AO v USO

Beckerserve

Legend
Nadal 1-4
Djokovic 9-3
Sampras 2-5
Agassi 4-2
Courier 2-0
Rafter 0-2
Hewitt 0-2

Why such discrepancies for the same players on what is allegedly the same surface.
 

UnforcedTerror

Professional
Nadal, it's a matter of draw. He would have won more AOs if he had to beat Berrettini and Anderson.

Djokovic, he's equally good at both, but way more clutch at AO. Probably because he won his first Slam there so it's feel like home to him, also the crowd love him there unlike USA and that helps.

Agassi, something like Nadal, he had it tougher at one compared to the other.

Sampras, he loved playing in front of home crowd and wasn't as motivated at AO. Winning his first Slam at USO also helped.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
Agassi, something like Nadal, he had it tougher at one compared to the other.
It's definitely more than that though, I don't think there's any question that RLA played to Andre's strengths better than Ashe or Armstrong did. Just look at how differently the match-up with Sampras played at the 2 locations. If the USO played more like Oz in those days I highly doubt Andre would've gone 0-4 against Pete and only have 2 titles.

I think it's a little disrespectful to Andre to wave Sampras away as just being unmotivated.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
I think a big thing is the freshness of the players, AO is the first slam, USO the last
the players who do comparatively better when everyone's fresh are rewarded at the AO, and those who are best when everyone's tired would probably do better in the US
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Nadal 1-4
Djokovic 9-3
Sampras 2-5
Agassi 4-2
Courier 2-0
Rafter 0-2
Hewitt 0-2

Why such discrepancies for the same players on what is allegedly the same surface.
Allegedly? Only fools would make that allegation lol. In the 90s USO was faster and slicker whereas AO was regular bouncing and medium speed. Conditions were more humid down under so that slowed it down a bit as well too. Nowadays I think AO is the faster slam, which is quite sad when you think about it
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
It's definitely more than that though, I don't think there's any question that RLA played to Andre's strengths better than Ashe or Armstrong did. Just look at how differently the match-up with Sampras played at the 2 locations. If the USO played more like Oz in those days I highly doubt Andre would've gone 0-4 against Pete and only have 2 titles.

I think it's a little disrespectful to Andre to wave Sampras away as just being unmotivated.
The match in '95 was heavily influenced by external events happening in Pete's world at the time - his coach dying. He broke down in tears in front of the world the round prior. I don't think it's a stretch to say the outcome would have been very different if things were stable for Pete.

As far as 2000 goes though, that one is a classic and well earned win for Andre. I think your overall point is correct in that RLA's conditions were more neutral and allowed Andre a bit more time to prep his strokes and get a hold on the return
 

Atennisone

Hall of Fame
Nadal, it's a matter of draw. He would have won more AOs if he had to beat Berrettini and Anderson.

Djokovic, he's equally good at both, but way more clutch at AO. Probably because he won his first Slam there so it's feel like home to him, also the crowd love him there unlike USA and that helps.

Agassi, something like Nadal, he had it tougher at one compared to the other.

Sampras, he loved playing in front of home crowd and wasn't as motivated at AO. Winning his first Slam at USO also helped.
Whether Djoko fans want to admit it or not, Djoko is not always motivated unlike Nadal and Federer. Since 2016 RG, Djokovic became a strange player. Now his succes at AO, can be explained by the fact that AO's tournament is at the start of the season. In AO, the GS contenders are much more motivated than any other slam except for Wimbledon. If Djokovic already won AO earlier the year, he would care less about winning UO. Sure this was only from the years 2012 and until present. In 2014 Djokovic already won Wimbledon against the current Grass GOAT/2nd GOAT, and he was less in need of an UO to build a big legacy. Nadal is always motivated, it seems, for any slam, not as much for masters anymore. Nadal also hasn't won AO more than once, so he wants to prove he can do it on hardcourt, and then every UO from 2012-Present consists of a Djokovic who has already done himself satisfied in the season. A Federer who has not won a slam since 2012 WB, so he wants any slam. Nadal who knows his only chance to prove himself on HC is UO. This is why
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
The match in '95 was heavily influenced by external events happening in Pete's world at the time - his coach dying. He broke down in tears in front of the world the round prior. I don't think it's a stretch to say the outcome would have been very different if things were stable for Pete.

As far as 2000 goes though, that one is a classic and well earned win for Andre. I think your overall point is correct in that RLA's conditions were more neutral and allowed Andre a bit more time to prep his strokes and get a hold on the return
It was the quarters against Courier that he broke down, coming back from 0-2 to win. Still remember Courier telling him that they can come back the next day to finish the match if he wanted.

Sampras played Chang in the semis, who actually out aced him in that match by quite a bit, 20 to 13.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It was the quarters against Courier that he broke down, coming back from 0-2 to win. Still remember Courier telling him that they can come back the next day to finish the match if he wanted.

Sampras played Chang in the semis, who actually out aced him in that match by quite a bit, 20 to 13.
Man, that's such a bro moment from Courier. Hits right in the feels.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Sampras in his book said Jim was being sarcastic.
I've never been clear on it. Tim's brother Tom said he felt Jim was being totally serious, but I've seen statements from Pete to the effect that he thought it was being sarcastic so I'm not sure. Jim himself said he did it to try to jolt Pete out of his emotion and get him back into the match.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
I've never been clear on it. Tim's brother Tom said he felt Jim was being totally serious, but I've seen statements from Pete to the effect that he thought it was being sarcastic so I'm not sure. Jim himself said he did it to try to jolt Pete out of his emotion and get him back into the match.
I think Pete held a grudge for a while over it and Jim maybe since has tried to prove he was being sincere. Must admit when i saw it live i thought he was being sarcastic with his tone.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
I think Pete held a grudge for a while over it and Jim maybe since has tried to prove he was being sincere. Must admit when i saw it live i thought he was being sarcastic with his tone.
I always thought he was being sarcastic too tbh
 

duaneeo

Legend
9-3 is the most unexplainable: 9-0 in AO finals but 3-5 in USO finals: 2-0 vs Rafa in AO finals but 1-2 in USO finals; 4-0 vs Murray in AO finals but 0-1 in USO finals; the losses to Wawrinka and Nishikori.
 
Top