Piece of trivia

Talk and announcements about the big 4 tournaments
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Piece of trivia

#1

Post by mick1303 »

I've noticed that there is one achievement that never happened in men's tennis (not in Open Era anyway) but on ladies side it happened quite a bit (6 or 7 times, depending on how to look at it). And this can happen as soon as next Australian Open. What is this achievement and what player can do this?
skatingfan Canada
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:00 am
Location: Smiths Falls
Has thanked: 1045 times
Been thanked: 867 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#2

Post by skatingfan »

Win their first & second Grand Slam titles at consecutive events, which Daniil Medvedev could do if he wins the Australian Open.

Open Era Women's players
Naomi Osaka - 2018 US Open, 2019 Australian Open
Jennifer Capriati - 2001 Australian Open, 2001 French Open
Venus Williams - 2000 Wimbledon, 2000 US Open
Chris Evert - 1974 French Open, 1874 Wimbledon
Evonne Goolagong - 1971 French Open, 1971 Wimbledon
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#3

Post by mick1303 »

You are correct, sir!
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#4

Post by mick1303 »

There was also Hana Madlikova
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#5

Post by mick1303 »

And if you look at Open Era separately, Margaret Court also done this.
skatingfan Canada
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:00 am
Location: Smiths Falls
Has thanked: 1045 times
Been thanked: 867 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#6

Post by skatingfan »

mick1303 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:40 am There was also Hana Madlikova
Those December Australian Open tournaments are always snag.
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#7

Post by mick1303 »

skatingfan wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:30 am
mick1303 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:40 am There was also Hana Madlikova
Those December Australian Open tournaments are always snag.
Actually, when I was outlining calendar while composing my results database, it irritated me to no end, that calendar was inconsistent with slams and the period from 1977 to 1986 was different from previous and subsequent years. What I ended up doing was arbitrary assigning December AOs to the next year. This way in "my" Grand Slams calendar there is no years with 5 slams and years with 3 slams. And order of the slams is always the same - from Australian to US Open. As a result - I consider that Martina Navratilova has Grand Slam in 1984. Because Australian Open in December of 1984 (which she didn't win) in my view already a part of next season. While Australian Open in December of 1983 (which she won) - is a part of 1984 Slam season.
ashkor87 India
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
Location: India
Has thanked: 2320 times
Been thanked: 813 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#8

Post by ashkor87 »

This is not really trivia but..
Wimbledon appears to be unique in that, at least in this millenium, there have been hardly any one-off winners - every Wimbledon champion, male or female, with the solitary exception of Bartoli and Stich, has either gone on to win another major, or had already won one...it seems to take class to win Wimbledon! The other majors are a bit more forgiving- Delpo and Cilic, Sloane and Penetta at the USO for instance...let us hope Raducanu doesn't add to the list! Too early to write off Sloane, actually...
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#9

Post by mick1303 »

You're probably confusing Stich with Ivanisevic. Stich won his in previous millennium. Also, when a player besides a single slam title has slam final appearances, I do not consider his title run a random fluke. Both Stich and Ivanisevic been in other slam finals.
ashkor87 India
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
Location: India
Has thanked: 2320 times
Been thanked: 813 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#10

Post by ashkor87 »

Yes, was forgetting Ivanisevic..just at the start of the millenium!
ashkor87 India
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
Location: India
Has thanked: 2320 times
Been thanked: 813 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#11

Post by ashkor87 »

My commentary is on Wimbledon, not on the player!!
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 14721
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 3857 times
Been thanked: 5564 times
Contact:

Re: Piece of trivia

#12

Post by ponchi101 »

Wimbledon is the least affected slam in that aspect. There are truly no champions there that didn't at least reach a slam final somewhere else or, in the case of Bartoli and Goran, another final at WImbledon. The USO is not terribly affected, but the real one that was open to being won by anybody was RG. You have winners there that did not even come close to a slam final anywhere else: Costa, Bruguera, Guga, Majoli, Myskina and Schiavone come to mind.
I gather that there really way more players that feel comfortable on clay than on grass. Personally, the grass season has to be extended. It would be good to see more grass matches, I think.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
ashkor87 India
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
Location: India
Has thanked: 2320 times
Been thanked: 813 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#13

Post by ashkor87 »

Which really raises the question- why is the FO easier for random players to win? Or the USO even...I have no idea...
Could be, as you say, more players know how to play on clay and hard, so the universe of potential champions is larger..?
User avatar
meganfernandez United States of America
Posts: 4881
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:04 pm
Has thanked: 2473 times
Been thanked: 1684 times

Re: Piece of trivia

#14

Post by meganfernandez »

ashkor87 wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 12:07 pm Which really raises the question- why is the FO easier for random players to win? Or the USO even...I have no idea...
Could be, as you say, more players know how to play on clay and hard, so the universe of potential champions is larger..?
I'd expand it to finalist or even semifinalists and see if the results are similarly skewed or even out among the Slams. Wining the tournament isn't the only measure of success on a surface. There's not much difference between finalists and winners for the purposes of this exercise - one match, and a match against two top players can go either way about any time (with the exception of a super favorable style matchup or someone just having the other person's number psychologically).
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 14721
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 3857 times
Been thanked: 5564 times
Contact:

Re: Piece of trivia

#15

Post by ponchi101 »

I did that analysis in TAT1.0. At RG, you have all those unusual winners, and then you have the Martin Verkerks, Alberto Berasategui's, Mikael Pernfors and Guillermo Coria making the final, never to be seen again. And RG is also the tournament where a lot of teenagers break through: Borg, Wilander, Chang, Rafa, Steffi, Monica, Arantxa, etc, which is a data point AGAINST the famous "you need experience and learn how to play the game" mantra about tennis. At RG, at least during the 70's and 80's, you needed lungs, legs and one good shot to win it.
RG is unique in that aspect, if you exclude the lean years at the Aussie, when the top players did not go.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests