DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Camelot Fantasies
HTML https://castleknights.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Pro Player Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13594--------------------------------------------------
The Slam Never Won
By: masterclass Date: April 13, 2014, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There have only been 7 players in tennis history who have won
every major in their career.
They are, in order of achievement: [B]Fred Perry (GBR), Don
Budge (USA), Rod Laver (AUS), Roy Emerson (AUS), Andre Agassi
(USA), Roger Federer (SUI), Rafael Nadal (ESP)[/B]
Only two have achieved it twice so far, [B]Laver and
Emerson[/B], but neither achieved two in the Open Era.
There are several famous top players who have won 3, and never
been able to produce the elusive win, despite trying their
utmost to do so. The most recent player in this category is
former #1 and current #2 player in the world, Novak Djokovic.
His albatross? The French Open, or Roland Garros, officially Les
internationaux de France de Tennis, Roland Garros.
For him, like many others, the clay major has been the toughest.
He had never reached a final until 2012. Before that, 3 out of 6
years he met one of the all time Clay greats, Rafael Nadal, in
the quarter finals or semifinals and lost. In the 2012 final, he
met, who else - Nadal and lost. In the 2013 semifinal he also
lost to Nadal. In Novak's best year thus far, 2011, he also made
it to the semifinal, only to be beaten by a brilliant Roger
Federer that day, ending his 43 match unbeaten streak. Other
than Ivan Lendl and Ken Rosewall, he is probably been the
closest to winning the elusive 4th major.
Will Novak ever be able to conquer his demons and win at Roland
Garros and achieve a career slam? This is the poll question.
But Novak is not alone. The list of great players in the Open
Era, who never managed to win the elusive 4th major:
[B]Novak Djokovic*:[/B] 4 Australian Opens, 1 Wimbledon, 1 US
Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 1 Final (2012), 4 SF
(2007, 2008, 2011, 2013), 2 QF (2006, 2010)
[B]Pete Sampras:[/B] 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 2 Australian
Opens. Best showings at Roland Garros - 1 SF(1996), 3
QF(1992-1994)
[B]Stefan Edberg:[/B] 2 Australian Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 2 US
Opens. Best showings at Roland Garros - 1 Final (1989), 3 QF
(1985, 1991, 1993)
[B]Boris Becker:[/B] 3 Wimbledons, 2 Australian Opens, 1 US
Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 3 SF (1987, 1989, 1991),
1 QF(1986)
[B]Ivan Lendl:[/B] 3 US Opens, 3 French Opens, 2 Australian
Opens. Best showings at Wimbledon - 2 Finals (1986-87), 5 SF
(1983-84, 1988-90)
[B]Mats Wilander:[/B] 3 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 1 US
Open. Best showings at Wimbledon - 3 QF (1987-89)
[B]Guillermo Vilas:[/B] 2 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 1 US
Open. Best showings at Wimbledon - 2 QF (1976-77)
[B]Jimmy Connors:[/B] 5 US Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 1 Australian
Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 4 SF (1979-80, 1984-85),
4 QF (1981-83, 1987)
[B]John Newcombe:[/B] 3 Wimbledons (1 pre-Open Era), 2 US Opens
(1 pre-OE), 2 Australian Opens. Best showings at Roland Garros -
2 QF (1965, 1969)
[B]Arthur Ashe:[/B] 1 Wimbledon, 1 US Open, 1 Australian Open.
Best showings at Roland Garros - 2 QF (1970-71)
[B]Ken Rosewall:[/B] 4 Australian Opens (2 pre-OE), 2 French
Opens (1 pre-OE), 2 US Opens (1 pre-OE). Best showings at
Wimbledon - 4 Finals (1954, 1956, 1970, 1974), 2 SF (1954,
1971), 1 QF (1953)
[B]*[/B]Still Active
Note that for most non-Australian based players before the late
1980's, the Australian Open was not feasible, due to the
distance and costs to go there, as well as the time of year (Dec
& Jan), and lower prize money. The great Bjorn Borg, for
example, only played it one time, early in his career. Perhaps
if Bjorn had managed to win the US Open in 1978 or 1980, and
thus would have won the first 3 majors of the year, he would
have made the trip to Australia (when it was held in December).
