List of French Open Winners

[BluBarry]

Open Era
* - Denotes Multiple Winner ** - Denotes Consecutive Winner

• 1968 Ken Rosewall
• 1969 Rod Laver
• 1970-71 Jan Kodeš **
• 1972 Andrés Gimeno
• 1973 Ilie Năstase
• 1974-75 Björn Borg **
• 1976 Adriano Panatta
• 1977 Guillermo Vilas
• 1978-79-80-81 Björn Borg **
• 1982 Mats Wilander *
• 1983 Yannick Noah
• 1984 Ivan Lendl *
• 1985 Mats Wilander *
• 1986-87 Ivan Lendl **
• 1988 Mats Wilander *
• 1989 Michael Chang
• 1990 Andrés Gómez
• 1991-92 Jim Courier **
• 1993-94 Sergi Bruguera **
• 1995 Thomas Muster
• 1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
• 1997 Gustavo Kuerten *
• 1998 Carlos Moyà
• 1999 Andre Agassi
• 2000-01 Gustavo Kuerten **
• 2002 Albert Costa
• 2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero
• 2004 Gastón Gaudio
• 2005-06 Rafael Nadal **

 

[baseliner]

Shouldn't Rod Laver get an asterisk? He is a multiple winner of teh French Open, just that one preceded the Open era.

 

[ceejay]

May I ask why you have posted a list of French Open winners?

 

[Rabbit]

Shouldn't Rod Laver get an asterisk? He is a multiple winner of teh French Open, just that one preceded the Open era.

Likewise Ken Rosewall is a multiple winner.

 

[Grimjack]

Shouldn't Rod Laver get an asterisk? He is a multiple winner of teh French Open, just that one preceded the Open era.

These were meaningless, and do not deserve to be recognized by history.

 

[BluBarry]

May I ask why you have posted a list of French Open winners?

Every once in awhile I like to Post what could be someday, useful information.
After the USO, the French is my favorite tournament being a baseliner my game increased dramatically in watching how different Players approached the technical aspects of the game.

 

[Backbored]

If Guillermo Vilas (77) was as good as he said he was, why did he only win one F.O. and our sweet Nadal has won two?

 

[Backbored]

Every once in awhile I like to Post what could be someday, useful information.
After the USO, the French is my favorite tournament being a baseliner my game increased dramatically in watching how different Players approached the technical aspects of the game.

And I thank you for it. The Fench is also my favorite.

 

[BluBarry]

And I thank you for it. The Fench is also my favorite.

Actually the USO is the only Slam I've been able to attend quite often and each time I've gone, I was blessed with seats to die for. And since the Night matches are absolutely crazy, it was always fun beyond words. However now that my favorite Players are now gone from the game, it is quite possible that the USO will fall to number two on my favorite list.

 

[Backbored]

The French was what got me into watching tennis long, long ago. It was the sound of the slide on that red clay that clinched it, along with the sound of the racket hitting the ball. I like how no one leaves the field of battle without taking some of the field with them.

 

[Jack the Hack]

If Guillermo Vilas (77) was as good as he said he was, why did he only win one F.O. and our sweet Nadal has won two?

Well, I can't say I know too much about Vilas other than his record. The only match I remember him from was the '82 French final, where he lost to a 17 year old Mats Wilander in a battle of loopy groundstrokes. He seemed pretty bitter in some of his comments last year when Nadal broke his record for most consecutive wins on clay (like accusing Nadal of playing smaller events to keep the streak going, which was BS).

Anyway, in defense of Vilas' greatness, here are some facts:

• He only won one French Open, but was a finalist in '75, '78, and '82. He basically had the misfortune of playing at the same time as Bjorn Borg, who ruled Roland Garros (and beat him twice in the final). Incidently, Borg didn't play the French Open in '77 when Vilas won it. (I think he was injured.)
  
• Vilas won the US Open in '77, when it was still on clay.
  
• Vilas won the '78 and '79 Australian Opens on grass, and was a finalist in '77.
  
• As you can see from this, he was a finalist in 3 out of the 4 Slams in 1977, and won 16 total titles that year. That was just about as dominant as you can be... but interestingly, Jimmy Conners finished as the year end #1 that year (maybe someone can shed light on that injustice... I don't know the story on this).
  
• Vilas also won 62 career singles titles, and 15 doubles titles.

 

[Jack the Hack]

The French was what got me into watching tennis long, long ago. It was the sound of the slide on that red clay that clinched it, along with the sound of the racket hitting the ball. I like how no one leaves the field of battle without taking some of the field with them.

