PDA

View Full Version : Reaching All 4 Grand Slam Semifinals in One Year


McEnroeisanartist
09-01-2011, 09:15 AM
It is well known how dominant this generation is at the Grand Slams on all surfaces.

Consider from 1970 to 2004, only one player (Ivan Lendl in 1987) reached the semifinals of all 4 Grand Slams in one year.

Incredibly, since 2004, Federer reached the semifinals of all 4 Grand Slams in on year in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Nadal in 2008.

Now in 2011, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic can both achieve this at the 2011 U.S. Open.

Gizo
09-01-2011, 09:17 AM
In the 90s it was very rare for a player to reach the semi-finals of both the French Open and Wimbledon. Now multiple players seem to achieve this nearly every year:
2006 - Federer and Nadal
2007 - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic
2008 - Federer and Nadal
2009 - Federer
2010 - Nadal and Berdych
2009 - Djokovic, Nadal and Murray

sadowsk2
09-01-2011, 09:18 AM
It is well known how dominant this generation is at the Grand Slams on all surfaces.

Consider from 1970 to 2004, only one player (Ivan Lendl in 1987) reached the semifinals of all 4 Grand Slams in one year.

Incredibly, since 2004, Federer reached the semifinals of all 4 Grand Slams in on year in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Nadal in 2008.

Now in 2011, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic can both achieve this at the 2011 U.S. Open.

A testament to how strong the talent was in Lendl's era and how mediocre (outsite the Big 4) men's tennis is.... In particular, the lack of a strong US presence in men's tennis over the past decade (sorry Roddick fans... and besides that who else besides Roddick has there been from the US in the past 10 years? a past-their-prime Agassi and Sampras??)

celoft
09-01-2011, 09:31 AM
from 1970 to 2004, only one player (Ivan Lendl in 1987) reached the semifinals of all 4 Grand Slams in one year.

since 2004, Federer reached the semifinals of all 4 Grand Slams in on year in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Nadal in 2008.

Now in 2011, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic can both achieve this at the 2011 U.S. Open.

The homogenisation of the surfaces is the reason for this. In the future we might see different players winning the career slam.:oops::oops:

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 09:32 AM
Surface yeah but another difference is the draw. There used to be more early upsets but now, they've arranged the draw so that it's virtually impossible for a top player to lose before quarters, making the probability of making it to semi very high indeed.

Gizo
09-01-2011, 09:41 AM
32 seeds, surface homogenisation, less dangerous clay court and grass court specialists for the top seeds to worry about in the first week of the French and Wimbledon, they are all factors.

If Djokovic does achieve the career grand slam, then 3 players achieving this career grand slam in such a short space of time would be too much and really water it down.

Agassifan
09-01-2011, 09:45 AM
It also shows GOATness. One guy does 23 straight.. his peers haven't done more than 6.

Gizo
09-01-2011, 09:53 AM
I think only 9 other players even played in all 23 of those grand slams which puts in perspective.

It is perfectly understandable for any player no matter how great they are to have a few blips in a series of 23 grand slams and suffer a few first week exists. However Federer still hasn't had a blip since that streak ended, as reaching the quarter-finals, while not being good enough for his ambitions, is still a significant and reasonably deep grand slam run. Before Federer started his dominance, reaching all 4 slam quarter-finals in a year which Agassi did twice and Sampras did once, was considered to be a very impressive achievement.

bluetrain4
09-01-2011, 10:12 AM
What is Fed's QF streak?

Edit: I looked it up, and it's at 29.

Mainad
09-01-2011, 10:16 AM
In the 90s it was very rare for a player to reach the semi-finals of both the French Open and Wimbledon. Now multiple players seem to achieve this nearly every year:

2009 - Djokovic, Nadal and Murray

Murray only reached the quarter-finals of the French Open in 2009. 2011 was his first semi-final appearance.

Gizo
09-01-2011, 10:31 AM
Murray only reached the quarter-finals of the French Open in 2009. 2011 was his first semi-final appearance.