But for the 6 time Roland Garros winner and 5 time Wimbledon
winner, the US Open was his albatross, losing in 4 Finals (1976,
1978, 1980-81), 1 SF, and 1 QF. John McEnroe only attended the
Australian Open 5 times with a SF and 3 QF results.
If Andy Murray, OBE, can get back to his form preceding back
injury, I believe he has a credible chance to win an Australian
Open. But even with that, I think he will join the list above
with the lack of a Roland Garros title, having no clay titles at
all thus far.
Respectfully,
masterclass
#Post#: 13610--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: Clay Death Date: April 13, 2014, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
fantastic thread general masterclass.
this will require some thought.
what if nadal holds him off for 2 more years? can nole wait that
long?
where will nole be in his career in 2-3 years?
nadal is still in his prime and he is the best that has ever
been on the red clay. if he can just stay healthy, he has 2 more
RG crowns: this year and the next.
#Post#: 13611--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: thetruth Date: April 13, 2014, 7:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a great and thought provoking thread. Cheers to
Masterclass once agai for exceeding all of our expectations.
However, I do not want to answer this question due to a conflict
of interest.
#Post#: 13653--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: masterclass Date: April 14, 2014, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One advantage for Nole is that he is still near the top of his
game at #2 in the world, many of the better clay court players
are older than he is, and there are very few who are near his
level on clay as he generally has been the last few years.
One disadvantage is that the current #1 player is Rafael Nadal,
the Clay King of this generation and perhaps all time.
So I suppose the real question is who will decline the fastest
from this point forward, especially on clay, Nadal or Djokovic?
Some say Nadal has already declined on clay. But he was at such
a high level to start with, one would think he has some room to
fall.
Novak may have to contend with some of those that still have an
excellent game on clay, but there aren't many. One doesn't see
many young rising stars on clay at this point either.
I would agree that he has an excellent chance to complete his
career slam, especially if Nadal were to fail. But that's the
big if. On the other hand, if Soderling could beat Nadal once,
something like that could happen again.
Respectfully,
masterclass
#Post#: 13654--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: masterclass Date: April 14, 2014, 2:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I understand your position Lady TT. ;) Having a slight or even
greater prejudice or bias is pretty normal for fans in any
sport, after all the word "fans" comes from the word "fanatic",
and it's almost expected that one's views would be slanted in a
certain direction. As long as those points of view can be
expressed without demeaning or insulting other points of view,
then perhaps a reasonable discussion might take place. :) But
it is also acceptable to say nothing on the matter. ;)
I for one, though, would be eager to hear your or any other
reasonable opinion on the subject in this topic, as you said,
thought provoking.
It doesn't only have to pertain to the poll question. That's
just the "candy", so-to-speak. There are many things that can be
discussed in this topic. For example, the different players
styles, and their natural weaknesses Or, to what extent did the
players on the list try to accomplish the feat? Early on, it
may not have even been thought of as a feat worth sacrificing
other things. Even the players that accomplished it can be
brought into question. Were they fortunate to have completed a
career slam? Or was it just a product of their game and overall
ability?
Respectfully,
masterclass
#Post#: 13655--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: masterclass Date: April 14, 2014, 2:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One thing that is interesting to me is that in all of the
players listed who didn't complete their career slam, it is one
of the natural surfaces that has been their doom.
Also, looking at the players, it seems there is mostly one style
category of player that hasn't won Roland Garros, and one that
hasn't won Wimbledon.
The serve and volley players like Sampras, Edberg, Becker,
Newcombe never won the French Open.
