Rank the 4 time slam winners in Open Era- both men and women

[flyingforehands]

In the Open Era there are 4 women who won 4 slams- Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario, Osaka, and Clijsters. Only 2 men- Courier and Vilas. How would you rank them. The men there are only 2 so not much of a ranking to discuss so will mostly do the women. These are how I would personally rank them.

1. Clijsters- The main reason I am putting her #1 is there are 2 years (2010 and 2005) she has a strong case for the true #1/best player of the year. She did win the YEC three times, which is super impressive, remember that is the biggest non slam event. So that going along with her 4 majors is a nice compliment. And it really contrasts to these other women who have ALL failed to win the YEC even once. She also has a real legacy at one slam- the US Open, which is only possibly true of Sanchez Vicario (French Open) of these others. She has 41 overall career singles titles, by far the most of these as well. Got to #1, although everyone except Mandlikova managed this as well. The ironic thing is there are some 3 slam winners like Lindsay Davenport, I might rank her behind, but compared to the other 4 slam winners, I have to have her at #1.

2. Mandlikova- #1 was a fairly easy choice for me, I struggled more who to rank #2. I would settle on Hana, as Osaka's career if it is pretty much over (as it seems now, and if she makes any serious comeback she is likely to leave the 4 slam winners group anyhow) is too short and too slam centric. And Sanchez Vicario is just weaker as I will get into later. Remember Hana had to compete in the era of fully prime Navratilova and fully prime Evert at the same time. And briefly Austin before that. She beat both Navratilova and Evert in one of their absolute peak periods, back to back, to win her US Open title. The Australian Opens she won had some depletion but Navratilova was still in the draw of the 1980 Australian Open and she beat Navratilova directly in the final to win in 1987. Her French Open title was beating the unbeatable on clay Evert along the way, and this isn't even her best surface. She also posted wins over Navratilova or Evert in numerous other majors on her way to finals, only to lose to the other one. My ranking her 2nd is more on subjective points than objective stats I admit, although most of her stats are superior to Osaka anyhow.

3. Sanchez Vicario- I hate having to rank her over Osaka since IMO Osaka is clearly a superior tennis player, but with stats like 12 slam finals and only 7 singles titles for Osaka, it is pretty much impossible to not have Sanchez Vicario ahead. Still I am not particularly high on her. People love to harp on Graf benefiting from the Seles stabbing, and if it that is so, that should definitely apply even more to Sanchez Vicario, who IMO was a much bigger beneficiary than even Graf. Seles completely owns her, she is utterly hopeless in the match up. And Seles's absence and the general weak nature of the womens game for a few years with lots of players declining/falling out for a variety of reasons, allowed her to ascend to a higher plateau, and gain the confidence that allowed her to do slightly better vs Graf than she normally would as well. It is hard to see her winning a lot with both Graf and Seles in the field, even with the various problems both would have gone through (Seles injuries, personal issues with dads health, Graf injuries, personal problems with dad being a nutjob) and the overall weak field of that period. Another thing is just subjective views on her ability. She is 2-18 vs Hingis which is pretty pathetic when you consider Hingis has only 1 more major than her. This IMO shows she grossly overachieved to ever win 4 majors, and probably never happens if she is born at any other time, even in a weak field like today. Hingis of course also underachieved given her massive talent, despite being a bit underpowered for the modern game, and her talent gaps Sanchez Vicario so far, that she has only 1 more major is downright funny. It literally took all the circumstances and variables of luck coming together just right, and her getting the max out of her abilities. Some other head to heads- losing head to heads with both Novotna and Sabatini (1 slam winners) despite a very large number of matches. 3-17 head to head vs Seles, pretty much for a 4 slam winner, considering Seles did ultimately win only 9 slams, although the Hingis one is the really telling one. 3-12 vs Navratilova who was very old and way past her prime for nearly all those matches. Her head to head with Graf is a respectable 8-26 (considering the huge gulf in their abilities) and by far her best one, but I think a lot of that is her just being a very bad match up for Graf, and having a lot of confidence in that particular match up, and still is far behind even with that.

4. Osaka- As I summed up my feelings on above I do think Osaka is clearly the better player. The only of the 3 major surfaces (grass, hard courts, clay) she is better on is hard courts, but her abilities there still are enough to trump all things Sanchez Vicario for me. However there is such a differential in stats Sanchez Vicario has to be ahead.

Now the men. Well Courier clearly over Vilas, no questions. That was simple.

 

[bobcolbert]

I think Vilas is better than Courier. Its results are clearly superior. They both won 4 Grand Slams, but Courier only 2 kinds (AO and FO) and Vilas 3 (FO, USO, A0) + Vilas played also 4 finals (Courier 0) + there is a very big difference about majors : Vilas won the Masters, and Courier not ! Moreover, Vilas won more tournaments, more matches, and his longevity at the top was superior. No doubt for me. The decisive criterion is victory at the Masters : Vilas got 5 majors, Courier 4.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think Vilas is better than Courier. Its results are clearly superior. They both won 4 Grand Slams, but Courier only 2 kinds (AO and FO) and Vilas 3 (FO, USO, A0) + Vilas played also 4 finals (Courier 0) + there is a very big difference about majors : Vilas won the Masters, and Courier not ! Moreover, Vilas won more tournaments, more matches, and his longevity at the top was superior. No doubt for me. The decisive criterion is victory at the Masters : Vilas got 5 majors, Courier 4.

Sorry what? Courier had three additional slam finals not 0, lost the 1991 USO against Edberg, 93 FO against Bruguera and 93 Wimbledon against Pete, all very strong opponents. Vilas four slams are a little asterisked due to the two AO in 1978 and 1979 as well as the 1977 FO in the absence of basically all good players. As for the Masters: Yea Vilas has this one masters title in 1974 but Courier was no slouch here either, reached two consecutive finals only falling to the carpet GOATs Pete and Boris. All in all Courier is ahead for me.

