Why has no player been able to win 3 consecutive Aus Opens

[Nickzor]

Well obviously I know Djokovic recently did about 2 months ago, but really, I mean so far in history Wimbledon has been won 5 times in a row twice, the Us Open 5 times by Fed and 3 by Lendl, Roland Garros 4 times in a row twice, but just this year for the first time a player has won the Aus Open 3 times which is a record.

Why has no one been able to do it all this time? Is it the surface? Maybe the first slam of the year and it's anybody's to take it differs from let's say the Us Open because if let's say Djokovic had already won the 3 first slams of the year or someone like Nadal has won Aus Open and Roland Garros and swept 4 masters 1000 titles then mentally all the players on tour would think either one of them's gonna win the Us Open cause his on a Godly streak, a bar has already been set so to speak, but Aus Open being the first of the year, a Fresh start to the year may be why no players has been able to win 3 in a row orrr why every few years there's a break out player or someone you wouldn't expect in the final, so far in the last decade the Aus Open has had many surprise finalist, Rainer Scheuttler, Tomas Johannson, Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Arnaud Clement, Fernando Gonzales, Marcos Baghdatis, Just to name a couple.

 

[Phoenix1983]

It's historically been the least prestigious slam, played either right at the end of the year (when many top players in the Borg/Connors/Mac era skipped it altogether), or at the beginning of the year when no-one has built up momentum.

Thus no-one until Djokovic has cared about setting records and streaks at the AO.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Slow hard courts in Australia are the hardest surface to dominate as many players tend to play well there over the years, given the even more depth, the conditions are difficult, the heat is a big obstacle, and it is early in the year when it is hard to always be fully sharp. Hence why it took the Australian Open GOAT Djokovic to be the first to win 3 in a row, and it took the 2nd best Australian open player of all time Andre Agassi to win 3 in a row he played.

 

[Cup8489]

Slow hard courts in Australia are the hardest surface to dominate as many players tend to play well there over the years, given the even more depth, the conditions are difficult, the heat is a big obstacle, and it is early in the year when it is hard to always be fully sharp. Hence why it took the Australian Open GOAT Djokovic to be the first to win 3 in a row, and it took the 2nd best Australian open player of all time Andre Agassi to win 3 in a row he played.

LOL.

No mention of course for Federer, who won 3 in 4 years. Nope, Can't expect that out of you.

 

[NadalAgassi]

LOL.

No mention of course for Federer, who won 3 in 4 years. Nope, Can't expect that out of you.

Well it is natural the best Australian Open player ever would be the only one to win it 3 years in a row, the 2nd best would be the only other one to win it 3 years in a row he played (but actually 3 of 4 total as he had to miss one), and the 3rd best Australian Open player ever would be the only other one to win it 3 of 4 years (both played in and total). Happy now.

 

[Cup8489]

Well it is natural the best Australian Open player ever would be the only one to win it 3 years in a row, the 2nd best would be the only other one to win it 3 years in a row he played (but actually 3 of 4 total as he had to miss one), and the 3rd best Australian Open player ever would be the only other one to win it 3 of 4 years (both played in and total). Happy now.

Federer won his in a shorter period of time than Agassi. It can be debated on who is the better AO champion. Agassi's first was in 95. His last was 2003. 4 titles in 8 years, 4 finals overall.

Federer won his first in 2004, his last in 2010. 4 titles in 6 years, 4 titles from 5 finals, and hasn't lost before the semis since 2003.

I think it's clear who is number two. It could be debated over number 1 even. The only reason Djokovic could have the edge is 3 straight titles.

 

[NadalAgassi]

If 4 titles in 6 years is better than 4 titles in 8 years then I guess you should concede Sampras is a better Wimbledon player than Federer as he won 7 titles in 7 years vs 7 titles in 9 years.

 

[Cup8489]

If 4 titles in 6 years is better than 4 titles in 8 years then I guess you should concede Sampras is a better Wimbledon player than Federer as he won 7 titles in 7 years vs 7 titles in 9 years.

