Want to win a grand slam? Make 3 finals
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?
"If Murray were always good, he would not be so good." MixieP - Philosopher