 

[bobcolbert]

Sorry what? Courier had three additional slam finals not 0, lost the 1991 USO against Edberg, 93 FO against Bruguera and 93 Wimbledon against Pete, all very strong opponents. Vilas four slams are a little asterisked due to the two AO in 1978 and 1979 as well as the 1977 FO in the absence of basically all good players. As for the Masters: Yea Vilas has this one masters title in 1974 but Courier was no slouch here either, reached two consecutive finals only falling to the carpet GOATs Pete and Boris. All in all Courier is ahead for me.

Really sorry for the mistake about impressive Courier's finals, I forgot that ! Despite everything, the results of Vilas are clearly superior. I know that some people often try to relativize Vilas's victories but for me it makes no sense. In Australia Vilas beat some very good grass players (and anyway the absent are always wrong) and at Roland-Garros he beat three top 15 players including the world number 4 in the final ! Courier was great but Vilas was greater.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Really sorry for the mistake about impressive Courier's finals, I forgot that ! Despite everything, the results of Vilas are clearly superior. I know that some people often try to relativize Vilas's victories but for me it makes no sense. In Australia Vilas beat some very good grass players (and anyway the absent are always wrong) and at Roland-Garros he beat three top 15 players including the world number 4 in the final ! Courier was great but Vilas was greater.

It was ofc not Vilas’ fault but nevertheless his slams are not on the same level as Jim’s. He very likely wouldn’t have won the 1977 FO had it been for a full field (it was not only Borg who was absent). Sorry have to disagree here that he can be seen as greater than Jim.

 

[buscemi]

Really sorry for the mistake about impressive Courier's finals, I forgot that ! Despite everything, the results of Vilas are clearly superior. I know that some people often try to relativize Vilas's victories but for me it makes no sense. In Australia Vilas beat some very good grass players (and anyway the absent are always wrong) and at Roland-Garros he beat three top 15 players including the world number 4 in the final ! Courier was great but Vilas was greater.

In his two Australian Open wins, Vilas beat: Rocavert, Drewett, Stone, Roche, Pfister, Marks (1978 final), Lewis, Gardiner, McNamara, Dent, Amaya, and Sadri (1979 final). So, the are some solid grass players in there, but those were really Major caliber matches, and there were only six of them, rather than the typical seven. I'm clearly going for Courier here.

 

[bobcolbert]

In his two Australian Open wins, Vilas beat: Rocavert, Drewett, Stone, Roche, Pfister, Marks (1978 final), Lewis, Gardiner, McNamara, Dent, Amaya, and Sadri (1979 final). So, the are some solid grass players in there, but those were really Major caliber matches, and there were only six of them, rather than the typical seven. I'm clearly going for Courier here.

These 2 Grand Slam are maybe less impressive than others, but they are nonetheless. And Vilas has a fifth major very impressive (Masters), that Courier does not have. Moreover the Grand Slams are very important but are not everything, we have to look at the whole career. On this point the results of Vilas are very superior.

 

[buscemi]

These 2 Grand Slam are maybe less impressive than others, but they are nonetheless. And Vilas has a fifth major very impressive (Masters), that Courier does not have. Moreover the Grand Slams are very important but are not everything, we have to look at the whole career. On this point the results of Vilas are very superior.

True, but Courier was year-end #1 and had 58 weeks at #1 vs. 0/0 for Vilas. And, I know that some say Vilas should have been #1, but if we're going to be technical and count Vilas's Australian Open wins as Majors, I think we have to be technical and say Vilas was never technically #1.

 

[flyingforehands]

Vilas would never be capable of winning a real grass slam, as his results at Wimbledon prove emphatically, and the Australian Open was not a real slam those year. Essentialy he has 2 slams to Courier's 4, and Courier was #1 quite awhile while Vilas never was. No contest. I am not even taking into account French Open 77 was a super depleted slam with nearly every significant player, non injured, skipping it (not just Borg), and still fully crediting him for that. Plus comparing them by surface.

Courier >= Vilas on clay
Courier >>>>> Vilas on hard courts
Courier = Vilas on grass (being generous to Vilas when Courier has a better Wimbledon record
Courier = Vilas on carpet

Courier destroying Vilas on hard courts already puts him ahead when Vilas isn't really ahead on any surface

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

These 2 Grand Slam are maybe less impressive than others, but they are nonetheless. And Vilas has a fifth major very impressive (Masters), that Courier does not have. Moreover the Grand Slams are very important but are not everything, we have to look at the whole career. On this point the results of Vilas are very superior.

Sorry, but three out of four slams of Vilas are heavily asterisked in the sense that no full field was playing. As me and others have said, it was not only Borg who was missing 77 FO, but Borg especially would have been an obstacle impossible for Vilas to overcome as evident by the fact that he beat him twice on clay in Nice and Monte Carlo that year and destroyed him 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 in the FO final the next year. Had he played full fields like Courier in all of his slams, he would be a two times or at the very best three times slam winner.

Also, you value that Masters win way too highly. Sure it is a plus compared to Jim, but reaching two finals only loosing to Becker and Sampras is also not to shabby, so the difference between them on carpet is not big if there is any at all. Courier also has the weeks at No.1, and even if we agree that Vilas should have been No.1 in 77, it will not add up to 58 weeks. Winning more tournaments and more matches is of ancillary importance to be honest, it is about the big achievements.

 

[buscemi]

OPs ranking seems right:

Women:
1. Clijsters (the 3 YECs)
2. Mandlikova (beating peak Evert, Navratilova, and Evert/Navratilova to win 3 of her Majors)
3. ASV (achievements inflated by Seles stabbing)
4. Osaka (just too short of a career, and lack of success off of hard)

Men:
1. Courier (4 legit Majors, YE#1, 58 weeks at #1)
2. Vilas (2 AOs were among the weakest Major wins, FO lacked top players)

 

[bobcolbert]

Vilas would never be capable of winning a real grass slam, as his results at Wimbledon prove emphatically, and the Australian Open was not a real slam those year. Essentialy he has 2 slams to Courier's 4, and Courier was #1 quite awhile while Vilas never was. No contest. I am not even taking into account French Open 77 was a super depleted slam with nearly every significant player, non injured, skipping it (not just Borg), and still fully crediting him for that. Plus comparing them by surface.

