat! Though I agree Krajicek was also a great player, I don't think his FH was up to Goran's.

Ivanisevic generally beat Krajicek but that was all about the matchup. Likewise, Sampras owning Goran while Krajicek had a winning H2H against Pete, or Becker having a lopsided H2H against Edberg, when in reality seperating the two is nigh on impossible.

I'd also just give the edge to Goran in terms of the forehand as a weapon, but in terms of as a consistent shot, Krajicek's held up much better than Goran's on the majority of occasions. He also had better movement, a better backhand and a stronger mentality than Ivanisevic. Goran was a fantastic grass court player, but it remains that Krajicek won his playing unbeatable tennis, whereas Goran had to rely on the gods as a wild card. As for the other surfaces, Krajicek again has the edge, although he really should have done better at the US Open.

Just a quick input for now...

Muster :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

I'd place Stich just above both Krajicek and Ivanisevic, but only just. Like the article said, I am amazed he retired with only one slam. But like the rest, just not consistent when it mattered, and sometimes that is the difference between a good player and a great one.

Yes there was something wild in Goran's game which made it difficult to watch as a fan as we never knew whether the next point would be a winner or an UE. But when he was on song (and that happened on more than one occasion to be frank).....he was simply the best player out there. Let's not forget that he was also very prone to injuries very early in his career so despite all that his record isn't bad.

Stich, there was something stiff about him...a la Lendl but without Lendl's flick of the wrist genius! I never liked or disliked the guy but his one slam was a bit on the lucky side for me as Edberg could have won it as well in 3 sets.

I loved Korda as a player as well so he would be my nber 2 or 3.

It is Goran for me too.
Pat cash! nah he should not be 3rd. Thank god he only won one slam!

G-O-R-A-N! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

Thank god he won a slam - lucky at that age too. Otherwise he'd have been a permanent bridesmaid liek Jimmy White was to snooker.

T. Muster? M. Stich? there are some names I haven't heard in a long time. Didn't know M. Chang only won one Slam.

I'm agreeing with the writer - Chang. it's tough to make chose because they had pretty good careers.

I never really liked Goran. His game was basically 'ace for a win'. Never felt he was that strong of an all-around player. Felt bad for him with all his collapses but only so much so.

i'll go with Chang too. such a fighter, always hung in there.

and Goran is most definately overrated. serving aces does not a great tennis player make - hello Ivo Karlovic.

Goran for me too...He was a very good grass courter.Chang? well I think everybody remembers that service shot...looked more lke a badminton serve to me.Goran was truly a lovely serve and volleyer.If it wasn't for his clumsiness at important moments..he shud have gone on to win many more.
Pat cash at 3?? :unsure:

I don't think Goran just went for aces. Sure he has a great serve but plenty of others at the time tried the same thing (Sampras, krajicek for eg) as grass court play demands. He had more to his game than that and made some outrageous shots and was obviously a class volleyer. Thing is it's about what people remeber and Goran's fairytale wildcard win has captured the imagination much moreso than that of say Chang or Gaudio. It was one of the best slams finals ever also and that lives long in the memory.

We could talk about it for ever, isn't it SB? ;)

Also I like to compare serve with a golf swing and there was something beautiful in Goran's effortless serve. Soundless almost.

Id say Goran no.1 as well, and would put Noah higher up the list . Id far rather watch him than Cash , who was pretty hot in 87-88 but Im not convinced he won Wimbledon as much as Lendl's weakness on grass lost it .
Gomez was a fine player esp. on clay and deserved at least one French Open .

Not just that final but it was the best slam tournament by far this decade. Almost every match was a 5 set classic starting from Hewitt v Dent in the 2nd rd onwards.

Oh sure, I meant to mention that but fogot! It was vintage Wimby, and a vintage slam. I think that had a brilliant SF between Agassi and Rafter too. Then of course the drama of Tim v Goran.

Yep, it was a serve that I certainly enjoyed watching .... and I quite enjoyed watching the server too :lol:

Seriously i don't think anyone serves quite like him. Sampras was no doubt the better server results wise and had a great second serve, but I always prefered Goran's serve.

I've never seen Noah or Gomez as far as I remember.

and so you should! even I can forgive Goran his win against Tim for his play and that final :clap:

I am going Goran. Ivanisevic could - and should - have won a Wimbledon several times, but he didn't quite have the mental strength. On his day, he could beat anyone -nay thrash everyone. And he proved it - the guy came in witha wildcard and won SW19.

There is no doubt that when Ivanisevic was around, players - including Sampras - thought 'sh*t' if they saw him on the same side. Goran took Pete, the greatest Wimbledon champion that has ever lived, to five sets three times. No small achievement.