The baseliners like Wilander, Lendl, Vilas, never won Wimbledon.
Looking at Novak's game and style in isolation, I might have
predicted that he would have the most difficulty winning
Wimbledon, though it's true that recently baseliners have had
more success there due to the generally higher bouncing and
consistent grass court.
But, he did win there, and it has been Roland Garros where he
has failed thus far.
To me, he's most similar to Jimmy Connors in this respect. Both
aggressive baseliners who were/are excellent on clay.
Of course, Connors was prevented from playing at Roland Garros
in 5 of his best years due to his contract with WTT and
thereafter, Borg, Lendl, and other clay adepts got in his way,
whereas Djokovic has had Nadal and a few others blocking him
thus far.
Of course, a little luck never hurts when there aren't too many
standing in your way. :)
Respectfully,
masterclass
#Post#: 13669--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: thetruth Date: April 14, 2014, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=masterclass link=topic=734.msg13653#msg13653
date=1397458858]
One advantage for Nole is that he is still near the top of his
game at #2 in the world, many of the better clay court players
are older than he is, and there are very few who are near his
level on clay as he generally has been the last few years.
One disadvantage is that the current #1 player is Rafael Nadal,
the Clay King of this generation and perhaps all time.
So I suppose the real question is who will decline the fastest
from this point forward, especially on clay, Nadal or Djokovic?
Some say Nadal has already declined on clay. But he was at such
a high level to start with, one would think he has some room to
fall.
Novak may have to contend with some of those that still have an
excellent game on clay, but there aren't many. One doesn't see
many young rising stars on clay at this point either.
I would agree that he has an excellent chance to complete his
career slam, especially if Nadal were to fail. But that's the
big if. On the other hand, if Soderling could beat Nadal once,
something like that could happen again.
Respectfully,
masterclass
[/quote]
Your analyses are so inspiring. One can never argue with your
logic. Fair and balanced, objective, and covers all the bases.
Yes, I agree with everything. The question is who will fall
first, but we also have to consider Nadal's injuries, some
self-lnflicted from over playing and some due to the stress of
bone defect which affects his knees. But, when you have one
injury that is persistent, it eventually affects other parts of
your body, hence the back injury.
I do think Nole will get the career grand slam. Other than
Nadal, only Federer can stop him.
But Federer is aging and Nadal's body may not be able to prevent
Nole from ascending to the illustrious goal.
Either way, it will be all good. This is tennis, not our lives.
#Post#: 13670--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: thetruth Date: April 14, 2014, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=masterclass link=topic=734.msg13654#msg13654
date=1397460137]
I understand your position Lady TT. ;) Having a slight or even
greater prejudice or bias is pretty normal for fans in any
sport, after all the word "fans" comes from the word "fanatic",
and it's almost expected that one's views would be slanted in a
certain direction. As long as those points of view can be
expressed without demeaning or insulting other points of view,
then perhaps a reasonable discussion might take place. :) But
it is also acceptable to say nothing on the matter. ;)
I for one, though, would be eager to hear your or any other
reasonable opinion on the subject in this topic, as you said,
thought provoking.
It doesn't only have to pertain to the poll question. That's
just the "candy", so-to-speak. There are many things that can be
discussed in this topic. For example, the different players
styles, and their natural weaknesses Or, to what extent did the
players on the list try to accomplish the feat? Early on, it
may not have even been thought of as a feat worth sacrificing
other things. Even the players that accomplished it can be
brought into question. Were they fortunate to have completed a
career slam? Or was it just a product of their game and overall
ability?
Respectfully,
masterclass
[/quote]
Agreed, and I actually did go on to answer the question after
giving it a bit of thought. Of course, we all have biases and
tend to lean towards some people more than others, but that's
expected if you ask me.
I couldn't agree more about discussion. It means hearing other
people's point of view. People who demean others are immature.
Why can't someone have an opinion that differs from your own?
I've never understood that.