He didn't win 7 titles in 7 years. It was 7 of 8, and he didnt ever make 7 straight finals like Federer did. Personally I think they're even, as to me Sampra's 0 losses in finals cancels out Federer's more finals overall and longer run making finals.

Wait, I see what you mean about the 7 in 7. But still, the points I made are relevant.

 

[Nickzor]

Federer won his in a shorter period of time than Agassi. It can be debated on who is the better AO champion. Agassi's first was in 95. His last was 2003. 4 titles in 8 years, 4 finals overall.

Federer won his first in 2004, his last in 2010. 4 titles in 6 years, 4 titles from 5 finals, and hasn't lost before the semis since 2003.

I think it's clear who is number two. It could be debated over number 1 even. The only reason Djokovic could have the edge is 3 straight titles.

I'd defs give Fed second place, 5 finals overall and won in 2010 without dropping a set and dropped only one set in 2007, and Agassi never won 3 in a row, he won 2 in a row but not 3

 

[TopFH]

I'd defs give Fed second place, 5 finals overall and won in 2010 without dropping a set and dropped only one set in 2007, and Agassi never won 3 in a row, he won 2 in a row but not 3

2010 and 2007 are backwards. But otherwise, great post.

 

[gold2nadal]

Players tended to care more about having a nice Christmas rather than preparing for the Australian Open. Agassi did not even play it until 1995!

 

[NEW_BORN]

Federer's record at AO vs Agassi
Head-Head at AO - (RF) 1-0 (AA)

(RF) 68-10 (87%) vs (AA) 48-5 (91%)
(RF) 5 finals, 4 titles, 10 straight semis vs (AA) 4 finals, 4 titles, 3 straight finals, 4 straight semis, 5 straight quarters (absent in 2002)

RF won 2007 without dropping a set.
RF only person to win on both Rebound Ace and Plexicushion Prestige surfaces
VS
AA has record 26 consecutive match wins

I favor Federer slightly.
You be the judge.

 

[Cup8489]

Djoke could easily pass Agassi's match wins by making the final, and cement his place as the best AO player.

 

[ark_28]

If 4 titles in 6 years is better than 4 titles in 8 years then I guess you should concede Sampras is a better Wimbledon player than Federer as he won 7 titles in 7 years vs 7 titles in 9 years.

Pete won 7 in 8 fed 7 in 10 but excellent point! I agree with you!

 

[Cup8489]

Pete won 7 in 8 fed 7 in 10 but excellent point! I agree with you!

It's unfortunate that Isner won't even be able to say he's 1 of 1 in Wimbledon finals, no?

 

[90's Clay]

ROFLMAO..

The Australia Open has been important for like what 20 years? That might have something to do with it

 

[msc886]

The surface keeps changing. Djokovic's success at AO was helped a lot by the slowing of plexicushion from rebound ace which was already slow.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

AO wasn't considered a major until 1983 was it? later?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Margaret Court did win it 7 years consecutively (from '60 thru '66). But then it was all on grass and it not have the same slam stature that it has today.

.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

ROFLMAO..

The Australia Open has been important for like what 20 years? That might have something to do with it

Agreed I would rather win 3 Wimbledons than 3 Australian Opens.

In terms of prestige, AO is probably the least prestigious grand slam.

 

[gold2nadal]

Agreed I would rather win 3 Wimbledons than 3 Australian Opens.

In terms of prestige, AO is probably the least prestigious grand slam.

That's an understatement! No 'probably' about it. Djokovic can have the AO all to himself for the next 20 years for all I care (if he can keep beating Wawrinka 12-10 in the 5th set).

 

[adil1972]

nobody is ready for the first slam of the year, with only couple of small tourneys before australian open to become ready for it

 

[ark_28]

It's unfortunate that Isner won't even be able to say he's 1 of 1 in Wimbledon finals, no?