Courier >= Vilas on clay
Courier >>>>> Vilas on hard courts
Courier = Vilas on grass (being generous to Vilas when Courier has a better Wimbledon record
Courier = Vilas on carpet

Courier destroying Vilas on hard courts already puts him ahead when Vilas isn't really ahead on any surface

The rest is debatable, but to say that Courier is stronger or even equal to Vilas on clay doesn't seem reasonable to me. Vilas has won 2 grand slams on clay like Courier, but he has won many more clay court tournaments than Courier ! And all the big tournaments (Rome, Madrid, Monte-Carlo ...). And he's won more clay court matches than anyone else. Vilas is far superior to Courier on clay. And on grass too, I think, with 3 majors (beating Borg, Newcombe and Nastase in the Masters).

 

[flyingforehands]

The rest is debatable, but to say that Courier is stronger or even equal to Vilas on clay doesn't seem reasonable to me. Vilas has won 2 grand slams on clay like Courier, but he has won many more clay court tournaments than Courier ! And all the big tournaments (Rome, Madrid, Monte-Carlo ...). And he's won more clay court matches than anyone else. Vilas is far superior to Courier on clay. And on grass too, I think, with 3 majors (beating Borg, Newcombe and Nastase in the Masters).

Look at the Open Era clay rankings on this site. Most of them have Courier higher than Vilas on clay. I often see Courier ranked about 6th or 7th and Vilas barely in the top 10. Ace World and Tennis Magazine both ranked the best clay courters in the Open Era and had Courier 1 or 2 spots above Vilas too.

Courier's Roland Garros performances are far superior to Vilas. Yes Vilas was better at playing (wins by default as Courier like most people had no bother to play 30 little clay tournaments a year like Vilas and Muster did) winning tiny tournaments which nobody cares about, and more successful in Masters which is legitimate in his favor. It depends what you value but considering how dominant Courier was at an event like the 92 French Open, and that Vilas could barely get games on clay vs Borg, and struggled vs all his main opponents on clay to some extent, I am fine thinking Courier is equal or ahead. Oh and the both winning 2 majors on clay is meaningless when Vilas got to play 2 clay slams a year at his peak and Courier didn't, all that matters is comparing their performances at RG and other clay events, and as I said at RG Courier was clearly better.

As for grass, Courier's Wimbledon record is clearly better, so if anything he is clearly ahead on grass, and I was being super generous to Vilas even putting them somewhat equal. It is clear you are a biased Vilas fan to act like his 2 Australian Opens should be regarded as legitimate grass slams, sorry nobody is going to buy that nonsense no matter how hard to try. I did still give them a bit of recognition by even saying Vilas could be seen as comparable on grass, which based on Courier's Wimbledon final, something Vilas would NEVER be capable of, in any era, they would not be.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The rest is debatable, but to say that Courier is stronger or even equal to Vilas on clay doesn't seem reasonable to me. Vilas has won 2 grand slams on clay like Courier, but he has won many more clay court tournaments than Courier ! And all the big tournaments (Rome, Madrid, Monte-Carlo ...). And he's won more clay court matches than anyone else. Vilas is far superior to Courier on clay. And on grass too, I think, with 3 majors (beating Borg, Newcombe and Nastase in the Masters).

Courier was clearly the best clay courter in the world for some time, Vilas never was. Courier won Rome twice, the reason he didn’t win more masters is that he didn’t bother too much, as same as most Americans he focused more on HC. Vilas wouldn’t have won the 77 FO under normal circumstances and the 77 USO were held on green clay, so it is tough to compare, as we do not know how Jim would have performed on that surface.

 

[flyingforehands]

OPs ranking seems right:

Women:
1. Clijsters (the 3 YECs)
2. Mandlikova (beating peak Evert, Navratilova, and Evert/Navratilova to win 3 of her Majors)
3. ASV (achievements inflated by Seles stabbing)
4. Osaka (just too short of a career, and lack of success off of hard)

Men:
1. Courier (4 legit Majors, YE#1, 58 weeks at #1)
2. Vilas (2 AOs were among the weakest Major wins, FO lacked top players)

Yes the ranking were in fact pretty easy. I was emotionally conflicted with the ASV vs Osaka one as I really feel Osaka is the "better" player, but there isn't much case for her to make vs ASV if their careers ended now. If it weren't for the Seles stabbing I am sure ASV's career would not be put above Osaka overall even if she somehow got up to 3 majors still (doubtful, I think 2 is more likely), particularly as I imagine she spends no time at #1 now and we know Osaka had some, and was best player of one year atleast no matter what the often ridiculous rankings said; but as I said in another thread you have to evaluate what is, but if you put them in any of the same eras I am pretty sure Osaka wins more in any of them than ASV would.

And I suspected some would make a case for ASV vs Hana as credentials wise you could but ASV would never beat prime/even peak Evert and prime Navratilova, both in great form, back to back, to win a US Open. Beating a badly injured Graf who was crouching down in the middle of their final, and a washed up/way past her prime Sabatini in the semis, is hardly comparable of course. Or beat Evert and Navratilova in fully prime years en route to Wimbledon finals, even if losing to the alternate. Despite the credit ASV gets for her excellent final vs Graf in the 95 Wimbledon final, she really had no quality wins to get there. Even if she had say beaten an in form Seles or Novotna en route to a final (she didn't of course) it would not be comparable to beating prime Navratilova or prime Evert to make those finals, as Seles is not that strong a grass courter at all, not even in the same universe as Evert, and of course Novotna is not that calibre of player even on grass. Plus all of Hana's other quality wins/runs in majors, beating #2 ranked Navratilova and then huge phenom Jaeger en route to the 80 US Open final, taking Evert to 3 sets. Beating Evert at her peak on CLAY to win the 81 French. Beating Navratilova in the 87 Australian Open final, and many more. Sanchez does not compare to that. She does get credit for beating Graf 4 times in slams of course, that is super impressive, but as said it is generally noted Graf is a favorable match up for her, and she a psychological edge over Graf, although she still has a lopsided losing record as she is the far inferior player. She would need to have some success vs a 2nd key person besides Graf to make more of an argument and there is literally nothing. One win over a non peak Seles in a RG final which is good, and that is it beside the Graf wins.

