Value of Defending Major Events

[eldanger25]

I posted this on the general discussion board yesterday, where it gained little traction. Maybe it's doomed to the same fate here, but I thought I'd give it a whirl.

Basically, I'm curious to gain perspective about the historical value, if any, of defending titles that the consensus of the times were deemed majors - for instance, I'd love to hear what pre-Open Era aficionados think about whether defending important amateur and pro tour titles had its own intrinsic value in evaluating the best and very best of the game across eras.

I did a little workup of major title defenses during the Open Era, with the caveat being that I reviewed the current consensus four majors and did not yet account for repeat titles at Dallas WCT/Masters/other big events of the 70s and 80s. Not sure if that means I've overvalued, say, the Australian or French Opens of yesteryear moderately or slightly - just thought I'd start a list and, hopefully, a dialogue.

Anyway, here's the original post:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about Andy Murray at Wimbledon this year, Pete Sampras stated that "When you defend a major it's the most pressure you feel because you're the man to beat." http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/t...r-9147709.html (P. Bodo mentions this in his new article on tennis.com as well).

Seems reasonable to me, and as a way of passing the time during these interminable last few days and hours before Wimbledon, I took a look at who was able to manage this unique pressure and defend their major titles in the Open Era. Apologies if this has been addressed before - thought it might shed further light on those small but unbridgeable differences between the best and very best performers on the biggest stages. Here's the list:

Roger Federer - 9 major title defenses (Australia '07; SW19 '04-'07; US Open '05-'08 )

Bjorn Borg - 8 major title defenses (RG '75, '79-'81; SW19 '77-'80)

Rafael Nadal - 7.5 major title defenses (RG '06-'08' '11-'14; half a point awarded for SW19 2010 - this may be controversial, but I think returning after a one year injury absence warrants half a point, since that carries its own unique pressures not commensurate to but at least overlapping with title defense pressures)

Pete Sampras - 6 major title defenses (SW19 '94-95; '98-'00; US Open '96)

Ivan Lendl - 4 major title defenses (Australia '90'; RG '87; US Open '86-'87)

John McEnroe - 3 major title defenses (SW19 '84; US Open '80-'81)

Novak Djokovic - 2 major title defenses (Australia '12-'13)

Stefan Edberg - 2 major title defenses (Australia '87 (not held in '86); US Open '92)

Jim Courier - 2 major title defenses (Australia '93; RG '92)

Andre Agassi - 1.5 major title defenses (Australia '01, '03) (see Nadal entry above)

John Newcombe - 1.5 major title defenses (during Open Era) (Australia '75 - half point; SW19 '71)

Rod Laver - 1 major title defense (during Open Era) (SW19 '69)

Ken Rosewall - 1 major title defense (during Open Era) (Australia '72)

Jimmy Connors - 1 major title defense (US Open '83)

Mats Wilander - 1 major title defense (Australia '84)

Boris Becker - 1 major title defense (SW19 '86)

Guillermo Vilas - 1 major title defense (Australia '79)

Gustavo Kuerten - 1 major title defense (RG '01)

Jan Kodes - 1 major title defense (RG '71)

Patrick Rafter - 1 major title defense (US Open '98 )

Sergi Bruguera - 1 major title defense (RG '94)

Johan Kriek - 1 major title defense (Australia '82)

Ten thoughts that jump out to me about this list:

1. More evidence that Federer has had the most impressive career of the Open Era (defenses at 3 majors, multiple defenses at two).

2. More evidence that Bjorn Borg's post-age 25 career is the great and tantalizing what-if of Open Era tennis (all those RG and SW19 title defenses when surface disparity was at its peak, including back-to-back-to-back Channel Slams from 1978-80).

3. More evidence - if any was even needed - that nobody has reached higher single surface peaks than Nadal on clay. Particularly considering the stakes of some of those title defenses - i.e., Fed's attempts at the Roger Slam in '06-'07, and Djokovic's try at the Novak slam in 2012 coming off of demoralizing Nadal at three straight major finals.

4. A minor career bump for Courier, who twice managed to defend major titles during his compact early 1990s moment in the sun.

