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?
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
by mick1303 You are correct, sir!
by mick1303 There was also Hana Madlikova
by mick1303 And if you look at Open Era separately, Margaret Court also done this.
by
skatingfan mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:40 am
There was also Hana Madlikova
Those December Australian Open tournaments are always snag.
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.
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...
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.
by ashkor87 Yes, was forgetting Ivanisevic..just at the start of the millenium!
by ashkor87 My commentary is on Wimbledon, not on the player!!
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.
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..?
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).
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.
by ashkor87 And Niemenen! What happened to him?
by ashkor87 One more unique thing about W is that there are hardly any tournaments to get practice..so to win W you need class? Just good form and momentum will not do..?
by ponchi101 very hard to say. Pete won it seven times with almost no preparation ever, Borg won it five going almost straight from RG. Roger has been the opposite, winning Halle almost always, Serena has done it with no preparation.
It is an odd tournament, by now.
by ashkor87 Also, there aren't enough grass tournaments for anyone to make a living as a grass court specialist..a clay court specialist is viable, and might even go to the finals or win RG..
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 7:34 pm
very hard to say. Pete won it seven times with almost no preparation ever, Borg won it five going almost straight from RG. Roger has been the opposite, winning Halle almost always, Serena has done it with no preparation.
It is an odd tournament, by now.
True but it doesn't really explain why nobody other than great players seems to be able to win W..
by ponchi101 Isn't that sort of circular? You win W, you are a great player. You are a great player, you win W.
In the open era, and even counting Jan Kodes (who won a RG too), there have been only 4 winners at Wimbledon that won no other slam: Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic. They all made other slam finals, and only Goran made them only at W. At the USO, you now have: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Delpo and Roddick. All have made other finals, with Delpo making it twice to the USO.
W and the USO are very similar in that aspect. Only the best make it, but that is, again, circular. It is also very similar for the women. At W, only three one time winners that never won anywhere else: Martinez, Novotna and Bartoli. At the USO right now we have a few one timers: Sabatini, Stosur, Penetta, Stephens, Bianca and Raducanu, and the last two are far from over.
Plus Wimbledon cultivates that image. I wonder if they would like more grass court tournaments before theirs. They would not be competition, but they like being "exclusive".
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:12 pm
Isn't that sort of circular? You win W, you are a great player. You are a great player, you win W.
In the open era, and even counting Jan Kodes (who won a RG too), there have been only 4 winners at Wimbledon that won no other slam: Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic. They all made other slam finals, and only Goran made them only at W. At the USO, you now have: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Delpo and Roddick. All have made other finals, with Delpo making it twice to the USO.
W and the USO are very similar in that aspect. Only the best make it, but that is, again, circular. It is also very similar for the women. At W, only three one time winners that never won anywhere else: Martinez, Novotna and Bartoli. At the USO right now we have a few one timers: Sabatini, Stosur, Penetta, Stephens, Bianca and Raducanu, and the last two are far from over.
Plus Wimbledon cultivates that image. I wonder if they would like more grass court tournaments before theirs. They would not be competition, but they like being "exclusive".
No, what I am saying is - if you win multiple majors, you are a great player..that is not circular, it is an independent definition.
by mick1303 I have a theory that the factor affecting "random" winners is the interval between Slams. Wimbledon has so much less of them because of the short turnaround. Only elite players can handle this.
by ponchi101 Yes, but not my preferred idea. I say very few players really know how to play on grass, while a lot are perfectly able to play on clay.
To me, for ages, the idea was that big servers would always win W. The list does not support that: Connors, Borg, Agassi, Rafa and Novak are not big servers (but they were smart servers). The one ability that ALL W winners have is their foot work. They are very good but also light on their feet. Rafter could not win it because he was very fast and had great footwork, but his strides where "heavy" meaning, he would plant too hard. His split coming to the net was superb on a hard court, but in grass, it would dig him in.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:36 pm
Yes, but not my preferred idea. I say very few players really know how to play on grass, while a lot are perfectly able to play on clay.
To me, for ages, the idea was that big servers would always win W. The list does not support that: Connors, Borg, Agassi, Rafa and Novak are not big servers (but they were smart servers). The one ability that ALL W winners have is their foot work. They are very good but also light on their feet. Rafter could not win it because he was very fast and had great footwork, but his strides where "heavy" meaning, he would plant too hard. His split coming to the net was superb on a hard court, but in grass, it would dig him in.
Yes, the way you have to move on grass is very different from how you have to move anywhere else.. but it doesn't really explain, I think, why some random player who is a good grass mover cannot win this and never win anything else..in fact if this theory is correct, we should have even more players who can win one Wimbledon and nothing else? I am thinking Rybarikova, for instance..she floated like a wraith on the grass...
by mick1303 These things rarely depend on one single reason but rather on the combination of them. Rarity of grass, short turnaround, maybe something else that we can't pinpoint at the moment. Movement is extremely important but it can't solve all problems if there are glaring deficiencies in the game (comparing to top players). On the other hand, the relative deficiency in movement can be compensated. Becker was good mover but far from archetypal grass mover (how many of his "flights" were the results of being out of position?). Davenport was below average mover. So were Sharapova and Kvitova.
by jazzyg Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 and never won another slam or even reached a slam final before or after.
by ptmcmahon Only even reached one semi.
by ponchi101 He also had at least 8 major injuries in his career. He makes Phillipousis or Delpo look like the stalwarts of endurance.