now that KIM CLISTERS has won a major, who has now become "the best player to never win a major"? (active players)

mauresmo?
rubin?
schnyder?

any other nominees?

todd martin!

Tim Henman
Dementieva

gotta put momo over demetieva, with that serve she'll never be one of the greatest. doubt henman will be thought of that way either.

I'm not disagreeing. But Henman's had the best career of anyone still playing on the men's side who is slamless (Martin threw in the towel last year). Dementieva has had some good results the past few years. Yeah, her serve blows, but she's still ranked #6 and has made it to two GS finals. Momo has only made it to one final.

mark philippousis.

he should've won a couple of slams.

Mauresmo by far. She is the Hana Mandlikova of the modern age. The only difference being Hana won a few slams (but really should have won a few more).

I'm not sure if this counts, but between all the Maleeva sisters, there should be at least one slam.

mary joe fernandez

mary joe's a good choice

Mauresmo & Patty Schnyder for certain....

Since the question asks for acive players, it has to be Mauresmo and Henman in my mind.

Mauresmo has only been to 1 Slam final so far, she's been to a bunch of semis and been a top 4 seed pretty consistently for a number of years. Schnyder, Rubin rarely went in to Slams as anything more than darkhorses while Mauresmo has often gone in as a strong contender, if not a favorite.

On the men's side, Henman has mostly been known for his futile efforts at Wimbledon, but he's made runs deep into the other Slams as well. Looking at the current rankings, I can't find anybody that comes close in terms of career results without one of the big ones under his belt.

For the women, I'd say it's Mauresmo easily, the one slam final appearance notwithstanding. I'm hoping Kim's breakthrough inspires her!

As much as I hate to say this ... and I 100% believe it could change ... right now, Amelie is much more like a Pam Shriver for her generation than she is like Mandlikova. Pam made one Slam final very early in her career and then was a semi's and quarters kinda gal, winning regular tour events and getting as high as No. 3 in the world, but not able to breakthrough in a major. Although Amelie is extremely talented and has all the shots, so I understand the comparison to Hana there.

Sorry, but Shriver also set a standard for excellence in doubles. Mauresmo comes nowhere near that. I would rank Shriver much higher than Mauresmo.

Mauresmo is the only player to have the number one ranking without ever winning a slam, although briefly, 5 weeks. So yeah, the torch is currently hers. I'd love to see her finally get one, like Kim just did.

Helena Sukova. She always scored the big upset in the Grand Slam semifinals (1984 and 1989 Australian Opens over Navratilova, 1986 U.S. Open over Evert, 1993 U.S. Open over Sanchez Vicario), but never broke through in the final.

Momo reminds me a little more of Marcelo Rios than Mandlikova or Shriver. Very talented players who didn't live up to their potential (comparing their careers, not their personalities). Both hit no. 1 without winning a slam. I think Momo can still do it, though. She's got a better head on her shoulders than Rios.

Mauresmo is continually the biggest disappointment in a women's draw, and I don't expect that to change before she throws in a towel. What Novotna had/got that Mauresmo needs I do not know, but she needs to go on a search to find it.

I would also offer Coria to the list, last year and somewhat before that, he was really touted as the player to beat on clay--a little after Guga and before Nadal. Now, I don't think he'll ever get his /Grand Slam, even though I've really come to love his on-court bad manners.

I really like Pam Shriver - her personality is great, both as a commentator and I love "Passing Shots" - but as a singles player, Mauresmo is far superior in skill and rapidly approaching Pam's number of titles. Yes, Pam did very well in doubles, but that had a helluva lot to do with her partner.

Given her net-rushing style, that Shriver never won a major when both the Australian and Wimbledon were played on grass says alot her weaknesses. Imagine Mauresmo going her entire career without winning a Slam if there was a second clay court major not played in France ...

But I really wasn't ranking Mauresmo ahead or behind Pam. What I was saying is that her career is shaping up to be much like Pam's was in the 80s. She's always in contention but unable to pass the final hurdle of the very best players of her generation.

PS - I think Sukova is a great addition to the list of contenders for this "distinction." That Helena made the US Open final as late as 1993 still surprises me!

Yes, MoMo is the best of the current players without a slam. I think she's missed her opportunities and won't win one now. G4G, I totally agree your comparison to Shriver. Dementieva's very good, but I've never looked at a draw and thought--Elena really ought to win this, the way I have a couple of times with Mauresmo. You could make a good argument for Sukova. She made more finals and was a very accomplished doubles player as well. I brought her up on a Hall of Fame thread a while ago--if Shriver and Novotna are there, does Sukova belong?

I would go with Shore and pick Coria over Henman. Rios was certainly one of the most talented never to win a major, if not the most. He won quite a few masters events and made it to #1 at a very young age.

I was thinking about the players with the most potential versus the ones who get/got the most out of their potential. Amelie just seems to have the physical goods, (and plays such a pretty game), that I'd say she the best women without a major. Seems to me Elena gets the most out of her ability as she can. I actually thought Shriver did too. She had very attackable weaknesses, so for her to win a major would have been a major upset. I actually thought she did a lot with her ability, especially compared to the balanced, dominant players she competed against.

For the men, I'd pick Phillipousis (sp?) over Henman. Henman seems to have played to his abilities, whereas with Philli it seems like there's another gear he could use, but doesn't.

I honestly think Flip would have won Wimbledon the one year when he was kicking Pete's ass but then pulled a muscle (or something) and had to retire. I don't remember what year that was, but he hasn't really seemed the same since.

I always liked Mark and wouldn't mind seeing him pull a Goran Ivanisevic and serve his way through Wimbledon late in his career ... but with Federer around, not to mention Roddick and Hewitt, it doesn't seem realistic.