5. Some Mac-favoring ammo in the Mac v. Agassi best headcase debate, since Mac defended three major titles on two surfaces, while Andre's only got his brief period at the top in Australia to lean on.

6. (for SpicyCurry1990) - in the Lendl v. Connors tug-of-war, some Ivan-favoring arguments (4 defenses at three majors, compared to Jimmy's lone 1983 title defense at Flushing).

7. Relatedly: more evidence that 1974-85 were a golden era in mens tennis - Borg holding off Connors/Mac at SW19 and Vilas at RG throughout the 1970s; Mac holding Borg/Connors off in NYC in 1979-81, and barring Connors from a US Open threepeat in the 1984 Super Saturday semifinal that was the de facto final, a la RG 2013; Connors keeping young Lendl off the board in NYC, and halting Mac from what would've turned out to be an SW19 four-peat in the 1982 final; Vilas barring Connors from what could've wound up a US Open threepeat in the 1977 final; Lendl taking RG from a choking Mac in 1984 (denying him a 3 slam season), and putting Connors out to pasture and sending Mac off to Hollywood exile back to back at the US Open 1985 final weekend (Mac's last chance to defend a major - and indeed last major final reached), etc., etc. Bottom line: take any one of Borg, Mac, Connors, Vilas, Lendl out of the equation from 1974-85, and you've got serious ramifications for the others' careers.

8. The late 1980s sometimes suffer in comparison to the aforementioned golden era, but it absolutely had its moments - Lendl in Paris and NYC, Edberg and then Lendl in Australia, Becker at SW19, with Wilander's 3 slam season and nearly immediate disintegration blended in there. A solid followup to a great and freewheeling time in tennis: we should be so lucky when Fed/Nadal/Djokovic likely fade away later this decade.

9. A nice illustration of how we're currently witnessing a second golden age of men's tennis, starting from 2004 until the present. Roger holding Roddick and then Rafa off at SW19; Rafa holding Fed/Novak off in Paris; Novak turning Rafa back in his attempts to defend SW19 and the US Open in 2011; Novak and Rafa ending Fed's dominion in Australia and London for good in 2008, and then Murray failing to do the same in NYC that same year (he made up for it by denying Novak a repeat in NYC 2012, and Fed got Novak back by denying him an SW19 repeat that same year).

10. Further evidence that the Safin-Fed Melbourne '05 semifinal was a Top 5 historically momentous match of the 2000s (behind only the '06-'07 RG finals and the '08-'09 SW19 finals). Fed wins that one, and he's likely at 18 majors; sole ownership of the AO Open Era record; and a fourpeat in Melbourne from '04-'07, giving him a likely unreachable 11 major title defenses.

 

[newpball]

Rafael Nadal - 7.5 major title defenses (RG '06-'08' '11-'14; half a point awarded for SW19 2010 - this may be controversial, but I think returning after a one year injury absence warrants half a point, since that carries its own unique pressures not commensurate to but at least overlapping with title defense pressures)

7.5?

Well, I disagree!

:grin:

 

[eldanger25]

7.5?

Well, I disagree!

:grin:

A valid position for sure, and certainly a straightforward one - just seems unfair to me to not acknowledge that the guy returning from injury at an event is still gonna have some carryover pressure, get those questions at the press conference, fend off the buzzards if he loses at the event, etc. Thought it warranted a half point for Nadal 2010, Agassi 2003, etc.

 

[BobbyOne]

I posted this on the general discussion board yesterday, where it gained little traction. Maybe it's doomed to the same fate here, but I thought I'd give it a whirl.

Basically, I'm curious to gain perspective about the historical value, if any, of defending titles that the consensus of the times were deemed majors - for instance, I'd love to hear what pre-Open Era aficionados think about whether defending important amateur and pro tour titles had its own intrinsic value in evaluating the best and very best of the game across eras.

I did a little workup of major title defenses during the Open Era, with the caveat being that I reviewed the current consensus four majors and did not yet account for repeat titles at Dallas WCT/Masters/other big events of the 70s and 80s. Not sure if that means I've overvalued, say, the Australian or French Opens of yesteryear moderately or slightly - just thought I'd start a list and, hopefully, a dialogue.