And of course Clijsters with her YEC titles and semi dominance at the US Open, and amazing comeback after motherhood has to be tops.

 

[flyingforehands]

Courier was clearly the best clay courter in the world for some time, Vilas never was. Courier won Rome twice, the reason he didn’t win more masters is that he didn’t bother too much, as same as most Americans he focused more on HC. Vilas wouldn’t have won the 77 FO under normal circumstances and the 77 USO were held on green clay, so it is tough to compare, as we do not know how Jim would have performed on that surface.

Yes I in fact was generous to Vilas in my assessment.

I gave him full credit for the 77 French, when in fact it was a super depleted field, despite his master Borg, and numerous others missing, uninjured (injuries is pretty meaningless as players miss slams injured all the time, but a bunch just choosing to skip due to the format of the game at the time is different). So I was overly generous to Vilas if anything, as I still marked his 77 French Open as like a regular slam win. Even that could be questionable, the 2 Australians not being rated the same as other peoples slams wins goes without saying and does not need to be explained. And this is different than say Court and Goolagong's asterisked Australian Opens, as both can clearly win on grass, and even they get diminished by nearly everyone for their wins there during years it was a non legit slam, so just imagine Vilas someone who completely, totally unlike Court and Goolagong, clearly can't win on grass (if it were a real slam).

Plus being generous rating him sort of on par with Courier on grass when Courier's Wimbledon final is something Vilas would never be capable of in any era on grass, particularly beating the people Courier beat to make that Wimbledon final. Imagine Vilas beating Edberg close to his prime in a Wimbledon semi final.

 

[travlerajm]

Courier finished 1992 #1. That year, all 10 of 10 in the year-end Top 10 finished their career with at least one slam title.

This is courier’s most impressive achievement. The best player of the best Top 10 in history.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes I in fact was generous to Vilas in my assessment.

I gave him full credit for the 77 French, when in fact it was a super depleted field, despite his master Borg, and numerous others missing, uninjured (injuries is pretty meaningless as players miss slams injured all the time, but a bunch just choosing to skip due to the format of the game at the time is different). So I was overly generous to Vilas if anything, as I still marked his 77 French Open as like a regular slam win. Even that could be questionable, the 2 Australians not being rated the same as other peoples slams wins goes without saying and does not need to be explained. And this is different than say Court and Goolagong's asterisked Australian Opens, as both can clearly win on grass, and even they get diminished by nearly everyone for their wins there during years it was a non legit slam, so just imagine Vilas someone who completely, totally unlike Court and Goolagong, clearly can't win on grass (if it were a real slam).

Plus being generous rating him sort of on par with Courier on grass when Courier's Wimbledon final is something Vilas would never be capable of in any era on grass, particularly beating the people Courier beat to make that Wimbledon final. Imagine Vilas beating Edberg close to his prime in a Wimbledon semi final.

To be fair he has one additional final compared to Jim at the FO and Jim didn’t have a GOAT like roadblock like Borg to overcome (Vilas should have won the 82 final to Mats though). Anywho, gun to my head I still consider Courier the better clay courter, overall titles in Mickey Mouse tournaments are meaningless and Jim has two very impressive FO titles compared to Vilas’ one very unimpressive. His USO run in 77 was great, but a totally different surface where it is tough to draw conclusions from as Courier never played on it. Agree with your assessment on grass of course. AO titles are heavily asterisked and Vilas Wimbly record is clearly inferior.

 

[flyingforehands]

To be fair he has one additional final compared to Jim at the FO and Jim didn’t have a GOAT like roadblock like Borg to overcome (Vilas should have won the 82 final to Mats though). Anywho, gun to my head I still consider Courier the better clay courter, overall titles in Mickey Mouse tournaments are meaningless and Jim has two very impressive FO titles compared to Vilas’ one very unimpressive. His USO run in 77 was great, but a totally different surface where it is tough to draw conclusions from as Courier never played on it. Agree with your assessment on grass of course. AO titles are heavily asterisked and Vilas Wimbly record is clearly inferior.

The reason I had Courier's RG clearly superior is he has not only an extra title but defended a title, and then made a 3rd straight final which was nearly a 3rd straight title in 1993. However you are right, come to think of it a bit more their RG records are closer than I was originally thinking, I had thought for some reason Vilas had 3 RG finals, but he in fact had 4. And both had very consistently good performances there over a long stretch from 75-83 and 89-96 for Courier. Consistently making second week every single time, both guys.

The thing about Borg at RG though is I wouldn't factor that in much for the simple reason he rarely lost to Borg at RG. It would be a more significant point if Borg was often the one stopping him at RG but this is not the case. He only played Borg twice at RG, in the 75 and 78 final. So yeah he was possibly denied a RG title or even maybe two by Borg (I would say given how often Vilas loses at RG to other people it is more likely 1 but who knows), but that is easily negated by the depleted Borg less 77 RG event which was his only RG win anyhow, and that the 75 draw was super depleted as it was as well. And the depth of the clay field was more in Courier's era which had a slew of lower ranked clay specialists IMO. And he couldn't even beat a 17 year old Wilander, who was a rookie, in a RG final.

I agree with your other points.