Since we can't predict the future, or what will happen the rest
of Nadal and Nole's career, I think Nole will get it. The
pressure of Nadal alone being the one to stop Nole will
eventually create too much pressure on Nadal. I know it would if
it was me.
But, they both great players and everyone gets what they have
earned.
#Post#: 13671--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: thetruth Date: April 14, 2014, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=masterclass link=topic=734.msg13655#msg13655
date=1397460452]
One thing that is interesting to me is that in all of the
players listed who didn't complete their career slam, it is one
of the natural surfaces that has been their doom.
Also, looking at the players, it seems there is mostly one style
category of player that hasn't won Roland Garros, and one that
hasn't won Wimbledon.
The serve and volley players like Sampras, Edberg, Becker,
Newcombe never won the French Open.
The baseliners like Wilander, Lendl, Vilas, never won Wimbledon.
Looking at Novak's game and style in isolation, I might have
predicted that he would have the most difficulty winning
Wimbledon, though it's true that recently baseliners have had
more success there due to the generally higher bouncing and
consistent grass court.
But, he did win there, and it has been Roland Garros where he
has failed thus far.
To me, he's most similar to Jimmy Connors in this respect. Both
aggressive baseliners who were/are excellent on clay.
Of course, Connors was prevented from playing at Roland Garros
in 5 of his best years due to his contract with WTT and
thereafter, Borg, Lendl, and other clay adepts got in his way,
whereas Djokovic has had Nadal and a few others blocking him
thus far.
Of course, a little luck never hurts when there aren't too many
standing in your way. :)
Respectfully,
masterclass
[/quote]
Yes, I agree. That's why I like the natural surfaces. It keeps
players humble.
Besides Nadal and Federer, who else do you think can stop Nole?
I can't think of anyone.
#Post#: 14009--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Slam Never Won
By: Clay Death Date: April 21, 2014, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=masterclass link=topic=734.msg13655#msg13655
date=1397460452]
One thing that is interesting to me is that in all of the
players listed who didn't complete their career slam, it is one
of the natural surfaces that has been their doom.
Also, looking at the players, it seems there is mostly one style
category of player that hasn't won Roland Garros, and one that
hasn't won Wimbledon.
The serve and volley players like Sampras, Edberg, Becker,
Newcombe never won the French Open.
The baseliners like Wilander, Lendl, Vilas, never won Wimbledon.
Looking at Novak's game and style in isolation, I might have
predicted that he would have the most difficulty winning
Wimbledon, though it's true that recently baseliners have had
more success there due to the generally higher bouncing and
consistent grass court.
But, he did win there, and it has been Roland Garros where he
has failed thus far.
To me, he's most similar to Jimmy Connors in this respect. Both
aggressive baseliners who were/are excellent on clay.
Of course, Connors was prevented from playing at Roland Garros
in 5 of his best years due to his contract with WTT and
thereafter, Borg, Lendl, and other clay adepts got in his way,
whereas Djokovic has had Nadal and a few others blocking him
thus far.
Of course, a little luck never hurts when there aren't too many
standing in your way. :)
Respectfully,
masterclass
[/quote]
great post and great observations.
the game today is different. all warfare on the battlefield has
to be waged from the backcourt.
so it will be the baseliners winning everything. serve n volley
players would not be able to put food on the table in modern
tennis unless you were bryan brothers and that is doubles.
stan hurt roger from the backcourt yesterday. he pressed and
attacked roger's weaker wing from the backcourt. roger would go
on to make as many as 18 unforced errors off that wing. the war
has to be and must be waged from the backcourt. going forward
entails a lot of risk today so you can only go in on your own
terms.
but that being said, all your observations are correct. natural
surfaces have been a bit of a problem for some players. as good
as they were on quicker grass, they found themselves a bit
limited on the red clay.
newcombe, Sampras, and johnny mac were never able to win at RG.
*****************************************************