Anyway, here's the original post:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about Andy Murray at Wimbledon this year, Pete Sampras stated that "When you defend a major it's the most pressure you feel because you're the man to beat." http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/t...r-9147709.html (P. Bodo mentions this in his new article on tennis.com as well).

Seems reasonable to me, and as a way of passing the time during these interminable last few days and hours before Wimbledon, I took a look at who was able to manage this unique pressure and defend their major titles in the Open Era. Apologies if this has been addressed before - thought it might shed further light on those small but unbridgeable differences between the best and very best performers on the biggest stages. Here's the list:

Roger Federer - 9 major title defenses (Australia '07; SW19 '04-'07; US Open '05-'08 )

Bjorn Borg - 8 major title defenses (RG '75, '79-'81; SW19 '77-'80)

Rafael Nadal - 7.5 major title defenses (RG '06-'08' '11-'14; half a point awarded for SW19 2010 - this may be controversial, but I think returning after a one year injury absence warrants half a point, since that carries its own unique pressures not commensurate to but at least overlapping with title defense pressures)

Pete Sampras - 6 major title defenses (SW19 '94-95; '98-'00; US Open '96)

Ivan Lendl - 4 major title defenses (Australia '90'; RG '87; US Open '86-'87)

John McEnroe - 3 major title defenses (SW19 '84; US Open '80-'81)

Novak Djokovic - 2 major title defenses (Australia '12-'13)

Stefan Edberg - 2 major title defenses (Australia '87 (not held in '86); US Open '92)

Jim Courier - 2 major title defenses (Australia '93; RG '92)

Andre Agassi - 1.5 major title defenses (Australia '01, '03) (see Nadal entry above)

John Newcombe - 1.5 major title defenses (during Open Era) (Australia '75 - half point; SW19 '71)

Rod Laver - 1 major title defense (during Open Era) (SW19 '69)

Ken Rosewall - 1 major title defense (during Open Era) (Australia '72)

Jimmy Connors - 1 major title defense (US Open '83)

Mats Wilander - 1 major title defense (Australia '84)

Boris Becker - 1 major title defense (SW19 '86)

Guillermo Vilas - 1 major title defense (Australia '79)

Gustavo Kuerten - 1 major title defense (RG '01)

Jan Kodes - 1 major title defense (RG '71)

Patrick Rafter - 1 major title defense (US Open '98 )

Sergi Bruguera - 1 major title defense (RG '94)

Johan Kriek - 1 major title defense (Australia '82)

Ten thoughts that jump out to me about this list:

1. More evidence that Federer has had the most impressive career of the Open Era (defenses at 3 majors, multiple defenses at two).

2. More evidence that Bjorn Borg's post-age 25 career is the great and tantalizing what-if of Open Era tennis (all those RG and SW19 title defenses when surface disparity was at its peak, including back-to-back-to-back Channel Slams from 1978-80).

3. More evidence - if any was even needed - that nobody has reached higher single surface peaks than Nadal on clay. Particularly considering the stakes of some of those title defenses - i.e., Fed's attempts at the Roger Slam in '06-'07, and Djokovic's try at the Novak slam in 2012 coming off of demoralizing Nadal at three straight major finals.

4. A minor career bump for Courier, who twice managed to defend major titles during his compact early 1990s moment in the sun.

5. Some Mac-favoring ammo in the Mac v. Agassi best headcase debate, since Mac defended three major titles on two surfaces, while Andre's only got his brief period at the top in Australia to lean on.

6. (for SpicyCurry1990) - in the Lendl v. Connors tug-of-war, some Ivan-favoring arguments (4 defenses at three majors, compared to Jimmy's lone 1983 title defense at Flushing).

7. Relatedly: more evidence that 1974-85 were a golden era in mens tennis - Borg holding off Connors/Mac at SW19 and Vilas at RG throughout the 1970s; Mac holding Borg/Connors off in NYC in 1979-81, and barring Connors from a US Open threepeat in the 1984 Super Saturday semifinal that was the de facto final, a la RG 2013; Connors keeping young Lendl off the board in NYC, and halting Mac from what would've turned out to be an SW19 four-peat in the 1982 final; Vilas barring Connors from what could've wound up a US Open threepeat in the 1977 final; Lendl taking RG from a choking Mac in 1984 (denying him a 3 slam season), and putting Connors out to pasture and sending Mac off to Hollywood exile back to back at the US Open 1985 final weekend (Mac's last chance to defend a major - and indeed last major final reached), etc., etc. Bottom line: take any one of Borg, Mac, Connors, Vilas, Lendl out of the equation from 1974-85, and you've got serious ramifications for the others' careers.