 

[BTURNER]

This might add insight into those slam careers. I will work on it over the next few days. I will not include Osaka, because her career is ongoing.
Hana entered 44 majors between 1978-1990 (11 years) and won 4 with an 80.6 win/loss match ratio. That means she won 9.1 % of those 44 and reached the finals 18.2% of the time, with a finals conversion rate of 50%. Hana reached the semifinals 31.8% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of 57.1% and the QFs 52.3% of the time she entered, with a QF conversion rate of 60.9%

Hana's underbelly: I am just putting aside what happens in the fourth round, and looking downwards now, Hana lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 of a major 31.8% of the time she played one ( the same percentage that she reached the semis!), with 1 1st Rd loss, 8 2nd Rd losses and 5 Rd 3 losses . ( Several times when Hana had a bye, she lost HER first match, in the second round of the tournament)


Slam Career win/loss percentage: Hana 80.6%
% of majors each player won: Hana 9.1%
% of majors each player reached final: Hana 18.2%
Slam finals conversion rate: Hana 50%
% of majors each player reached SF's : Hana 31.8%
Semifinals conversion rate: Hana 57.1
% of majors each reached QF's: Hana 52.3%
QFinals conversion rate: Hana 60.9%
* % of slam losses in Rds1,2 and 3: Hana 31.8%
(*The lower number the better here!)

I will keep working on this tomorrow

 

[flyingforehands]

This might add insight into those slam careers. I will work on it.

Slam Career win/loss percentage
% of majors champ won
% of majors reached final
Slam finals conversion
% of major reached SF's
Semifinals conversion
% of major Reached QF's
QFinals conversion rate
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3

Thanks. I like that.

 

[BTURNER]

Thanks. I like that.

This is a lot of work because I literally have to document each match played in each slam of these careers so it does take time but I am REAL big on weighing the losses acrued to get those wins everyone talks about. There is no context to measure consistency otherwise. A loss in the Quarters or Semis is treated the same as one in the first round if it is discussed at all, which the OP does not.. We know Hana is inconsistent, but there is no way to compare it to Sanchez, or Clisters or each with the other without this analysis..

 

[buscemi]

This might add insight into those slam careers. I will work on it over the next few days. I will not include Osaka, because her career is ongoing.
Hana entered 44 majors between 1978-1990 (11 years) and won 4 with an 80.6 win/loss match ratio. That means she won 9.1 % of those 44 and reached the finals 18.2% of the time, with a finals conversion rate of 50%. Hana reached the semifinals 31.8% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of 57.1% and the QFs 52.3% of the time she entered, with a QF conversion rate of 60.9%

Hana's underbelly: I am just putting aside what happens in the fourth round, and looking downwards now, Hana lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 of a major 31.8% of the time she played one ( the same percentage that she reached the semis!), with 1 1st Rd loss, 8 2nd Rd losses and 5 Rd 3 losses . ( Several times when Hana had a bye, she lost HER first match, in the second round of the tournament)


Slam Career win/loss percentage: Hana 80.6%
% of majors each player won: Hana 9.1%
% of majors each player reached final: Hana 18.2%
Slam finals conversion rate: Hana 50%
% of majors each player reached SF's : Hana 31.8%
Semifinals conversion rate: Hana 57.1
% of majors each reached QF's: Hana 52.3%
QFinals conversion rate: Hana 60.9%
* % of slam losses in Rds1,2 and 3: Hana 31.8%
(*The lower number the better here!)

I will keep working on this tomorrow

Thanks. This is interesting work. Of course, it's probably helpful to break things down with regard to Hana's early exits. In 1978-1979, before she was a top player, she had 3 losses (out of six Majors played) before the 4th round. She then had five early losses from 1980-1987 when she was a top player. She then had six (out of nine Majors played) from 1988-1990 after she was a top player. So, from 1980-1987, Hana lost before the 4th round in 5/29 Majors she played (17.24%).

Looking at Clijsters, from 1999-2000, before she was a top player, she had 5 losses (out of six Majors played) before the 4th round. She then had five early losses from 2001-2012 when she was a top player. She then added one first round loss in her more recent comeback attempt. So, from 2001-2012, Kim lost before the 4th round in 5/29 Majors she played (17.24%). Interestingly, that's the same percentage as Hana.

 

[BTURNER]

Thanks. This is interesting work. Of course, it's probably helpful to break things down with regard to Hana's early exits. In 1978-1979, before she was a top player, she had 3 losses (out of six Majors played) before the 4th round. She then had five early losses from 1980-1987 when she was a top player. She then had six (out of nine Majors played) from 1988-1990 after she was a top player.

Once you start 'breaking things down' you end up with people debating the way you did it. I will let others have the pleasure! I simply talk in terms of professional careers as opposed to 'junior tennis' or ''seniors tour' etc and I include every match played in singles slams from the first to the last. That's because I feel if a player walks on the court, accepts the paycheck, and the fans believe that they will see a professional standard, and paid for that standard, the players deserve to be judged based on the result no matter if they are young, old, injured, pregnant, or grieving. Its entire careers and the patterns reflected therein, I compare. The rest is what we call 'context' if we like it, or agenda driven cherry- picking and excuse- making if we don't like it.

 

[buscemi]

Once you start 'breaking things down' you end up with people debating the way you did it. I will let others have the pleasure! I simply talk in terms of professional careers as opposed to 'junior tennis' or ''seniors tour' etc and I include every match played in singles slams from the first to the last. That's because I feel if a player walks on the court, accepts the paycheck, and the fans believe that they will see a professional standard, and paid for that standard, the players deserve to be judged based on the result no matter if they are young, old, injured, pregnant, or grieving. Its entire careers and the patterns reflected therein, I compare. The rest is what we call 'context' if we like it, or agenda driven cherry- picking and excuse- making if we don't like it.

Sure, but the overall numbers aren't that different. As you note, Hana lost in the first 3 rounds 31.8% of the time. Overall, Kim lost in the first 3 rounds 11/36 times 30.55% of the time.

But I think you get my general point. You'll get to the numbers for ASV. In her last year on tour -- 2002 -- she was a shell of her former self, losing in the first round of all three Majors she played and finishing #53 in the world. That's going to hurt her percentage of 1st-3rd round losses at Majors, but I don't think those losses tell us much about how good she was at Majors.

I do see the value, though, of your raw numbers, so please keep them coming!

 

[flyingforehands]

Sure, but the overall numbers aren't that different. As you note, Hana lost in the first 3 rounds 31.8% of the time. Overall, Kim lost in the first 3 rounds 11/36 times 30.55% of the time.

But I think you get my general point. You'll get to the numbers for ASV. In her last year on tour -- 2002 -- she was a shell of her former self, losing in the first round of all three Majors she played and finishing #53 in the world. That's going to hurt her percentage of 1st-3rd round losses at Majors, but I don't think those losses tell us much about how good she was at Majors.

I do see the value, though, of your raw numbers, so please keep them coming!

In fairness, along that line of thinking, Hana was a total shell of her former self in 1988-1990, and was still playing and on tour, acquiring results that would go towards any percentages Even in any of her "bad" years from 1980-1987, she was significantly better than she was in any of those years.

 

[buscemi]

In fairness, along that line of thinking, Hana was a total shell of her former self in 1988-1990, and was still playing and on tour, acquiring results that would go towards any percentages Even in any of her "bad" years from 1980-1987, she was significantly better than she was in any of those years.

Right. That was my point in my prior post. This raw data is important but can also be skewed by one player retiring while still a top player and another hanging around for a few extra years.

 

[flyingforehands]

Right. That was my point in my prior post. This raw data is important but can also be skewed by one player retiring while still a top player and another hanging around for a few extra years.

True. BTURNER takes the mindset when you step on the court to compete you are responsible for your own results. She mentioned that when debating Seles's results with you too as you know.

And I do get that logic as a principle. The problem is, in this argument, it can sometimes unfairly punish a player for staying around past their prime and still maintaining an impressive level for the stage of their career they are at/their age, rather than rewarding them for having such great longevity at all. Like a player like Connors would be punished for this for staying so long, and playing at a really impressive level until nearly 40, rather than rewarded for it, as obviously all his percentages would have dropped some.

So I do think it is a good system to mathematically compare players which isn't easy to do, but it does have some sticky points too.

I have seen for instance Graf fans use this logic in comparing her to Serena too. Saying how much she won "by 30" and comparing her win percentages to Serena. Which seems a bit silly when Serena played until nearly 40, and Graf (not surprisingly after one of the most injury plagued careers in history) was showing massive signs of decline in her late 20s prior to retiring at barely 30. But if we are using a one size fits all metric, we would have to do it that way for them, and many others too.

 

[BTURNER]

Sure, but the overall numbers aren't that different. As you note, Hana lost in the first 3 rounds 31.8% of the time. Overall, Kim lost in the first 3 rounds 11/36 times 30.55% of the time.

But I think you get my general point. You'll get to the numbers for ASV. In her last year on tour -- 2002 -- she was a shell of her former self, losing in the first round of all three Majors she played and finishing #53 in the world. That's going to hurt her percentage of 1st-3rd round losses at Majors, but I don't think those losses tell us much about how good she was at Majors.

I do see the value, though, of your raw numbers, so please keep them coming!

I get your point. I really do, but Sanchez chose to play those matches as a 'shell of her former shelf'. If she had won a slam that last year we'd all be celebrating it, and she would bask in the glory and watch her legacy soar, and cash that check. So her legacy deservedly shrinks. So what those last four slams actually show, was that she either did not care about her legacy which is fine of course, or she had really **** poor judgement about her chances or her preparation. That is all part of being a professional athlete too. You have to know how to handle mental burnout, exhaustion, injuries, and you have to know when to quit if you want to protect your stature in the sport. You can't walk away from those embarassing losses and and hold on to the glorious wins.

 

[flyingforehands]

I get your point. I really do, but Sanchez chose to play those matches as a 'shell of her former shelf'. If she had won a slam that last year we'd all be celebrating it, and she would bask in the glory and watch her legacy soar, and cash that check. So her legacy deservedly shrinks. So what those last four slams actually show, was that she either did not care about her legacy which is fine of course, or she had really **** poor judgement about her chances or her preparation. That is all part of being a professional athlete too. You have to know how to handle mental burnout, exhaustion, injuries, and you have to know when to quit if you want to protect your stature in the sport. You can't walk away from those embarassing losses and and hold on to the glorious wins.

I see your point but realistically pretty much any player will see diminishing returns well into their 30s, particularly before the last decade where advanced training methods (and probably improved PEDS, lol) have let to unprecedented longevity for both the men and women. So should a player who is playing particularly well in their 30s, showing unlikely longevity, yet still seeing a decline in career win percentage, career slam win percentage, career averages, be punished for that, vs a player who didn't even try, and probably would have suffered even worse if they did? I already gave my Connors example as a good one. Just how much do you think McEnroe's numbers would have dropped if he also played until nearly 40 when he had been on major decline since 25, but he didn't even try. I don't know how their numbers in the stats you posted compare, but that is one example where the problem would come. Serena and Graf would be another example of a player who played until 40, and one who retired at barely 30.

That is where the complication comes into play.

 

[BTURNER]

True. BTURNER takes the mindset when you step on the court to compete you are responsible for your own results. She mentioned that when debating Seles's results with you too as you know.

And I do get that logic as a principle. The problem is, in this argument, it can sometimes unfairly punish a player for staying around past their prime and still maintaining an impressive level for the stage of their career they are at/their age, rather than rewarding them for having such great longevity at all. Like a player like Connors would be punished for this for staying so long, and playing at a really impressive level until nearly 40, rather than rewarded for it, as obviously all his percentages would have dropped some.