Sorry i made a typo there and meant 2011 and not 2009

PCXL-Fan
09-01-2011, 10:54 AM
Money wise and star power wise and tv viewership wise and enticing corporate/industry sponsorship-wise, it makes sense for the atp to homogenize surfaces.

The top, high ranked, well know and distinguished players will reach end rounds of almost all tournaments. They will become distinguished faces almost marketing tools used to create public interest. So we dont get top players exiting earlier on, and we don't get specialists in a single surface type dominating top players.

TV viewership for the tournaments is highly related to whether or not the top players are competing against one another. A Belucci vs Djokovic semi and EVEN more so a Belucci vs Ferrer semifinal for instance would draw much lower viewership then a Federer vs Djokovic or Murray vs Rafa match in Master Series or Slams.

There is a very logical business reason the top players get huge attendance bonuses at the Master Series events.

Arafel
09-01-2011, 11:07 AM
The homogenisation of the surfaces is the reason for this. In the future we might see different players winning the career slam.:oops::oops:

Yes, but the OPs picking from 1970 is also off. You really should only look at it from 88 on. Connors and Borg for instance, the two dominating forces of the 70s, never played all four tournaments in the same year after winning their first Slams in 74. In fact, I think the two may have only played all four once, in 73. McEnroe only played all four once or twice. Most top players skipped the AO up until 87 or 88, Connors boycotted the French for five years, and Evert and Borg, the two dominating forces on clay, SKIPPED THE FRENCH OPEN in 77.

Moose Malloy
09-01-2011, 11:38 AM
Yes, but the OPs picking from 1970 is also off

No to mention how many players were banned from majors in the 70s. Laver wasn't allowed to defend AO or FO titles in '70, Connors couldn't play French in '74, and a long list of WCT players(Newcombe, Rosewall among them) banned from multiple majors(not to mention boycott of W '73)

but the OP is one of the most disturbing fanboys around, so of course he wouldn't mention any of this, which I'm sure he knows.

he said he hoped Tsonga would break an ankle during the 5th set of his match with Fed at Wimbledon(& I don't want to repeat some of the other stuff he's said in the past)



32 seeds, surface homogenisation, less dangerous clay court and grass court specialists for the top seeds to worry about in the first week of the French and Wimbledon, they are all factors

I don't think most realize just how dramatic a change having 32 seeds instead of 16 in a 128 player draw makes. I think a lot of majors of the 80s/90s may have had different winners(no doubt they'd have a lot of different finalists, semifinalists, quarterfinalists etc) had they used the 32 seed format.

There has been a considerable lack of competitive matches for top players in the early rounds of almost every major of the last 4-5 years, esp compared to the 80s/90s. there were a lot of early round matches between top 10/20 players in the past. Some top players were knocked out 1st round or 2nd round by guys that just missed being seeded('unseeded Boris Becker' was ranked 20 at 1985 Wimbledon)

Its almost like todays players have a bye until the 3rd round(& even then they only have to play a #27-32 player there)

I'm sure A LOT of players in the past that got bad draws would have loved had they used todays format.

Kudos to the itf for doing this, it sure has made tennis more fan friendly(fans don't want to see really low ranked players in major semis, which wasn't uncommon in the 90s at all)

Oh, & there used to be only 8 seeds(based on what a committee thought, no atp ranking) in majors in the early 70s(a time when the game was supposedly easier. but yet I see a USO draw in which the #1 seed & reigning Wimbledon champion drew the reigning French Open, who was unseeded. The FO champ upset the #1 seed in that 1st round)

But I'm sure that guys like 'Conor Niland' are much tougher 1st round matchups today, with that 'increased depth' and all.

Gizo
09-01-2011, 12:12 PM
I completely agree with all your posts Moose.

And yes those of us 'hardcore fans' and 'purists' who disagreed with 32 seeds and surface homogenisation are in the minority and are not who the tournament organisers, itf etc are catering for.

The majority of fans who follow the slams are casual fans who don't care about seeing different styles of play on difference surfaces, or lower ranked surface specialists having an opportunity to shine. They want to see the top ranked and big-name players in action, and will vote with their remote controls or wallets if they don't get that opportunity.