8. The late 1980s sometimes suffer in comparison to the aforementioned golden era, but it absolutely had its moments - Lendl in Paris and NYC, Edberg and then Lendl in Australia, Becker at SW19, with Wilander's 3 slam season and nearly immediate disintegration blended in there. A solid followup to a great and freewheeling time in tennis: we should be so lucky when Fed/Nadal/Djokovic likely fade away later this decade.

9. A nice illustration of how we're currently witnessing a second golden age of men's tennis, starting from 2004 until the present. Roger holding Roddick and then Rafa off at SW19; Rafa holding Fed/Novak off in Paris; Novak turning Rafa back in his attempts to defend SW19 and the US Open in 2011; Novak and Rafa ending Fed's dominion in Australia and London for good in 2008, and then Murray failing to do the same in NYC that same year (he made up for it by denying Novak a repeat in NYC 2012, and Fed got Novak back by denying him an SW19 repeat that same year).

10. Further evidence that the Safin-Fed Melbourne '05 semifinal was a Top 5 historically momentous match of the 2000s (behind only the '06-'07 RG finals and the '08-'09 SW19 finals). Fed wins that one, and he's likely at 18 majors; sole ownership of the AO Open Era record; and a fourpeat in Melbourne from '04-'07, giving him a likely unreachable 11 major title defenses.

eldanger 25, Very interesting and meaningful list.

I think Rosewall is the best if we include pre-open era majors with 10 defenses, followed by Gonzalez and Federer (each 9 defenses).

 

[NatF]

eldanger 25, Very interesting and meaningful list.

I think Rosewall is the best if we include pre-open era majors with 10 defenses, followed by Gonzalez and Federer (each 9 defenses).

Could you name those for us? Will be interesting to see how many different types of major he defended.

Perhaps do the same for Gonzalez if you're not too busy

 

[jaggy]

Connors surprised me when I read this

 

[BobbyOne]

Could you name those for us? Will be interesting to see how many different types of major he defended.

Perhaps do the same for Gonzalez if you're not too busy

NatF, Rosewall: three types: Wembley: defended in 61,62,63; French Pro: 61-66; AO:72

Gonzalez: three types: US Champ: defended in 49; Wembley: 51,52; US Pro: 54-59

I must confess that even me as a "well known" Rosewall admirer was not aware that Muscles keeps also this all-time record. Thanks, eldanger25!

Edit: This record is a further argument to rate Rosewall as a GOAT candidate or even GOAT (the latter with Laver).

 

[hoodjem]

10. Further evidence that the Safin-Fed Melbourne '05 semifinal was a Top 5 historically momentous match of the 2000s (behind only the '06-'07 RG finals and the '08-'09 SW19 finals). Fed wins that one, and he's likely at 18 majors; sole ownership of the AO Open Era record; and a fourpeat in Melbourne from '04-'07, giving him a likely unreachable 11 major title defenses.

Yep, it makes that tweener-attempt on match-point look like less-than-the-greatest-tactical-move.

 

[NatF]

NatF, Rosewall: three types: Wembley: defended in 61,62,63; French Pro: 61-66; AO:72

Gonzalez: three types: US Champ: defended in 49; Wembley: 51,52; US Pro: 54-59

I must confess that even me as a "well known" Rosewall admirer was not aware that Muscles keeps also this all-time record. Thanks, eldanger25!

Thanks,

More like a half record considering the pro majors aren't the equivalent of full slams...

 

[eldanger25]

NatF, Rosewall: three types: Wembley: defended in 61,62,63; French Pro: 61-66; AO:72

Gonzalez: three types: US Champ: defended in 49; Wembley: 51,52; US Pro: 54-59

I must confess that even me as a "well known" Rosewall admirer was not aware that Muscles keeps also this all-time record. Thanks, eldanger25!