Well said!

 

[FiveO]

Along those lines here is a link to all male major winners:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_Men's_Singles_champions

and the women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_Women's_Singles_champions

 

[Rabbit]

These were meaningless, and do not deserve to be recognized by history.

I disagree. Look at the results of all the 1967 "amateur" players in 1968 and beyond. They did more than hold their own and consist of players like Arthur Ashe & John Newcombe, who won the last amateur Wimbledon in 1967. Further, players like Roy Emerson went on to very respectable professional careers post 1968.

 

[Andres]

If Guillermo Vilas (77) was as good as he said he was, why did he only win one F.O. and our sweet Nadal has won two?

You don't count the Runner Up trophies?
And he had to bad luck to have to face the greatest claycourter of all time,
Bjorn Borg.
Who did Nadal face to win his? A now crappy Gaudio and Coria? An old Moya and Ferrero? Ljubicic?

Federer is the one and oly big name there, and nothing compared to Borg on clay domination.

 

[Backbored]

You don't count the Runner Up trophies?
And he had to bad luck to have to face the greatest claycourter of all time,
Bjorn Borg.
Who did Nadal face to win his? A now crappy Gaudio and Coria? An old Moya and Ferrero? Ljubicic?

Federer is the one and oly big name there, and nothing compared to Borg on clay domination.

So, just for clarification. You think Guillermo Vilas because of his wins and because of his opponents is the better clay courter? (Umm I don’t if “courter” is a word)? Or the better all around player, than our sweet Nadal, or both?

 

[BluBarry]

These were meaningless, and do not deserve to be recognized by history.

Meaningless meaning what exactly ? Do you mean that prior to the Open Era competition was waning and the same few guys dominated the Sport kinda similiar to what we have today. Or because the surfaces were practically the same, it was really like winning the same tournament over & over ?

 

[Moose Malloy]

As you can see from this, he was a finalist in 3 out of the 4 Slams in 1977, and won 16 total titles that year. That was just about as dominant as you can be... but interestingly, Jimmy Conners finished as the year end #1 that year (maybe someone can shed light on that injustice... I don't know the story on this).

The #1 ranking was quite controversial/confusing in the 70s. Many writers debated whether Vilas, Borg, or Connors was the real #1 in 1977.

The points system wasn't weighed as heavily to the Australian or French(which weren't that important in the 70s, even compared to say WCT Dallas event, that was more like a major in terms of prize money, prestige, than the French was-Borg even skipped the French one year to play WTT) & the #1 ranking wasn't considered nearly as important as it is today. Wimbledon & the US Open were way above the French/Australian in the 70s. The Wimbledon champ was often considered the real #1 by most tennis writers in the 70s(you see Ashe listed as #1 by many magazines the year he won Wimbledon('75) more than the computer #1 Connors.

urban or hops may shed more light on this.

and vilas was king of the 2nd tier events, so its funny that he accuses nadal (rome, monte carlo, french champ consecutive years) of playing smaller events to get that unknown record.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

• As you can see from this, he was a finalist in 3 out of the 4 Slams in 1977

sorry... i know that i'm a dangerous maniac but - in all rigor - it's 3 out of 5 !

 

[Jack the Hack]

sorry... i know that i'm a dangerous maniac but - in all rigor - it's 3 out of 5 !

I didn't get it at first, but you are correct...

In 1977, the Australian Open was played twice; once in January, and then again in December (due to a schedule change).

The Slam champions that year were:

Australian (January): Roscoe Tanner
French: Guillermo Vilas
Wimbledon: Bjorn Borg
US Open: Guillermo Vilas
Australian (December): Vitas Gerulaitis

I'm still trying to figure out how Connors ended up #1 for that year, especially since he didn't win a Slam and won only 7 other titles (although it looks like 3 of them were WTC). Vilas won two Slams and 16 total titles (1 WTC). Borg won Wimbledon and 11 total titles (1 WTC).

Moose, I appreciate your input and would like to know more. This happened a few years before my time...

 

[BluBarry]

I didn't get it at first, but you are correct...

In 1977, the Australian Open was played twice; once in January, and then again in December (due to a schedule change).

