Want to win a grand slam? Make 3 finals

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by batz, Oct 15, 2012.

  1. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,566
    Back in the good old days when Andy Murray wasn't a slam champion, I used to point out various stats that seemed to act as determinants for slam winning success and therefore suggested that Murray would also win a slam. The one stat that really stuck out for me is that nobody in the open era who has made 3 slam finals has finished their career slamless - that stat is reinforced now Murray has won his 1st. It seems to be that if you give yourself enough chances, then eventually you'll win one and that 'enough' equates to 3 or more.

    There are plenty of slamless players who made 1 final, a smaller group who have made 2, but nobody who made 3.


    Could guys like Berdych and Tsonga eke out another few slam finals and 'give themselves enough chances'?

    Does my theory that 3 finals is the 'critical mass' for slam winning seem reasonable or is it a load of old bollocks?
     
    #1
  2. tata

    tata Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,065
    Hard against the top 4 players now. Yes if it was Fed-error but the other 3 are quite consistent in their level. To win a slam they would have to get past 2 of the top 4 in a best of 5 sets. Tall order.Not impossible but difficult.
     
    #2
  3. Zildite

    Zildite Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,904
    The number should be 5, since no one has needed more than that many attempts before winning their first slam.
    Look at the guys who made three finals only.
    Stich won in his first final
    Gerulaitis in his first
    Brugera in his first
    Kafelnikov in his first
    Kuerten in his first
    Ferrero in his second
    Smith in his second
    Cash in his second

    None of the three final only players needed a third shot before they had already won a slam.
    There are a few that needed three attempts to get their first but ended up with more than one (Ashe, Nastase are two).
    *You could count Roche as a 0-3 open era player.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #3
  4. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,637
    I think when Federer fades away (completely) this dynamic might change. Murray had to do it in the most difficult era (probably) and still needed some good fortune to get the job done. I think you're factually correct but Murray and this era might be misleading us a little.
     
    #4
  5. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,527
    Location:
    shiran
    My stats prof said you need at least around 20 points to draw a regression line.
     
    #5
  6. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,566
    There are way more than 20 separate items in the set of 'people who have made 3 or more slam finals and won a slam'.


    But there are zero items in the set of 'people who have made 3 or more slam finals who didn't win a slam'.
     
    #6
  7. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,527
    Location:
    shiran
    You didn't say "3 or more slam finals" initially - you said "3 slam finals".
     
    #7
  8. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,566
    Fair point - I should've been clearer. My point isn't that once you've made three that you will win your next one. My point is more that if you've made three, you are likely to win a slam at some point in your career i.e. there is a correlation between making 3 finals and finishing your career as a slam winner.

    I'm not sure if it's a proper, significant correlation as I didn't get beyond GCSE maths. Would value the views of people who do know about stuff like that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #8
  9. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,527
    Location:
    shiran
    I agree then - the more slam finals you make, the more likely you are to get the coin finally flip your way. Just like Raonic will never win a slam because he'll never make the final!

    P.S. I don't think you need math to draw inferences and make predictions. Personal knowledge and intuition can go a long way. However, if you want to forecast based on numbers alone, you need to assemble a more reliable data set.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #9
  10. ledwix

    ledwix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,114
    3 slam finals is a subset of 3 or more slam finals, which is what the other poster was implying, that anyone so far who has made three or more finals has won at least one slam.

    Not that it implies any real boundary or anything. It just happens to be the case right now. Just another fact, not necessarily a prescriptive principle.
     
    #10
  11. Sentinel

    Sentinel Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    29,145
    Location:
    Brave New World
    Does this mean that Federer can be expected to win slams indefinitely since he has 3, or is there some expiry period ?

    :)
     
    #11
  12. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,301
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I think it's just a case of;

    If you're good enough to keep reaching that stage of the tournament then you're good enough to actually win the damn thing. Just a case of finding your form. Guys like Tsonga and Berdych aren't particularly consistant atleast with reaching beyond the quarters.
     
    #12
  13. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,566
    Thanks for your reasonable response and not taking the p1ss out of my limited maths/stats knowledge :)

    The point I was clumsily trying to get at is that the 'tipping' point for winning looks like it's set at 3.
     
    #13
  14. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,566
    :) Trust you!

    Yes, Sexi can wins slams for eva!
     
    #14
  15. ark_28

    ark_28 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,108
    Location:
    England/USA
    It is an excellent point and you have made it all along Batz, I think with the strength of the top 4 though that even if Berdych etc made a few more finals they may buck this trend and still end up on 0 but who knows.

    Scud made 2 major finals, makes you think if he had stayed injury free and more focused he perhaps could have claimed one! I certainly believe he could have had one!
     
    #15

Share This Page