Thank you, BobbyOne - very interesting stuff on Rosewall/Gonzalez.

 

[eldanger25]

Connors surprised me when I read this

I thought the same thing, given that Connors won 5 and made 7 finals at the US Open in a ten year span - figured he'd have more title defenses there.

I suppose you could say he had a little bad luck in the US Open experimenting with surfaces during his prime, when he made five straight finals b/w '74-'78, and won titles every other year. Presumably, if the event was played on Forest Hills grass or Flushing Meadows concrete throughout those years, Connors may've garnered a consecutive titles streak rivaling Borg's at RG/SW19 during the era, given that he lost only to clay court experts in the 1975/77 finals during the brief Har-Tru era.

At the same time, under that scenario Jimmy also loses his 1976 victory over Borg in the finals on clay, one of his signature victories (and the basis for being part of the "major titles on all three surfaces" club). Probably a small price to pay for an extra US Open title or two.

 

[BobbyOne]

Thanks,

More like a half record considering the pro majors aren't the equivalent of full slams...

NatF, a pro major was more than the half of an open major. Thus more than a half record.

 

[NatF]

NatF, a pro major was more than the half of an open major. Thus more than a half record.

If we call it 75% then that puts Rosewall's 10 on par with Nadal's 7.5. A bit below Federer still.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

A valid position for sure, and certainly a straightforward one - just seems unfair to me to not acknowledge that the guy returning from injury at an event is still gonna have some carryover pressure, get those questions at the press conference, fend off the buzzards if he loses at the event, etc. Thought it warranted a half point for Nadal 2010, Agassi 2003, etc.

I don't agree. The defending champion in Wimbledon 2010 was Federer, and he was the one holding the pressure. Nadal didn't had much on his shoulders: he wasn't there in 2009, he had a very average HC season until Wimbledon. If he had pressure, it's because he was so impressive during the clay season, which is not related to him being the Wimby 2008 champ.

 

[eldanger25]

I don't agree. The defending champion in Wimbledon 2010 was Federer, and he was the one holding the pressure. Nadal didn't had much on his shoulders: he wasn't there in 2009, he had a very average HC season until Wimbledon. If he had pressure, it's because he was so impressive during the clay season, which is not related to him being the Wimby 2008 champ.

Fair points. I don't have a strong opinion about it - I just tend to think that there should be some recognition in this setting when someone misses the event involuntarily, i.e. Agassi winning three straight Australian Opens that he entered b/w 2000-03. Maybe chop the value down to .25 points instead of .5 or something.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Very interesting ideas actually. I have been trying to find a way to make a case for Borg>Lendl because it just makes logical sense, but no matter what weights or valuations I use in any scenario it always works out to Lendl's edge. Using this statistic might finally bridge the gap. I think one thing we definitely have ignored in our valuations to date so far is peak dominance and this is one criteria that attempts to quantify it.

 

[Xavier G]

Connors got to all the Slam finals in 1975 that'd he won in 74...and lost them all..Five straight USO finals from 74-78, won, lost, won, lost, won. Strange in a way that he wasn't able to retain a title till 83 when then a veteran.

 

[kiki]

Connors got to all the Slam finals in 1975 that'd he won in 74...and lost them all..Five straight USO finals from 74-78, won, lost, won, lost, won. Strange in a way that he wasn't able to retain a title till 83 when then a veteran.

Excellent point Xavier, and yes, it is quite surprising.Mac had a lost-won-lost-won Wimbledon finals series until he won it again in 1984.In Dallas he REPEATED that very same sequence...amazing

 

[Dan L]

NatF, Rosewall: three types: Wembley: defended in 61,62,63; French Pro: 61-66; AO:72

Gonzalez: three types: US Champ: defended in 49; Wembley: 51,52; US Pro: 54-59

I must confess that even me as a "well known" Rosewall admirer was not aware that Muscles keeps also this all-time record. Thanks, eldanger25!

Edit: This record is a further argument to rate Rosewall as a GOAT candidate or even GOAT (the latter with Laver).

A = B = C?

