PDA

View Full Version : Consistent slam winners


Moose Malloy
05-28-2006, 05:48 PM
Everyone knows the slam totals of great players, but not many know how rare it is to win slams year after year.

Just looking at the Open Era:

Players who won at least one slam a year for 8 straight years:
Borg & Sampras
(Evert went 13 straight years with at least one slam!)

Borg & Sampras are the only players to win 2 slams a year for 3 straight years.
Sampras is the only player to have four 2 slam years total.

Players who won at least 1 slam a year for 4 straight years:
Wilander, Lendl, Federer

Players who won at least 1 slam a year for 3 straight years:
Courier, Agassi, McEnroe, Vilas, Rosewall

Federer is already in some rare company.

vive le beau jeu !
05-29-2006, 01:28 AM
interesting stats... sweet company indeed ! ;)

splitstep
05-29-2006, 07:55 AM
On the women's side, Navratilova went 7 straight years with a slam while Graf went 10.

fastdunn
05-29-2006, 11:12 AM
Federer will likely win at least 2 slams for 3 straight years
including this year, right ?

Moose Malloy
07-10-2006, 10:40 AM
Fed joins Borg & Sampras as only player to win 2 slams per year for 3 straight year. His 3 year total of 7(so far) is a open era record.

fastdunn
07-10-2006, 11:06 AM
So I guess it's official that Fed has dominated the sport for last
3 years like no one else did in open era. Very condenced (?)
dominance so to speak. How long can he continue this kind of
dominance ?

Moose Malloy
07-10-2006, 11:16 AM
So I guess it's official that Fed has dominated the sport for last
3 years like no one else did in open era.

Well, thats if you use slams as the only criteria. Remember Borg skipped Australia for almost his entire career. The years he was winning W & French back to back, I would have liked his chances in Australia had he played there.
He also skipped French one year('77) during his prime. Borg still has the best slams played/slams won ratio in open era for any time frame.

The tennis guy
07-10-2006, 11:28 AM
So I guess it's official that Fed has dominated the sport for last
3 years like no one else did in open era. Very condenced (?)
dominance so to speak. How long can he continue this kind of
dominance ?

I'd say Federer will dominate for two more years, may not get to every tournament final he plays which is scary. I think it will take Nadal another two years to really challenge Federer at Wimbledon and US Open. I know most people are gushing about Nadal right now, so I am against that trend. Two years later, it might not even be Nadal, maybe someone else.

The tennis guy
07-10-2006, 11:32 AM
Remember Borg skipped Australia for almost his entire career. The years he was winning W & French back to back, I would have liked his chances in Australia had he played there.


It was not sure thing though. He played US Open, and unable to win there. If he had won US Open once, I'd give him the benefit of doubt he would have won Aussie.

Surecatch
07-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Federer will likely win at least 2 slams for 3 straight years
including this year, right ?

If my math is right, he's won 8 of the last 12...is that right?

The tennis guy
07-10-2006, 11:43 AM
If my math is right, he's won 8 of the last 12...is that right?

8 of last 13.

Moose Malloy
07-10-2006, 01:31 PM
It was not sure thing though. He played US Open, and unable to win there. If he had won US Open once, I'd give him the benefit of doubt he would have won Aussie.

What are you basing that on? US Open is different surface than Australian Open. Borg was clearly the best grasscourt player of his time. Had he played Australia in his prime, he would probably have more majors than Sampras.

Plus his failures at US Open had nothing to do with surface, he was just a bit unlucky(like Hingis at the French)

Borg was a great all surface player & extremely dominant in the majors. He would have been close to a lock there in mid to late 70s. Especially if Connors didn't play it.

Verbal_Kint
07-10-2006, 02:01 PM
But if Borg played it, Connors would probably have played it as well..

The tennis guy
07-10-2006, 02:03 PM
What are you basing that on? US Open is different surface than Australian Open. Borg was clearly the best grasscourt player of his time. Had he played Australia in his prime, he would probably have more majors than Sampras.

Plus his failures at US Open had nothing to do with surface, he was just a bit unlucky(like Hingis at the French)

Borg was a great all surface player & extremely dominant in the majors. He would have been close to a lock there in mid to late 70s. Especially if Connors didn't play it.
US Open used both clay and grass. Borg should have won one there. If he was unlucky there, he could be unlucky at Aussie Open there too.

By the way, I don't consider Hingis not winning French as unlucky. It was her own undoing.

Moose Malloy
07-10-2006, 02:14 PM
But if Borg played it, Connors would probably have played it as well

And I'd still like Borg's chances even with Jimmy in the draw.

US Open used both clay and grass. Borg should have won one there. If he was unlucky there, he could be unlucky at Aussie Open there too.

Not a fair comparison. Borg was just a baby when US Open was on grass. Prior to '76 Wimbledon on grass, he wasn't a great grasscourter.
And he was still developing into a great player when US Open was on clay('75,'76, in '77 he got injured so who knows he might have won the US Open that year)

The odds of him being unlucky 6 times (the amount of AOs played during '76-80) aren't good considering his 6 straight slams finals, 5 straight W's etc.

I like Borg over Edmonson, Tanner, Gerualitis, Teacher(AO champions of '76-'80)

BeautyVenus
07-10-2006, 03:32 PM
Actually Federer has already won at least 2 slams for three years.

2004: Federer won 3

2005: Federer won 2

2006:Federer already at 2

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2006, 03:45 PM
I would love too see him break that streak by Lendl.The 18 consecutive finals, he has maded 16 of them so far, so anything is possible but it will be difficult.