If all Grand Slams had two surfaces

#1
Wouldn't that be cool. So I decided to drop the thread, because of the stupid title name I accidentally gave it. I will ask for it to be deleted, discuss how many bagels Opelka will make this year, until mods remove it.
 
#4
Well, let's set a historical precedent and count up numbers of US opens (post 1978) compared to Australians (post 1987).

HC:
(2+ HC slam winners)
Djokovic: 3-7
Nadal: 3-1

Federer: 5-6
Sampras: 5-2
Agassi: 4-2
Courier: 0-2

Becker: 1-2
Lendl: 3-2
Wilander: 1-1

In over half of these cases, a player has a preference for one tournament over the other. Of the other 4, Becker and Wilander have small sample sizes. However, Becker, Lendl, and especially Federer are consistent on either surface.

The 2-slam clay era is only 3 years, so there's not enough data to come to a conclusion.

Grass: (2 slam era - 1975-1987, Australian and Wimbledon) - Given the lack of participation at the Australian, this era comparison is pretty difficult too. There's only really two players that we can measure here:

Wilander: 2-0
Vilas: 2-0

So I guess if we can say anything, it's that Australia was easier to win when Borg, McEnroe, and Connors were playing Wimbledon instead. We won't use these stats.

Grass: (2.5 slam era - 1968-1974: Australia, Wimbledon, US Open)

Laver: 1-1-1
Rosewall: 2-0-1
Smith: 0-1-1
Newcombe: 2-2-1

Again, the lack of participation at the Australian hurts this comparison, coupled with the lack of dominating forces outside of the Australian. Not counting the Australian, only Newcombe and Kodes won 3 or more slams in this time period. Not a large enough sample size to come to a conclusion.

Using the HC stats, you can infer that any player that dominates on a surface is likely not going to perform as well on the second slam (Of course, there's a lot of factors that go into this, especially surface speed and bounce). The small differences between slams would result in a different winning rate on each, and someone who dominates on a modern surface a la Federer or Nadal would likely not perform as well on the other slam of the same kind.

Using the data from before, I calculated what percent of the more successful slam the less successful slam had. (A 4-2 record is 50%, as the player had 50% of their more successful slam. Similarly, a 4-1 record is 25%.)
Djokovic: 3-7 (43%)
Nadal: 3-1 (33%)
Federer: 5-6 (83%)
Sampras: 5-2 (40%)
Agassi: 4-2 (50%)
Courier: 0-2 (0%)
Becker: 1-2 (50%)
Lendl: 3-2 (
Wilander: 1-1

I threw out Courier and Wilander, obvious outliers, then averaged these to get 52.3%, or roughly 50%.

Using this number, we can anticipate the number of slams for highly-successful players on a surface to increase by roughly that much.

Add another clay slam? Nadal wins 11*0.5 =5.5 (round it to 6) more slams.
Add another grass slam? Federer wins 8*0.5 = 4 more slams there. Sampras wins 7*0.5 = 3.5 (round to 4) more slams there.

Using these numbers, I added an extra clay slam and an extra grass slam (I used 0.5 measures this time):

Federer: 0.5 more clay, 4 more grass. 24.5 slams.
Nadal: 5.5 more clay, 1 more grass. 23.5 slams.
Djokovic: 0.5 more clay, 2 more grass. 17.5 slams.
Sampras: 0 clay, 3.5 grass. 17.5 slams.
Borg: 3 clay, 2.5 grass. 16.5 slams.
Lendl: 1.5 clay, 0 grass. 9.5 slams.
Connors: 0 clay, 1 grass. 9 slams.
Agassi: 0.5 clay, 0.5 grass. 9 slams.
McEnroe: 1.5 more grass. 8.5 slams.
Wilander: 1.5 clay. 8.5 slams.
Becker: 1.5 grass. 7.5 slams.
Edberg: 1 grass. 7 slams.

These are my projections for what it would be like with 2 clay, 2 grass, and 2 HC slams.
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
#8
Well Nadal would have at least 29 majors as he would win both clay majors every time obviously.

The interesting bit is who would win more grass majors, Djokovic or Federer. I think the last 11 years shows Djokovic as the better grass court player so I think you may see Djokovic add at least 5 to his current tally, Federer maybe 2. If we look at Masters 1000 Nadal is top Djokovic 2nd and Federer 3rd and I suspect if we had 6 slams on 2 surfaces each it would have the same look.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
#9
Well Nadal would have at least 29 majors as he would win both clay majors every time obviously.

The interesting bit is who would win more grass majors, Djokovic or Federer. I think the last 11 years shows Djokovic as the better grass court player so I think you may see Djokovic add at least 5 to his current tally, Federer maybe 2. If we look at Masters 1000 Nadal is top Djokovic 2nd and Federer 3rd and I suspect if we had 6 slams on 2 surfaces each it would have the same look.
That hypothetical second clay Slam would not have to be on classic red / orange clay, but on green or even on blue clay. And Nadal has dislikes other clay than the classic red / orange clay. So your estimate of 29 GS titles for Nadal is exaggerated.
 
#11
That hypothetical second clay Slam would not have to be on classic red / orange clay, but on green or even on blue clay. And Nadal has dislikes other clay than the classic red / orange clay. So your estimate of 29 GS titles for Nadal is exaggerated.
Practically everyone hated blue clay, not just Nadal.
 
#15
That hypothetical second clay Slam would not have to be on classic red / orange clay, but on green or even on blue clay. And Nadal has dislikes other clay than the classic red / orange clay. So your estimate of 29 GS titles for Nadal is exaggerated.
Blue clay has not been sanctioned after the Madrid debacle, green clay would be a great idea though.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#17
I assume you are being sarcastic? The surface you refer to is the worse surface of all time and should be banned at all clubs
I'm only sarcastic about the raining part.

I played on it most of my life. Enjoyed it much more than clay. And we only have very few HCs over here, and then we have all the funny crap like smash court or french court and those are all far, far worse than astro in my opinion.
 
#18
I'm only sarcastic about the raining part.

I played on it most of my life. Enjoyed it much more than clay. And we only have very few HCs over here, and then we have all the funny crap like smash court or french court and those are all far, far worse than astro in my opinion.
I much prefer clay, higher bounce. On the astro I cant keep my footing and ball keeps so low. And when i slip, i always graze my knees!!
 
Top