The Slam champions that year were:

Australian (January): Roscoe Tanner
French: Guillermo Vilas
Wimbledon: Bjorn Borg
US Open: Guillermo Vilas
Australian (December): Vitas Gerulaitis

I'm still trying to figure out how Connors ended up #1 for that year, especially since he didn't win a Slam and won only 7 other titles (although it looks like 3 of them were WTC). Vilas won two Slams and 16 total titles (1 WTC). Borg won Wimbledon and 11 total titles (1 WTC).

Moose, I appreciate your input and would like to know more. This happened a few years before my time...

From what I was able to discover, Connors was Ranked #1 for 160 consecutive weeks from July 1974 - August 1977 also this information was made available :

Despite his success, Connors remained an independent character with little respect for traditions and other people's expectations. At Wimbledon in 1977, he refused to take part in a parade of former champions to celebrate the tournament's centenary, and was booed when he went out to play the following day. He still managed to make the final at Wimbledon that year, but lost to Borg in a thrilling five-set final. He also lost in the final of the US Open to Guillermo Vilas. Having irritated sponsors and tennis officials by shunning the end-of-year Masters championships for the previous three years, Connors entered the competition for the first time in 1977 and beat Borg in the final to win the event.

 

[Moose Malloy]

This happened a few years before my time.

Happened before my time as well, just gleaned some of that info from my dad & old tennis magazines, books etc.

urban probably can explain it better.

I'm still trying to figure out how Connors ended up #1 for that year, especially since he didn't win a Slam and won only 7 other titles (although it looks like 3 of them were WTC). Vilas won two Slams and 16 total titles (1 WTC). Borg won Wimbledon and 11 total titles (1 WTC).

I think you probably nailed it-more WCT points, higher ranking. And Connors also won the year end masters, beating both Vilas & Borg.

And here were their results at the 2 important slams that year:
Connors Runner Up Wimbledon, US Open
Borg Champion Wimbledon, 4th Round US Open
Vilas 3rd Round Wimbledon, Champion US Open

That Dallas WTC event must have had huge points(it was the culmination of the WTC season, even though it was only May. Tennis was so screwed up then as far as scheduling. One of the most important events of the year was held on carpet a few weeks before the French Open on clay! No wonder mac & connors didn't have their best at the french often.

I was watching an old Mac-Mecir Dallas final, John Newcombe was doing commentary. They showed a clip of him beating Borg for the '74 WTC Dallas event. They quoted him from that year, as saying that he was working towards winning dallas the previous 9 months, it was such a big event.

This is another factor in why its so hard to judge the greatest ever, etc. The standards today are different than just 30 years ago, when an event that no longer existed was bigger that winning the french or australian.

And Jack, try figuring out how Mac finished 1982 #1 over Connors, it makes no sense either.

I think Peter Bodo wrote about the Vilas/#1 ranking issue on his tennis world blog earlier this year(around the time nadal was breaking that claycourt record) maybe that would help.

 

[BluBarry]

This is another factor in why its so hard to judge the greatest ever, etc. The standards today are different than just 30 years ago, when an event that no longer existed was bigger that winning the french or australian.

And Jack, try figuring out how Mac finished 1982 #1 over Connors, it makes no sense either.

I think Peter Bodo wrote about the Vilas/#1 ranking issue on his tennis world blog earlier this year(around the time nadal was breaking that claycourt record) maybe that would help.

Moose Man ~ I gotta tell ya, everytime I see a Thread [GOAT] I cringe because it's like " Here we go again " another week of getting nowhere but for some reason I can't keep out of it.

I, like so many others seem to have a nack for spinning the facts to support their picks of the GOAT. One day I hope before I die, someone will come up with a criteria that all agree upon to determine this question.

 

[Backbored]

Despite his success, Connors remained an independent character with little respect for traditions and other people's expectations. At Wimbledon in 1977, he refused to take part in a parade of former champions to celebrate the tournament's centenary, and was booed when he went out to play the following day. He still managed to make the final at Wimbledon that year, but lost to Borg in a thrilling five-set final. He also lost in the final of the US Open to Guillermo Vilas. Having irritated sponsors and tennis officials by shunning the end-of-year Masters championships for the previous three years, Connors entered the competition for the first time in 1977 and beat Borg in the final to win the event.