I just don't think Gaudio, Chang and Krajicek hold up against Ivanisevic - Gaudio was too much of a one surface wonder for me, Chang never felt like a really dangerous opponent. He got the ball back - that works at the French, but not anywhere else. Kind of a Hewitt equivalent. Krajicek - well, I don't really feel I have a particularly strong argument here, but I've preferred Goran! :D

..and Goran actually beat him in SW19 the first time they met...when the Croat did not feel the pressure of the final. Not many people know or remember that. ;)

:D :hug: Me too! :lol:

Oooh when was that? I seem to have forgotten!

Good post :ok:

1992 Wimbledon England Grass SemiFinal Ivanisevic 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2

In 4 sets. Goran led their H2H 5-2 early in their career though they are of the same age. Either Sampras step it up or Goran started to get recuring shoulder injury, maybe both. Goran was also too emotional about the war (understandably) and I felt he was always trying to win for his country and not for him and that was his mistake. He shoudl have forgot the war like Djoko does and then his country would have benefited in some ways of his glory. He got the priorities wrong but easy to say from where I am, he was young and as said emotional.....and this is why we like him.


So Chang as the best single slam winner? No way!

True it is indeed :D Bless him :hug: Thanks for that cos I had forgotten myself :blush:

I kind of liked Chang when he played

I go for Goran too,as I think watching him hit his first serve alone was a joy.The fluidity surpasses all the others including Krajicek and Stich who have great service actions.

The mental side let Goran down because he was such a nutcase.You knew he was struggling whenever he started to dump easy volleys into the net under pressure,then the toal collapse when he would start crumbling inexplicably while serving.

Another - albeit lighter - factor in Gorans favour. Anyone who has won a Slam, and when asked why they think it was they won responds 'because I am genius'....is :ok:

:D

It would have to be Goran fo me.What a complete grass court player and to reach the finals on more than one occassion.His style effort and talent was a joy to watch when he was in full swing.

:ok: :ok:

I know :lol:

It was great to have an great personality win through on such a great occassion, I think folks remember that because it rarely happens. It is all very well saying that the tennis should do the talking, but in reality people like to see emotional, real people on court and big personalities are more memorable.

The amazing thing about that final was Rafter couldn't realise his dream.

Micheal Chang has been elected for the Hall of Fame this year, which I think is what may have started this article by Dan the writer, ahead of Stich I believe.

Now, you would think that Goran will get into the Hall of Fame just on that Wimbledon win alone. So to move the discussion further. Out of these players, who should now get into the Hall of Fame in future?

Pat Cash
Michael Stich
Richard Krajicek
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2 slams)
Andres Gomez (don't think he's in)
Goran Ivanisevic
Thomas Muster
Petra Korda (drugs will prevent it?)
Sergei Brugera (2 slams)

I am quite at a loss as to how Chang has got elected to the Hall of Fame. :shrug:

Ivanisevic should be there simply for winning in the face of adversity. He was the best player never to win Wimbledon during his peak, he had crippling injuries other players like Mathieu would have retired on, and he came in on a wildcard and captivated everyone with his win. We had all wanted it to happen, were waiting for it to happen.

We've got to give Stich credit - there is a rizla paper between Stich and Krajicek, because they are both solid players, with good GS win at Wimbledon...but their careers just didn't take off, in that they weren't consistently competing for Slams. Maybe over promising and under delivering?!

Kafelnikov has proved he can win on two very different surfaces - clay and hard.

I am always dubious about electing players who win the French. In my (humble) opinion, it's the most skill-less tournament. Gomez, Muster, Brugera etc all slog it out at the French. And again, in my opinion, consistency shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame - talent should.

Petr Korda will be eliminated for, as you say, the drug scandal (though drug consumption does come above gold plated hoops aged 40 + - see below)

Pat Cash is eliminated because he wears such a ridiculous earring even now, and we can't allow that level of chav-dom in the Hall of Fame. :tsk: ;)

So, for me: Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek and Kafelnikov

I would say Goran I & Richard K-they seemed to be a bit more prominent than the others-in my opinion. Also I remember Mary Carrillo (one of my least favorite commentators-in any sport :angry: ) once called him "borin' Goran". Was his game that bad?

A lot of people found the big servers 'boring' - I never did, I loved it and players like Sampras and Ivanisevic were just brilliant. When you talk about the great Wimbledon finals of all time - Ivanisevic and Rafter is up there, and he can't be called boring for that reason alone. :ok:

Thanks Sara

To be fair when I saw him at the top of the list I was pretty surprised myself, but statistically, he has had a superior career to nearly all of the guys on that list. He reached 4 Slam finals on three different surfaces, and won a really impressive 34 titles over a timespan of 12 years. Goran in my opinion was a great grass court player, but that's all he was.

I too believe that Goran should make the Hall of Fame, but Chang definitely deserves a place too, along with every guy on that list except Korda and Gomez.