According to some of the experts of tennis John is on course to win a major and Jim Courier a 4 time Grand Slam champion has called him the most disruptive force in tennis. I would say John is in pretty good shape and has every chance of taking out a Grand Slam title

 

[M Dean]

i realy dont know why there so many thinking that AO should be concidered inferior to the other GS... if some players decided in the past to skip this event it is their fault. the fact remains it a GS, it has a history (100+ years), has the same ranking points to be shared, has approx. the same price money, the crowd is one of the best in the world,... i know the european two are more traditional but why should that mean it shouldnt have his right to be concidered as a real (and not less worth) GS? the only mistake they probably made was their choice for the surface. rebound ace was at least kind of unique...

 

[Nickzor]

The Aus Open may be the least prestigious of the 4 slams but it is a fact that all the top players still play the way they do at any other slam and that is TO WIN, which ultimately makes the Aus Open no less important then any of the other slams, Federers loss in the 09' final is the only time we've ever seen him reduced to tears after a grand slam loss, that should show you how he felt losing the title, not to mention he also teared up after winning it in 07' during his speech.

The Aus Open has also had some of the best matches in the last decade-

Safin vs Federer 2005 semi finals 6-7 7-5 6-4 6-7 7-9 (4:48 minutes)
Roddick vs el annoui 2003 quarterfinals 21-19 in the fifth
Nadal vs Verdasco 2009 semis 5 hour epic
Djokovic vs Wawrinka 2013 4th round another 5 hour epic
Nadal vs Federer 2009 final
Djokovic vs Nadal 2012 final (near 6 hour epic)
There's a whole heap more as well

The Aus open has also seen many miracle runs to the finals
Tomas Johansson in 2003
Baghdatis in 2006
Fernando Gonzales in 2007
Jo Wilfried Tsonga in 2008

In terms of quality and experience and the want to win the title I don't see the Aus Open as being any less inferior to the other 4 slams, less prestigious? Probably (because it's history) but that doesn't mean the players will not give it there all to win it.

 

[mattennis]

In the last 20 years (or so) it gives the same amount of points than the other three GS and in the last 10 years (but not earlier) all the players want to be there and to win it, just like the other three GS.

From about 1977 to 1982 its draws were pathetic (sometimes there were only 3 or 4 top-20 players in the draw).

Since 1983 many top players started to go there again, but still some top players chose to skip it (Connors only played in 1974 and 1975, never again; Borg only played in 1974, McEnroe played in 1983, 1985 and 1989 but skipped it in 1984, 1987 and 1988; Wilander skipped it in 1987; other tops like Lendl, Edberg, Becker,....were there every year since 1983).

Even in the 90s some top players skipped it sometimes (Sampras skipped it three times and Agassi only started to go there since 1995, Becker also skipped it once or twice during the 90s).

But in the last 10 years or so, I really think that ALL players want to win it and they give their all to win it, just like in the other three GS.

 

[pds999]

I would stuill argue Nadal at his peak is better than Djokovic at his best on the Melbourne surface. The 2012 final was Nadal's to lose in that 5th set. He had it won and just the mental stuff got to him at the 4-2 mark and he dumped a load of backhands in the net. But he was the stronger player and going away. I actually think despite the loss, Rafa realised after that match that he could beat Djokovic again which totally changed the clay court season in 2012. If they ever play in Melbourne again both at their peak and with that temporary 2011 mental edge now gone, I would favour Nadal.

 

[pds999]

According to some of the experts of tennis John is on course to win a major and Jim Courier a 4 time Grand Slam champion has called him the most disruptive force in tennis. I would say John is in pretty good shape and has every chance of taking out a Grand Slam title

Not on these modern day courts he won't. Not a chance.

 

[xan]

I would stuill argue Nadal at his peak is better than Djokovic at his best on the Melbourne.

sure you would. you would argue anything that Nadal is "x" best at. you scream bias.

 

[Cup8489]

According to some of the experts of tennis John is on course to win a major and Jim Courier a 4 time Grand Slam champion has called him the most disruptive force in tennis. I would say John is in pretty good shape and has every chance of taking out a Grand Slam title

I'd argue that he's in pretty good shape and has every chance of making R2 at Wimbledon this year.

 

[spinovic]

A couple of possibilities...

1. It didn't always attract the best players and even now it is the least prestigious of the 4 slams, IMO.

2. It is the first slam of the year, in January, with only a couple of tournaments prior to it, so guys haven't hit their groove yet, which opens up the door for more erratic performances, more upsets, etc.

 

[Costagirl]

It's historically been the least prestigious slam, played either right at the end of the year (when many top players in the Borg/Connors/Mac era skipped it altogether), or at the beginning of the year when no-one has built up momentum.

Thus no-one until Djokovic has cared about setting records and streaks at the AO.

Hmmmm...interesting. Thanks - never thought about it. And laughed a bit because I also didn't care enough to even realize this but I think your correct. The AO is sort of the least thought of slam.

 

[mightyrick]

It is the first slam of the year, in January, with only a couple of tournaments prior to it, so guys haven't hit their groove yet, which opens up the door for more erratic performances, more upsets, etc.

This is the main reason that it is the least prestigious. Even though it is equivalent in points, there's no time to prepare.

As a player, you spend the holidays at home. You've been eating, drinking and laying around for nearly a month and a half. This is the period of time when a player decompresses, spends time with the family, and does non-tennis things. This is their vacation. Then BOOM, January hits... and in two weeks they are expected to be in form for a grand slam. It really doesn't make any sense.

I personally don't give the AO much credence at all. It's a grand slam full of rusty winded players. If it were six weeks later... I'd give it more real recognition.

 

[xan]

shame, because they really want your recognition

 

[Matt H.]

Agassi won 3 consecutive AO's that he played in.

He closed out his career at the AO in pretty strong fashion, all past the age of 30.

Win-Win-DNP-Win-Semi-Qtr

 

[NadalAgassi]

I would stuill argue Nadal at his peak is better than Djokovic at his best on the Melbourne surface.

Sorry this is absurd. You mention the 2012 final but that only shows how much better Djokovic is on the surface. Djokovic played SUBPAR for his standards in that final, Nadal was playing his absolute best hard court tennis, and Nadal still lost. OK I agree Nadal choked at the end and should have won the 5th set and the match, but the fact remains it was even possible, and did happen, for an average Djokovic to beat a 100% Nadal form wise. In the event Nadal were such an amazing Australian hard court player he would have more than 1 title and 2 finals there. I think even the U.S Open hard courts, despite going against the logic that Nadal should be better on all slow courts than fast, might be a better surface for him. Saying Nadal's best is better than Djokovic's best at the Australian Open, is like saying Djokovic's best would beat Nadal's best on clay (granted this forum is so full of morons there are some who would say the latter too). It is possible Nadal's best beats Federer's best in a head to head at the Australian Open, but that is only because of the matchup issues; whereas with Nadal and Djokovic, Djokovic is both much better on the surface, and has the matchup edge.

I do think Nadal can win another Australian Open before he retires, but he will either do it not facing Djokovic, or facing a Djokovic that is certainly not on fire, if he does.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Agassi won 3 consecutive AO's that he played in.

That is why I rated him 2nd best over Federer there. All 4 of Djokovic, Federer, and Agassi have 4 titles there so that is a wash. 1 more final, which was a loss, is not a dealbreaker of any sort really. However 3 straight titles > 3 straight wins in ones played > 2 straight titles and wins in ones played. At the height of their sucess Djokovic was a bit more dominant than Agassi who was a bit more dominant than Federer.

 

[President]

Sorry this is absurd. You mention the 2012 final but that only shows how much better Djokovic is on the surface. Djokovic played SUBPAR for his standards in that final, Nadal was playing his absolute best hard court tennis, and Nadal still lost. OK I agree Nadal choked at the end and should have won the 5th set and the match, but the fact remains it was even possible, and did happen, for an average Djokovic to beat a 100% Nadal form wise. In the event Nadal were such an amazing Australian hard court player he would have more than 1 title and 2 finals there. I think even the U.S Open hard courts, despite going against the logic that Nadal should be better on all slow courts than fast, might be a better surface for him. Saying Nadal's best is better than Djokovic's best at the Australian Open, is like saying Djokovic's best would beat Nadal's best on clay (granted this forum is so full of morons there are some who would say the latter too). It is possible Nadal's best beats Federer's best in a head to head at the Australian Open, but that is only because of the matchup issues; whereas with Nadal and Djokovic, Djokovic is both much better on the surface, and has the matchup edge.