How politically correct. Just replace independent with jerk and you’d be closer to the truth imo. How any sponsor could trust him, I don’t know. Looks like Roddick is taking a leaf out of his book as well as his style of game. The Davis cup, should be an entertaining game.:mrgreen:


Davis Cup this Friday

Outdoor Life channel. They will have the games. The Tennis Channel the Highlights

Outdoor Life
-Friday, --September 22nd 2p-7p ET (Singles)
Saturday, September 23rd 2p-5p ET (Doubles)
-Sunday, September 24th 2p-7p (Singles)

9/22/2006 2:00 pm - 7:00 pm Round 3: USA vs. Russia
9/23/2006 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm Round 3: USA vs. Russia
9/24/2006 2:00 pm - 7:00 pm Round 3: USA vs. Russia

Tennis Channel.
Davis Cup III - September 22-24

Day Time (EST)
Quarterfinal Highlights Tuesday 8:00 PM
Quarterfinal Highlights Friday 12:00 PM
Quarterfinal Highlights Wednesday 11:00 AM

 

[Jack the Hack]

Moose Man ~ I gotta tell ya, everytime I see a Thread [GOAT] I cringe because it's like " Here we go again " another week of getting nowhere but for some reason I can't keep out of it.

I, like so many others seem to have a nack for spinning the facts to support their picks of the GOAT. One day I hope before I die, someone will come up with a criteria that all agree upon to determine this question.

I'm not saying this to be mean, so please don't misinterpret it that way:

I can certainly agree with you on the reoccuring GOAT threads, they can be maddening. However, your profile says that joined on 9-6-2006 (only 13 days ago), so I thought the " Here we go again - another week of getting nowhere" comment was kind of funny. If you think it's bad now, wait 'til you've been here a couple years.

Did you have another ID here previously perhaps?

(By the way, I take long breaks from the board from time to time to keep my sanity. I've just been on a posting streak recently because I visited the US Open and wanted to share. We've lost many good posters in the time since I have joined because they gotten tired of the same inane threads and arguments, and have moved on.)

 

[Jack the Hack]

This is another factor in why its so hard to judge the greatest ever, etc. The standards today are different than just 30 years ago, when an event that no longer existed was bigger that winning the french or australian.

And Jack, try figuring out how Mac finished 1982 #1 over Connors, it makes no sense either.

I think Peter Bodo wrote about the Vilas/#1 ranking issue on his tennis world blog earlier this year(around the time nadal was breaking that claycourt record) maybe that would help.

Very valid comment regarding the comparison of eras.

Interestingly, 1982 was the year I started playing tennis... but I was too young to remember what was really going on at the pro level. However, there were two matches that I watched that year that got me really excited about the game; the 6+ hour marathon Davis Cup match between McEnroe and Wilander, and Wilander's win at the French Open. My parents were big Borg fans, and I remember them being excited about Wilander because they thought he was the second coming of the Iceman. He was my first favorite player, and someone that my game is partially patterned after.

Aside from that, you are correct about 1982. How did Mac get the #1 ranking in '82 when Connors won Wimbledon and the US Open, Wilander won the French, and Kriek won the Australian?

Anyway, I will try to find that Bodo post that you referred to for more info on Vilas.

 

[BluBarry]

I'm not saying this to be mean, so please don't misinterpret it that way:

I can certainly agree with you on the reoccuring GOAT threads, they can be maddening. However, your profile says that joined on 9-6-2006 (only 13 days ago), so I thought the " Here we go again - another week of getting nowhere" comment was kind of funny. If you think it's bad now, wait 'til you've been here a couple years.

Did you have another ID here previously perhaps?

(By the way, I take long breaks from the board from time to time to keep my sanity. I've just been on a posting streak recently because I visited the US Open and wanted to share. We've lost many good posters in the time since I have joined because they gotten tired of the same inane threads and arguments, and have moved on.)

I've participated on Tennis Boards since the onset of Tennis Boards. Then I would take a break for awhile because not for nothing, they would get stupid. For a long time, I hung out on the ESPN Forum until anyone here who knows what that board started turning into can tell you. only about 20% of the Posters were legit and the others were either trolls or saying things just to get the fires going.

When the Williams' Sisters first came around, I was on the EPSN Board and the racial insults and/or comments got outta control. It was hard to have a good discussion on any given topic. If you didn't like Venus or Serena because of the way they played, it became you didn't like them because they were Black.

I think I did join TW at some point but long forgot my USER ID. So I'm not green to these Boards and through it all I've always maintained my level of integrity and respect for other's opinions. Sometimes I am forced to defend myself if attacked but NEVER to the point where I'll refer to a Member as a jerk, stupid *ss or anything of a degrading nature.

I know stuff, I learn stuff, I enjoy stuff and I ignore stuff .. pretty much sums it up. I've played and taught this game for a long time and use to enjoy the Forums that discussed the technical approach to the game. Hard to find people that are into talking about that. I watch Tennis and from my armchair, can generally pick apart why someone lost or won a match.
That's what I like the most ...

 

[nadalito92]

The French was what got me into watching tennis long, long ago. It was the sound of the slide on that red clay that clinched it, along with the sound of the racket hitting the ball. I like how no one leaves the field of battle without taking some of the field with them.

yes they take clay in their socks and shoes =)

 

[Backbored]

yes they take clay in their socks and shoes =)

Nadal is a treasure to watch. He is so obsessive compulsive on clay more than other surfaces. First his cleans his shoes with his racket, then he adjust his socks, then he picks his seat. What’s not to love. He’s just a mud puppy.

 

[urban]

The computer rankings were introduced in 1973, prior there were only rankings made by journalists (Lance Tingay) and magazines (World Tennis). Ther were no clearcut Nr.1 in 1970 (between Laver, Newcombe and Rosewall) or 1972 (Smith, Nastase). Even in the early years of the computer, these magazine rankings were seen as more important than the computer, which had more the function of seeding in tournaments. As Moose pointed out, Ashe in 1975, Vilas in 1977 or Borg in 1978, were seen as real Nr. 1 over Connors, the computer leader. The soring of the computer was based on average points system, so a guy with say 9 wins out of ten tournaments, was ranked higher than someone with 17 out 20. And like in Golf, points from the last year, stayed longer in the ranking than today. That explains a bit these high rankings of Connors. On the other side, he suffered the same fate in 1982, when he, not Mac. was the real Nr.1.

 

[Ivanišević]

You don't count the Runner Up trophies?
And he had to bad luck to have to face the greatest claycourter of all time,
Bjorn Borg.
Who did Nadal face to win his? A now crappy Gaudio and Coria? An old Moya and Ferrero? Ljubicic?

Federer is the one and oly big name there, and nothing compared to Borg on clay domination.

you forgor to add Đoković on Nadal's list...

 

[BluBarry]

What Round was the furthest Sampras got at Roland Garros ?

Not a quiz, I don't know the answer

 

[FiveO]

What Round was the furthest Sampras got at Roland Garros ?

Not a quiz, I don't know the answer

'96 SF where he lost to Kafelnikov who won the event.

From '92 to '96 he had reached three QF's (92-94) had one 1R exit in '95 and then his best result reaching that '96 SF.

He won two red clay events in his career Rome in '94 and Atlanta in '98.

 

[BluBarry]

'96 SF where he lost to Kafelnikov who won the event.

From '92 to '96 he had reached three QF's (92-94) had one 1R exit in '95 and then his best result reaching that '96 SF.

He won two red clay events in his career Rome in '94 and Atlanta in '98.

Not bad results for a surface he convinced himself his game wasn't suited for.
Pete was always thought of as a primary S/V Player but I can't tell you how many baseline rallies he outlasted Andre Agassi on.

For Roger to make it to the Finals with a point here or there that made the difference against Nadal tells me if he repeats this same form he showed this year at RG, he's gonna win it.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

'96 SF where he lost to Kafelnikov who won the event.

From '92 to '96 he had reached three QF's (92-94) had one 1R exit in '95 and then his best result reaching that '96 SF.

He won two red clay events in his career Rome in '94 and Atlanta in '98.

i don't know if atlanta was on red or grey clay in 1998, but pete won also kitzbuhel in 1992, on red clay.

 

[oberyn]

i don't know if atlanta was on red or grey clay in 1998, but pete won also kitzbuhel in 1992, on red clay.

Different category, but his performance in the 1995 Davis Cup Final against Russia was pretty impressive, too.

 

[Deleted member 12045]

you forgor to add Đoković on Nadal's list...

Djokovic threatened Rafa a bit or I'd say irritate him and troubled him
He even just smiled when he saw a winning shot from Rafa and then retired complaining of back pain (yet serving aces!)

 

[Deleted member 12045]

You don't count the Runner Up trophies?
And he had to bad luck to have to face the greatest claycourter of all time,
Bjorn Borg.
Who did Nadal face to win his? A now crappy Gaudio and Coria? An old Moya and Ferrero? Ljubicic?

Federer is the one and oly big name there, and nothing compared to Borg on clay domination.

Please remember Nadal has started his clay career at the FO in 2005

 

[Backbored]

Please remember Nadal has started his clay career at the FO in 2005

Yes and won the first time he played it, along with the second time as well.