So I do think it is a good system to mathematically compare players which isn't easy to do, but it does have some sticky points too.

I have seen for instance Graf fans use this logic in comparing her to Serena too. Saying how much she won "by 30" and comparing her win percentages to Serena. Which seems a bit silly when Serena played until nearly 40, and Graf (not surprisingly after one of the most injury plagued careers in history) was showing massive signs of decline in her late 20s prior to retiring at barely 30. But if we are using a one size fits all metric, we would have to do it that way for them, and many others too.

I am not remotely impressed by 'longevity' unless comes with results and those good results will be reflected in career statistics. There is absolutely nothing 'unfair' about this. Connors is not 'punished'. He bears the consequences of his choice to hang around if it results in inconsistent and compromised results,, just as he reaps the rewards if it works out well and his ranking stays high, he wins more tournaments etc.. He's deciding to take that risk with his legacy to get the benefits of those wins. Other players decide to forego those benefits to protect their legacy. Either choice is fine, but you can't get brownie points for longevity, if you don't take the hits for lackluster or indifferent play.

 

[BTURNER]

I see your point but realistically pretty much any player will see diminishing returns well into their 30s, particularly before the last decade where advanced training methods (and probably improved PEDS, lol) have let to unprecedented longevity for both the men and women. So should a player who is playing particularly well in their 30s, showing unlikely longevity, yet still seeing a decline in career win percentage, career slam win percentage, career averages, be punished for that, vs a player who didn't even try, and probably would have suffered even worse if they did? I already gave my Connors example as a good one. Just how much do you think McEnroe's numbers would have dropped if he also played until nearly 40 when he had been on major decline since 25, but he didn't even try. I don't know how their numbers in the stats you posted compare, but that is one example where the problem would come. Serena and Graf would be another example of a player who played until 40, and one who retired at barely 30.

That is where the complication comes into play.

I think Connors is as good an example as any. Its not complicated. That remarkable run at the 1991 Open, was a total triumph that he gets to bask in. People show it on highlight films, the fans that were there were thrilled, and he ended up with that wonderful semifinal at 38 legacy. But fans also had to sit through some pretty disappointing routine 3rd round 6-2,6-4, 6-2 matches, that they thought would be better, because of his marquee name and reputation. Why do you think he should get a free pass for for just 'hanging on'? Why don't you respect a player who knows when to graciously depart near the top of his game so that his fans do not watch his decline?

 

[flyingforehands]

I think Connors is as good an example as any. Its not complicated. That remarkable run at the 1991 Open, was a total triumph that he gets to bask in. People show it on highlight films, the fans that were there were thrilled, and he ended up with that wonderful semifinal at 38 legacy. But fans also had to sit through some pretty disappointing routine 3rd round 6-2,6-4, 6-2 matches, that they thought would be better, because of his marquee name and reputation. Why do you think he should get a free pass for for just 'hanging on'? Why don't you respect a player who knows when to graciously depart near the top of his game so that his fans do not watch his decline?

but his stats would still worsen by playing the 85-92 period correct? And your idea, which I generally approve of, what stat based. That is what I mean. We are agreeing what he was doing in advanced age (for tennis) was super impressive, yet hanging on so long would still worsen his stats overall.

 

[CyBorg]

I'll go with Vilas over Courier. Yes, Vilas's Aussies were weak but you have to look at the complete picture. Vilas won the well-attended Masters in 1974 to compensate for that. He also had tougher clay court competition than Courier, who I feel was lucky that his peak coincided with a brief lull between Lendl's dominance and Sampras's.

Another thing that isn't in Courier's favour is that outside of his three prime years (91-93) he just wasn't very good. Vilas was a legitimate top pro for nearly a decade.

 

[CyBorg]

Yes I in fact was generous to Vilas in my assessment.

I gave him full credit for the 77 French, when in fact it was a super depleted field, despite his master Borg, and numerous others missing, uninjured (injuries is pretty meaningless as players miss slams injured all the time, but a bunch just choosing to skip due to the format of the game at the time is different). So I was overly generous to Vilas if anything, as I still marked his 77 French Open as like a regular slam win.

When did Courier ever face anyone as good as Borg on red clay?

 

[BTURNER]

but his stats would still worsen by playing the 85-92 period correct? And your idea, which I generally approve of, what stat based. That is what I mean. We are agreeing what he was doing in advanced age (for tennis) was super impressive, yet hanging on so long would still worsen his stats overall.

Absolutely. He aged better than most players because his habits established in his early years served him in good stead. That superb footwork, the early preparation off the ground, the attention to the details of his stroke production alongside his great sense of balance, that near perfect vision and eye tracking and most of all his passion for the game, all remained even if his stamina, his foot speed, concentration, and capacity to self correct his emotional responses during matches were compromised. Any player who was #1,2 or 3 for as long as he was, will never really loose that sense that he can turn things around in any given match, that sense of self belief and confidence that keeps him dangerous regardless of his age. At 33, he may need a little more luck than he used to, a little more of a slip in the game of his opponent, but any player of Connors stature, knows to be ready to pounce at the slightest crack. Any 25 year old player who got complacent, or showed any weakness or nerves in a match with Jimmy Connors, deserved exactly what was coming.

 

[BTURNER]

Arantxa entered 58 majors between 1987-2002 (16 years) and won 4 with an 79.6 win/loss match ratio. That means she won 6.9 % of those 58 and reached the finals 20.7% of the time, with a finals conversion rate of 33.3%. Arantxa reached the semifinals 40.7% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of 54.5% and the QFs 64.8% of the time she entered, with a QF conversion rate of 62.9%

Arantxa's underbelly: I am just putting aside what happens in the fourth round, and looking downwards now. Arantxa lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 of a major 29.6% of the time she played one with 8 1st Rd losses, 6 2nd Rd losses and 2 Rd 3 losses .