Poor Gonzales didn't get much opposition in the Wembley or Cleveland

events. Only the 1951, 1952 and 1956 Wembley's were competitive when Gonzales won.

And the status of the Cleveland event is doubtful.

 

[eldanger25]

Connors got to all the Slam finals in 1975 that'd he won in 74...and lost them all..Five straight USO finals from 74-78, won, lost, won, lost, won. Strange in a way that he wasn't able to retain a title till 83 when then a veteran.

I think if it remained a grass court tourney, or moved to Flushing HCs sooner than 1978, Connors may've won one or both of the 1975/77 finals and had more repeat titles. But his runs during the three years it was on Har-Tru of F/W/F are impressive in their way, too.

 

[DMan]

I posted this on the general discussion board yesterday, where it gained little traction. Maybe it's doomed to the same fate here, but I thought I'd give it a whirl.

Basically, I'm curious to gain perspective about the historical value, if any, of defending titles that the consensus of the times were deemed majors - for instance, I'd love to hear what pre-Open Era aficionados think about whether defending important amateur and pro tour titles had its own intrinsic value in evaluating the best and very best of the game across eras.

I did a little workup of major title defenses during the Open Era, with the caveat being that I reviewed the current consensus four majors and did not yet account for repeat titles at Dallas WCT/Masters/other big events of the 70s and 80s. Not sure if that means I've overvalued, say, the Australian or French Opens of yesteryear moderately or slightly - just thought I'd start a list and, hopefully, a dialogue.

Anyway, here's the original post:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about Andy Murray at Wimbledon this year, Pete Sampras stated that "When you defend a major it's the most pressure you feel because you're the man to beat." http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/t...r-9147709.html (P. Bodo mentions this in his new article on tennis.com as well).

Seems reasonable to me, and as a way of passing the time during these interminable last few days and hours before Wimbledon, I took a look at who was able to manage this unique pressure and defend their major titles in the Open Era. Apologies if this has been addressed before - thought it might shed further light on those small but unbridgeable differences between the best and very best performers on the biggest stages. Here's the list:

Ten thoughts that jump out to me about this list:

1. More evidence that Federer has had the most impressive career of the Open Era (defenses at 3 majors, multiple defenses at two).

2. More evidence that Bjorn Borg's post-age 25 career is the great and tantalizing what-if of Open Era tennis (all those RG and SW19 title defenses when surface disparity was at its peak, including back-to-back-to-back Channel Slams from 1978-80).

3. More evidence - if any was even needed - that nobody has reached higher single surface peaks than Nadal on clay. Particularly considering the stakes of some of those title defenses - i.e., Fed's attempts at the Roger Slam in '06-'07, and Djokovic's try at the Novak slam in 2012 coming off of demoralizing Nadal at three straight major finals.

4. A minor career bump for Courier, who twice managed to defend major titles during his compact early 1990s moment in the sun.

5. Some Mac-favoring ammo in the Mac v. Agassi best headcase debate, since Mac defended three major titles on two surfaces, while Andre's only got his brief period at the top in Australia to lean on.

6. (for SpicyCurry1990) - in the Lendl v. Connors tug-of-war, some Ivan-favoring arguments (4 defenses at three majors, compared to Jimmy's lone 1983 title defense at Flushing).

7. Relatedly: more evidence that 1974-85 were a golden era in mens tennis - Borg holding off Connors/Mac at SW19 and Vilas at RG throughout the 1970s; Mac holding Borg/Connors off in NYC in 1979-81, and barring Connors from a US Open threepeat in the 1984 Super Saturday semifinal that was the de facto final, a la RG 2013; Connors keeping young Lendl off the board in NYC, and halting Mac from what would've turned out to be an SW19 four-peat in the 1982 final; Vilas barring Connors from what could've wound up a US Open threepeat in the 1977 final; Lendl taking RG from a choking Mac in 1984 (denying him a 3 slam season), and putting Connors out to pasture and sending Mac off to Hollywood exile back to back at the US Open 1985 final weekend (Mac's last chance to defend a major - and indeed last major final reached), etc., etc. Bottom line: take any one of Borg, Mac, Connors, Vilas, Lendl out of the equation from 1974-85, and you've got serious ramifications for the others' careers.