If I was paying to attend the French Open or watching it on tv, i would much rather watch Calleri (he is retired now but was one of my favourite players over the past decade) than Djokovic for instance. However fans like me only make-up a miniscule percentage of all tennis fans.

Tournament directors love 32 seeds, surface homogenisation etc.

fed_rulz
09-01-2011, 12:53 PM
I don't think most realize just how dramatic a change having 32 seeds instead of 16 in a 128 player draw makes. I think a lot of majors of the 80s/90s may have had different winners(no doubt they'd have a lot of different finalists, semifinalists, quarterfinalists etc) had they used the 32 seed format.

There has been a considerable lack of competitive matches for top players in the early rounds of almost every major of the last 4-5 years, esp compared to the 80s/90s. there were a lot of early round matches between top 10/20 players in the past. Some top players were knocked out 1st round or 2nd round by guys that just missed being seeded('unseeded Boris Becker' was ranked 20 at 1985 Wimbledon)

Its almost like todays players have a bye until the 3rd round(& even then they only have to play a #27-32 player there)

I'm sure A LOT of players in the past that got bad draws would have loved had they used todays format.

Kudos to the itf for doing this, it sure has made tennis more fan friendly(fans don't want to see really low ranked players in major semis, which wasn't uncommon in the 90s at all)

Oh, & there used to be only 8 seeds(based on what a committee thought, no atp ranking) in majors in the early 70s(a time when the game was supposedly easier. but yet I see a USO draw in which the #1 seed & reigning Wimbledon champion drew the reigning French Open, who was unseeded. The FO champ upset the #1 seed in that 1st round)

But I'm sure that guys like 'Conor Niland' are much tougher 1st round matchups today, with that 'increased depth' and all.

while what you say is true, it does not explain why no one since Ivan lendl hasn't been able to do it (until Fed in 2005) -- it was not like Sampras and Agassi were getting knocked out by past champions in early rounds. They still lost to a bunch of no-namers during their early round losses.

For others blaming surface homogenization -- were surfaces homogenized too, in the 80s when lendl did it, or when Laver won his GS? or are you going to make an exception that they were pretty good and that's why they were able to pull of the all-surface streak? Now that we have two individuals who have done it (Nadal and Federer), it MUST be the surface homogenization, and not because they're THAT good. The party that's mostly guilty of indulging in this discrediting exercise are the Sampras apologists; please face it - if Sampras had won the match against Kafelnikov at the 96 FO, he most likely would've won the career slam. I'm sure no one will be talking of surface homogenization then...

zagor
09-01-2011, 12:58 PM
while what you say is true, it does not explain why no one since Ivan lendl hasn't been able to do it (until Fed in 2005) -- it was not like Sampras and Agassi were getting knocked out by past champions in early rounds. They still lost to a bunch of no-namers during their early round losses.

For others blaming surface homogenization -- were surfaces homogenized too, in the 80s when lendl did it, or when Laver won his GS? or are you going to make an exception that they were pretty good and that's why they were able to pull of the all-surface streak? Now that we have two individuals who have done it (Nadal and Federer), it MUST be the surface homogenization, and not because they're THAT good. The party that's mostly guilty of indulging in this discrediting exercise are the Sampras apologists; please face it - if Sampras had won the match against Kafelnikov at the 96 FO, he most likely would've won the career slam. I'm sure no one will be talking of surface homogenization then...

No, while I consider Fed to be better than Sampras for various reasons(so I'm not a Sampras apologist in any way), surface homogenization would still be a reality and would be discussed, especially on tennis internet forums which hold a high number of hardcore tennis fans.

Fed and Nadal are all surface players but they have to adapt less than greats in say 90s and 80s did, which doesn't mean that they couldn't if they had to (especially Fed) but they simply don't need to.

batz
09-01-2011, 01:03 PM
Surfaces are less homogenised now than they were in the days when 3 slams were on grass.

fed_rulz
09-01-2011, 01:04 PM
No, while I consider Fed to be better than Sampras for various reasons(so I'm not a Sampras apologist in any way), surface homogenization would still be a reality and would be discussed, especially on tennis internet forums which hold a high number of hardcore tennis fans.