I do think Nadal can win another Australian Open before he retires, but he will either do it not facing Djokovic, or facing a Djokovic that is certainly not on fire, if he does.

I agree, the US Open is actually a better surface for Nadal IMO because the conditions are less muggy and humid and the ball flies a little more and bounces higher. I think Nadal finds it very tough to do anything with the ball on the AO surface, its just insanely slow and mud-like at times. For Djokovic, I can really say that the slower the hard court the better for him but that isn't necessarily true for Nadal.

 

[ark_28]

I'd argue that he's in pretty good shape and has every chance of making R2 at Wimbledon this year.

Obviously if you are going to win the tournament you need to get to the 2nd round then the 3rd etc well done einstein next we will see if you can do the 2 times table!

Isner has beaten the worlds current best two players! Besides you can never ake the first round lightly Rafs a legend at the French open very nearly lost in the first round in 2012 when he was pushed to 5 sets by John

 

[Cup8489]

Obviously if you are going to win the tournament you need to get to the 2nd round then the 3rd etc well done einstein next we will see if you can do the 2 times table!

Isner has beaten the worlds current best two players! Besides you can never ake the first round lightly Rafs a legend at the French open very nearly lost in the first round in 2012 when he was pushed to 5 sets by John

What is the 2 times table?

Rafa plays into form. Had he met John in the quarters (not likely since John has only made the quarters at the USO twice, you can forget the FO), he'd have won in straights.

Fact is that Isner won't be winning a major.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

The Aus Open may be the least prestigious of the 4 slams but it is a fact that all the top players still play the way they do at any other slam and that is TO WIN, which ultimately makes the Aus Open no less important then any of the other slams, Federers loss in the 09' final is the only time we've ever seen him reduced to tears after a grand slam loss, that should show you how he felt losing the title, not to mention he also teared up after winning it in 07' during his speech.

The Aus Open has also had some of the best matches in the last decade-

Safin vs Federer 2005 semi finals 6-7 7-5 6-4 6-7 7-9 (4:48 minutes)
Roddick vs el annoui 2003 quarterfinals 21-19 in the fifth
Nadal vs Verdasco 2009 semis 5 hour epic
Djokovic vs Wawrinka 2013 4th round another 5 hour epic
Nadal vs Federer 2009 final
Djokovic vs Nadal 2012 final (near 6 hour epic)
There's a whole heap more as well

The Aus open has also seen many miracle runs to the finals
Tomas Johansson in 2003
Baghdatis in 2006
Fernando Gonzales in 2007
Jo Wilfried Tsonga in 2008

In terms of quality and experience and the want to win the title I don't see the Aus Open as being any less inferior to the other 4 slams, less prestigious? Probably (because it's history) but that doesn't mean the players will not give it there all to win it.

arguably my favorite match of all time

 

[tennisplayer1993]

The Aus Open may be the least prestigious of the 4 slams but it is a fact that all the top players still play the way they do at any other slam and that is TO WIN, which ultimately makes the Aus Open no less important then any of the other slams, Federers loss in the 09' final is the only time we've ever seen him reduced to tears after a grand slam loss, that should show you how he felt losing the title, not to mention he also teared up after winning it in 07' during his speech.

The Aus Open has also had some of the best matches in the last decade-

Safin vs Federer 2005 semi finals 6-7 7-5 6-4 6-7 7-9 (4:48 minutes)
Roddick vs el annoui 2003 quarterfinals 21-19 in the fifth
Nadal vs Verdasco 2009 semis 5 hour epic
Djokovic vs Wawrinka 2013 4th round another 5 hour epic
Nadal vs Federer 2009 final
Djokovic vs Nadal 2012 final (near 6 hour epic)
There's a whole heap more as well

The Aus open has also seen many miracle runs to the finals
Tomas Johansson in 2002
Baghdatis in 2006
Fernando Gonzales in 2007
Jo Wilfried Tsonga in 2008

In terms of quality and experience and the want to win the title I don't see the Aus Open as being any less inferior to the other 4 slams, less prestigious? Probably (because it's history) but that doesn't mean the players will not give it there all to win it.

