CYGS or non CYGS

[adil1972]

from 1970 to 2005 nobody came close to CYGS or non CYGS
and then suddenly from 2006 to 2012 during a period of 7 years there were 4 close attempts at CYGS or non CYGS, two by federer and one by both nadal and djokovic

*************************

federer won 3 grandslam in 2006 and 2007 was defeated in french open final in both of these years....
fell one match short in both years of CYGS

*************************
nadal won 2010 french open, wimbeldon, us open and is defeated in quaterfinal at 2011 australian open
fell 3 matches short of non CYGS

*************************

novak won 2011 wimbledon, us open, 2012 australian open and is defeated in 2012 french open final
fell one match short of non CYGS

*************************

[joeri888]

Surface homogenization and technology enable players to perform more or less the same level on all surfaces.

[PhrygianDominant]

^^ +1

10surfaces

[timnz]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Surface homogenization and technology enable players to perform more or less the same level on all surfaces.

Yep that is it.

[adil1972]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Surface homogenization and technology enable players to perform more or less the same level on all surfaces.

well its only true about the top 4 players........

outside the top4 nobody has achieved the same level in all 4 grand slams

[batz]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Surface homogenization and technology enable players to perform more or less the same level on all surfaces.

Surface homogenisation is not a new phenomenon - there is more variety across the 4 slams today than there was in the 70s when 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass.

[adil1972]

how old is the concept of round robin matches in YEC

[adil1972]

or is it as old as the YEC

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by adil1972

well its only true about the top 4 players........

outside the top4 nobody has achieved the same level in all 4 grand slams

Because nobody outside the top four are really up to their level anymore.

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

Originally Posted by adil1972

from 1970 to 2005 nobody came close to CYGS or non CYGS

That first statement is flawed in several ways.

First, until the mid-1980s the Australian Open's stature was insufficient to attract the top players on a regular basis, so the GS wasn't routinely attempted. Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Ashe et al exemplify this.

Second, Sampras came close to achieving a non-CYGS: he won Wimbledon and the US Open in '93, and the Australian in '94, before falling at the quarters in the '94 French. Nadal didn't get any closer to the GS than Pistol Pete. Why are you overlooking this?

Expanding the parameters slightly, Connors ('74), Wilander ('88), and Agassi ('99-'00) all held three of the four slams at one time, and Connors didn't play the French during his best year. True, none of them won three in a row and were consequently in the "just one more to go..." situation, but in Agassi's case he did come within a single match of achieving the (non-CY) Slam, while Connors and Wilander came closer to a CYGS than any of today's champions.


Regards,
MDL

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by batz

Surface homogenisation is not a new phenomenon - there is more variety across the 4 slams today than there was in the 70s when 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass.

Yes, and people might have won all four if they'd actually cared about the AO.

well its only true about the top 4 players........

outside the top4 nobody has achieved the same level in all 4 grand slams

Berdych, Ferrero, Tsonga, Ferrer, Youzhny, Haas (not sure about USO) Del Potro, have all made the QF at all four majors in the last few years. They don't go further because they are not as good, but it's clear as day that current players have an easier time performing at all the slams than they did in the 90's. I think there are not even 10 players that made all QF in the 90's, and maybe only two to make all semis (Sampras, Agassi, who else?). Today the same player makes 18 out of 19 slam finals, and that may be partly because he's a freak of nature talentwise, a few years later two others come along to do the same. Even a no-slam winner at the time like Murray managed to make all four semis in the same year, while a guy like Ferrer or Delpo who don't like grass make quarters there. Even SAFIN managed to do it in 2008.

There's defenitely a trend that goes a lot further than the big four being really good players.

[batz]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Yes, and people might have won all four if they'd actually cared about the AO.

.

That's true - but it doesn't detract from the fact that there is more surface variety at the slams in 2012 than there was in 1972.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by batz

That's true - but it doesn't detract from the fact that there is more surface variety at the slams in 2012 than there was in 1972.

I am not that much of a history guru tbh. My knowledge doesn't go back as far as the 70's. I know something about the 90's and about now, and I know about now. I think 80's-90's were where it was hard to win all four, let alone after one another. Borg won RG and W back to back many times, but in the 80's or 90's NOBODY could do it. Now the winner of RG is basically the (joint) favourite for Wimbledon. I don't know if surface homogenization (compared to 80's and 90's) explains everything, but certaibnly some good portion of it. And the dominance of the top 4 is partly reason for it as well, but as I said above, it certainly does not explain it all.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by batz

Surface homogenisation is not a new phenomenon - there is more variety across the 4 slams today than there was in the 70s when 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass.

True, however the GC's at Australia, Wimby, and Forest Hills were all very different.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

True, however the GC's at Australia, Wimby, and Forest Hills were all very different.

Yes, but this is like me saying that MC,Rome(or Madrid if you will) and RG are all very different(the courts having their particular characteristics, not just speed variation). It would be true, but at the end of the day they are still claycourts.

Batz actually made a very good point about surface homogenization and looking at today's tennis it seems weird that until the late 70's they only played on 2 surfaces.