8. The late 1980s sometimes suffer in comparison to the aforementioned golden era, but it absolutely had its moments - Lendl in Paris and NYC, Edberg and then Lendl in Australia, Becker at SW19, with Wilander's 3 slam season and nearly immediate disintegration blended in there. A solid followup to a great and freewheeling time in tennis: we should be so lucky when Fed/Nadal/Djokovic likely fade away later this decade.

9. A nice illustration of how we're currently witnessing a second golden age of men's tennis, starting from 2004 until the present. Roger holding Roddick and then Rafa off at SW19; Rafa holding Fed/Novak off in Paris; Novak turning Rafa back in his attempts to defend SW19 and the US Open in 2011; Novak and Rafa ending Fed's dominion in Australia and London for good in 2008, and then Murray failing to do the same in NYC that same year (he made up for it by denying Novak a repeat in NYC 2012, and Fed got Novak back by denying him an SW19 repeat that same year).

10. Further evidence that the Safin-Fed Melbourne '05 semifinal was a Top 5 historically momentous match of the 2000s (behind only the '06-'07 RG finals and the '08-'09 SW19 finals). Fed wins that one, and he's likely at 18 majors; sole ownership of the AO Open Era record; and a fourpeat in Melbourne from '04-'07, giving him a likely unreachable 11 major title defenses.

I think this topic is a very worthwhile one. And an achievement in today's game that is often undervalued.

In the pre-Open era, a victory at one of the four major events did serve as a springboard to the professional ranks, since the majors were restricted to amateurs. Therefore, I don't think it is relevant to compare pre-OPen era players with the Open era.

When compiling a list to detail how often a player successfully defended a title, it needs to be a list to show who did completely defend a title. There is no such thing as getting "half a title defense." For any reason. EVER. Plain and simple. You are either there to defend you title. Or you are NOT!

The main issue and challenge of defending any tour title, especially a major, is that all eyes are on you. The majority of pressure is on the defending champion. No matter the circumstances. Even if a defending champ has fallen in the rankings, is playing with an injury, or whatever other circumstance, there is still an inordinate amount of internal and external pressure. When perusing the list of major winners in the Open era, look at how often one of the greats did not defend a title, but did come back another year to win. Once you've lost your crown, it makes you that much more eager and hungry to win again.

If you missed a year, due to any reason, even in 1974 when Stan Smith returned to Wimbledon after not defending his title due to the player's strike. No matter the circumstances, it's just not the same if you don't return the very next year to at least attempt a title defense. With another year passing, too much has transpired to equivocate a title defense.

It takes an extraordinary effort to successfully defend your title. You have to overcome many obstacles, your own doubts, the insufferable media, and the fact that everyone is gunning for you, because you are the title holder. You are the one who conquered the field the last time. They all want that feeling this time around.

Roger's 9 successful title defenses are amazing. He is the only man to successfully defend 3 of the 4 major titles. Borg was very successful with his French and Wimbledon defenses. But of course he never won the other 2 majors. For players like Edberg, Newcombe, Sampras, Connors, Wilander, and even Agassi - who won all four, it is incredibly difficult to come back and win each major a second consecutive time.

Looking at the women who have successfully defended their major titles. There are more women who have all four majors in their careers than men. In the Open era, Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena have done it. Steffi Graf is the only one to successfully defend each one. Actually, she is the only player in tennis history to successfully defend each of her major titles. And to boot, she successfully defended each on her first try. And she also successfully defended 3 of the 4 majors a second time!!!

Court never successfully defended a Wimbledon title. Ditto for Chris Evert. Both won Wimbledon 3 times, but never in succession. Evert never won back-to back Australian titles. And no, it doesn't count that Evert won the 1982 and 1984 Australian titles. She didn't play in 1983.

Martina never won back-to-back Australian Open titles. Which is surprising considering she won 7 Wimbledons in a row. She also never won back-to-back French titles.

Serena has never won the French title in consecutive years.

I don't think Serena will ever win back-to-back French titles.

I think it is unlikely we will see a woman successfully defend more than 2 majors for a long time. While Djokovic has had success at the Australian Open, I don't think he'll duplicate that at the other majors. Nor do I think Nadal will repeat at any of the majors other than the French.