Agassi won in 2003

 

[spinovic]

This is the main reason that it is the least prestigious. Even though it is equivalent in points, there's no time to prepare.

As a player, you spend the holidays at home. You've been eating, drinking and laying around for nearly a month and a half. This is the period of time when a player decompresses, spends time with the family, and does non-tennis things. This is their vacation. Then BOOM, January hits... and in two weeks they are expected to be in form for a grand slam. It really doesn't make any sense.

I personally don't give the AO much credence at all. It's a grand slam full of rusty winded players. If it were six weeks later... I'd give it more real recognition.

I think it is slowly but surely rising up in prestige...the current crop of players have helped because they are almost always ready to play at a high level, so you don't get any "surprise" winners in Oz anymore. Like Thomas Johansson. Actually, since Agassi won it in 2000, he, Federer and Djokovic have won 11 of the 13 Aussie titles. Nadal and the aforementioned Johansson are the other two winners.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

I think it is slowly but surely rising up in prestige...the current crop of players have helped because they are almost always ready to play at a high level, so you don't get any "surprise" winners in Oz anymore. Like Thomas Johansson. Actually, since Agassi won it in 2000, he, Federer and Djokovic have won 11 of the 13 Aussie titles. Nadal and the aforementioned Johansson are the other two winners.

Wow that's crazy, I never realized that. Its the Fedjokovic slam =D

 

[Mainad]

Rafa plays into form. Had he met John in the quarters (not likely since John has only made the quarters at the USO twice).

Actually, just once (2011).

 

[Fiji]

AO is the least prestigious of the slams, with the least history and tradition. Basically, the mickey mouse of the slams and it wasn't until recently that players cared to show up there every year. That's why.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I think it is slowly but surely rising up in prestige...the current crop of players have helped because they are almost always ready to play at a high level, so you don't get any "surprise" winners in Oz anymore. Like Thomas Johansson. Actually, since Agassi won it in 2000, he, Federer and Djokovic have won 11 of the 13 Aussie titles. Nadal and the aforementioned Johansson are the other two winners.

Good point, although a slight correction. There have been 14 AO tournaments played since the turn of the century with the following winners:

Djokovic - 4
Federer - 4
Agassi - 3
Nadal - 1
Safin - 1
Johansson - 1

 

[Cup8489]

Actually, just once (2011).

Thank you for helping me to prove my point further

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Good point, although a slight correction. There have been 14 AO tournaments played since the turn of the century with the following winners:

Djokovic - 4
Federer - 4
Agassi - 3
Nadal - 1
Safin - 1
Johansson - 1

unfair on dre...he won in 95..so that's 4 really.

he didn't play the event 87-94 and 97 and 02 and 06.

so he's won 4 times out of 9 tries, 04 and 05 he was 34+

so that's essentially 4 times out 7..including 3 in a row..00,01 and 03.

 

[ark_28]

What is the 2 times table?

Rafa plays into form. Had he met John in the quarters (not likely since John has only made the quarters at the USO twice, you can forget the FO), he'd have won in straights.

Fact is that Isner won't be winning a major.

Everything you have said here is your opinion NOT fact! Fact is Rafa is such a dominant force at the French Open he has dominated that slam perhaps than anyone has dominated any slam! He gets through to the finals some years and has barely lose games forget sets! If we were talking Wimbledon then you may have a point Rafa is a slow starter there and struggles on first week faster grass but at the FO he always hits the ground running! as he is nearly coming off a very successful run on clay in the Masters.

All of this makes John's achievement in the first round all the more remarkable! As for your view on John not winning a major! That is your opinion it doesn't make it fact I agree he hasn't lived up to his potential so far in majors but he is aware that his career will be judged on the majors and that is why everything for him now is geared around peaking for the majors!