Fed and Nadal are all surface players but they have to adapt less than greats in say 90s and 80s did, which doesn't mean that they couldn't if they had to (especially Fed) but they simply don't need to.

I don't deny surface homogenization has taken place (only a moron would argue against that), but attributing the unique things that Federer and Nadal have done (like winning the channel slam or career slam) to surface homogenization is ridiculous. And zagor, I'm fully aware that you're not a Pete-apologist; you're one of the more saner minds in the forum.

fed_rulz
09-01-2011, 01:05 PM
Surfaces are less homogenised now than they were in the days when 3 slams were on grass.
ding ding ding.. we have a winner :)

absolute pwnage of nostalagists that complain of surface homogenization

zagor
09-01-2011, 01:08 PM
Surfaces are less homogenised now than they were in the days when 3 slams were on grass.

Maybe, although former pro section historians maintain that grass still varied greatly between slams in those days, so who knows? I have no idea myself to be honest.

Personally I was comparing 80s and 90s(especially 90s cause that's the era I grew up with) with modern conditions.

I don't deny surface homogenization has taken place (only a moron would argue against that), but attributing the unique things that Federer and Nadal have done (like winning the channel slam or career slam) to surface homogenization is ridiculous.

Well, I wouldn't say that's the main/sole reason or anything but one of the factors that made it easier for them to do what Borg(channel slam) and Agassi(career slam)did.

fed_rulz
09-01-2011, 01:14 PM
Maybe, although former pro section historians maintain that grass still varied greatly between slams in those days, so who knows? I have no idea myself to be honest.

Personally I was comparing 80s and 90s(especially 90s cause that's the era I grew up with) with modern conditions.



Well, I wouldn't say that's the main/sole reason or anything but one of the factors that made it easier for them to do what Borg(channel slam) and Agassi(career slam)did.

What adaptation did Agassi have to make to win wimby or FO? Does Nadal play the same on all surfaces? would you call the adjustments/adaptations that Nadal had to make to win the USO or wimby as something insignificant? It's probably much more than what Agassi did to win his career slam. So I don't buy it that it made it "easier".

As far as Federer goes, I think his natural game translates well across all surfaces, so he does have to adapt much, homogenization or not. Hey, I'm a *******, so take my word with a grain of salt :)

zagor
09-01-2011, 01:24 PM
What adaptation did Agassi have to make to win wimby or FO? Does Nadal play the same on all surfaces? would you call the adjustments/adaptations that Nadal had to make to win the USO or wimby as something insignificant? It's probably much more than what Agassi did to win his career slam. So I don't buy it that it made it "easier".

As far as Federer goes, I think his natural game translates well across all surfaces, so he does have to adapt much, homogenization or not. Hey, I'm a *******, so take my word with a grain of salt :)

Don't you remember how old Wimbledon grass was? It was almost dead bouncing, Agassi had to take the ball extremely early and had to be very agressive on almost every ROS because surface catered to net rushers.

At clay he had to improve his fitness and play long grueling ralllies because FO was slower in those days.

As for Borg, well the guy served and volleyed at Wimbledon and won FO from the baseline, it doesn't get any more drastic in adaption than that. Him winning FO+Wimbledon double so often is one of the most amazing achievements in tennis history IMO considering the polarizing conditions.

Nadal stands somewhat closer to the baseline on HC/grass but overall he plays his game of extreme angles and getting every ball back the same as he does on any other surface, I don't see any dramatic adaption because it is not needed.

As for Fed while I do believe he'd always be most comfortable on the baseline is adaptable, he actually won Wimbledon playing a lot of serve and volley in 2003, overall I believe he'd be a good pick to win a career slam in any era and yes I'm a ******* as well LOL.

celoft
09-02-2011, 07:23 AM
As for Fed while I do believe he'd always be most comfortable on the baseline is adaptable, he actually won Wimbledon playing a lot of serve and volley in 2003, overall I believe he'd be a good pick to win a career slam in any era

I concur....