 

[Russeljones]

Great thread, eldanger25. Well thought-out and supplemented with interesting facts. I concur with the general consensus that it is an undervalued achievement.

 

[DMP]

I'm not sure defending a title was ever seen as a really big thing. Worth noting in commentary, and satisfying to see, but not really anything great. Defending twice, as in Perry's three Wimbledons, was seen as a big thing, and was the big thing about Borg's career when he equalled and then passed it.

My own view is that defending is not really suprising. If a player wins a tournament then it probably shows it suits them, for all sorts of reasons. Therefore it isn't surprising they may win it several times.

 

[eldanger25]

Great thread, eldanger25. Well thought-out and supplemented with interesting facts. I concur with the general consensus that it is an undervalued achievement.

Thanks very much - appreciate the kind words.

 

[eldanger25]

I think this topic is a very worthwhile one. And an achievement in today's game that is often undervalued.

In the pre-Open era, a victory at one of the four major events did serve as a springboard to the professional ranks, since the majors were restricted to amateurs. Therefore, I don't think it is relevant to compare pre-OPen era players with the Open era.

When compiling a list to detail how often a player successfully defended a title, it needs to be a list to show who did completely defend a title. There is no such thing as getting "half a title defense." For any reason. EVER. Plain and simple. You are either there to defend you title. Or you are NOT!

The main issue and challenge of defending any tour title, especially a major, is that all eyes are on you. The majority of pressure is on the defending champion. No matter the circumstances. Even if a defending champ has fallen in the rankings, is playing with an injury, or whatever other circumstance, there is still an inordinate amount of internal and external pressure. When perusing the list of major winners in the Open era, look at how often one of the greats did not defend a title, but did come back another year to win. Once you've lost your crown, it makes you that much more eager and hungry to win again.

If you missed a year, due to any reason, even in 1974 when Stan Smith returned to Wimbledon after not defending his title due to the player's strike. No matter the circumstances, it's just not the same if you don't return the very next year to at least attempt a title defense. With another year passing, too much has transpired to equivocate a title defense.

It takes an extraordinary effort to successfully defend your title. You have to overcome many obstacles, your own doubts, the insufferable media, and the fact that everyone is gunning for you, because you are the title holder. You are the one who conquered the field the last time. They all want that feeling this time around.

Roger's 9 successful title defenses are amazing. He is the only man to successfully defend 3 of the 4 major titles. Borg was very successful with his French and Wimbledon defenses. But of course he never won the other 2 majors. For players like Edberg, Newcombe, Sampras, Connors, Wilander, and even Agassi - who won all four, it is incredibly difficult to come back and win each major a second consecutive time.

Looking at the women who have successfully defended their major titles. There are more women who have all four majors in their careers than men. In the Open era, Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena have done it. Steffi Graf is the only one to successfully defend each one. Actually, she is the only player in tennis history to successfully defend each of her major titles. And to boot, she successfully defended each on her first try. And she also successfully defended 3 of the 4 majors a second time!!!

Court never successfully defended a Wimbledon title. Ditto for Chris Evert. Both won Wimbledon 3 times, but never in succession. Evert never won back-to back Australian titles. And no, it doesn't count that Evert won the 1982 and 1984 Australian titles. She didn't play in 1983.

Martina never won back-to-back Australian Open titles. Which is surprising considering she won 7 Wimbledons in a row. She also never won back-to-back French titles.

Serena has never won the French title in consecutive years.

I don't think Serena will ever win back-to-back French titles.

I think it is unlikely we will see a woman successfully defend more than 2 majors for a long time. While Djokovic has had success at the Australian Open, I don't think he'll duplicate that at the other majors. Nor do I think Nadal will repeat at any of the majors other than the French.

Lots of good stuff here, thanks for posting some of the WTA stats.

I do think some kind of recognition is deserved for players who missed (rather than skipped) an edition in between two titles, because they're getting some pressure from the "insufferable media" themselves (i.e., the potential danger of being labelled yesterday's news or a flash in the pan if they lost) - but as I said in an earlier post in the thread, I don't feel particularly strongly about this issue.