Slam Career win/loss percentage: Hana 80.6%; Arantxa 79.6%
% of majors each player won: Hana 9.1%; Arantxa 6.9%
% of majors each player reached final: Hana 18.2%; Arantxa 20.7%
Slam finals conversion rate: Hana 50%; Arantxa 33.3%
% of majors each player reached SF's : Hana 31.8%; Arantxa 40.7%
Semifinals conversion rate: Hana 57.1%; Arantxa 54.5%
% of majors each reached QF's: Hana 52.3%; Arantxa 64.8%
QFinals conversion rate: Hana 60.9%, Arantxa 62.9%
* % of slam losses in Rds1,2 and 3: Hana 31.8%; Arantxa 29.6%.
(*The lower number the better here!)

 

[BTURNER]

Kim had a more truncated career entering only 36 majors between 1999-2020, but all but one lone event ( 2020 US Open where she lost in first Rd) was played between 1999 and 2012 (a span of 14 years) and she won 4 for an 80% win/loss match ratio. That means she won 11.1 % of those 36, and reached the finals 22.2% of the time, with a finals conversion rate of 50%. Kim reached the semifinals 44.4% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of, again- 50%, and the QFs 52.8% of the time she entered, with a QF conversion rate of 84.2%! (16 of the 19 times she reached the QF's)

Kim's underbelly: I am just putting aside what happens in the fourth round, and looking downwards now. Kim lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 of a major 30.6% of the time she played one with 3 1st Rd losses, 5 2nd Rd losses and 3 Rd 3 losses .


Slam Career win/loss percentage: Hana 80.6%; Arantxa 79.6%; Kim 80%
There is virtually nothing between these three in this category.

% of majors each player won: Hana 9.1%; Arantxa 6.9%; Kim 11.1%
The sheer volume of entries (14 more than Hana!) hurts Arantxa here.

% of majors each player reached final: Hana 18.2%; Arantxa 20.7%; Kim 22.2%
Kim wins this one with 4 percentage points between them.

Slam finals conversion rate: Hana 50%; Arantxa 33.3%; Kim 50%
What's killing Arantxa here, is her power deficit compared to her competition in those finals.

% of majors each player reached SF's : Hana 31.8%; Arantxa 40.7%, Kim 44.4%
The news here is how poor Hana does at reaching that SF at only 31.8%. Thats a bad number!

Semifinals conversion rate: Hana 57.1%; Arantxa 54.5%; Kim 50%
But when Hana does get there, she tends to win more of them. Now Arantxa's results starting sliding.

% of majors each reached QF's: Hana 52.3%; Arantxa 64.8%; Kim 52.8%
Arantxa is 12 points higher than the nearest competitor.. She does Not like to leave before the second week so she stays very consistent and focused those the first four rounds.

QFinals conversion rate: Hana 60.9%, Arantxa 62.9%; Kim 84.2%
Wow Kim's number (16 of 19)is the most surprising of this entire study. ATG Martina Navratilova's QF conversion rate is 83%

* % of slam losses in Rds1,2 and 3: Hana 31.8%; Arantxa 29.6%; Kim 30.6%
(*The lower number the better here! so Arantxa's 29.6 is a hair better than Kim's and Hana is last)

Remember if you see an unexplained gap between early round losses, and QF's reached (Arantxa.!) That is because I did not really analyze those fourth round numbers separately. Arantxa is winning those 4th round matches at a much higher rate than Hana or Kim.

 

[buscemi]

I'll go with Vilas over Courier. Yes, Vilas's Aussies were weak but you have to look at the complete picture. Vilas won the well-attended Masters in 1974 to compensate for that. He also had tougher clay court competition than Courier, who I feel was lucky that his peak coincided with a brief lull between Lendl's dominance and Sampras's.

Another thing that isn't in Courier's favour is that outside of his three prime years (91-93) he just wasn't very good. Vilas was a legitimate top pro for nearly a decade.

Was the 1974 WTF well attended?

The 8 players were:

#2 Newcombe
#4 Borg
#9 Vilas
#10 Nastase
#11 Orantes
#15 Solomon
#21 Ramirez
#29 Parun

Connors (who won 3/4 Majors that year), Laver, and others weren't there.

 

[bobcolbert]

Was the 1974 WTF well attended?

The 8 players were:

#2 Newcombe
#4 Borg
#9 Vilas
#10 Nastase
#11 Orantes
#15 Solomon
#21 Ramirez
#29 Parun

Connors (who won 3/4 Majors that year), Laver, and others weren't there.

I always thought it's unfair to relativize Vilas' victories at the Australian Open, but relativizing his victory at the masters seems impossible to me. He beat Newcombe, Borg and Nastase, on grass !

 

[buscemi]

I always thought it's unfair to relativize Vilas' victories at the Australian Open, but relativizing his victory at the masters seems impossible to me. He beat Newcombe, Borg and Nastase, on grass !

I was just responding to the comment that the 1974 WTF was well-attended. I don't think it was. The clear #1 for the year wasn't there, nor were three top 5 players/six top 10 players. That's nothing like later WTFs, with all/most of the top 8 in attendance. That doesn't take away from the fact that Vilas had some very nice wins there, as you noted.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I always thought it's unfair to relativize Vilas' victories at the Australian Open, but relativizing his victory at the masters seems impossible to me. He beat Newcombe, Borg and Nastase, on grass !

This is of course nothing to scoff at, but to be also fair: Borg in 1974 was 18 years old and even though he had won his first slam that year he wasn’t prime yet, especially not on grass.

 

[CyBorg]

Was the 1974 WTF well attended?

The 8 players were:

#2 Newcombe
#4 Borg
#9 Vilas
#10 Nastase
#11 Orantes
#15 Solomon
#21 Ramirez
#29 Parun

Connors (who won 3/4 Majors that year), Laver, and others weren't there.

The answer is yes, it was well attended. You would be correct to point out that the tour was quite splintered in these years, so you would find a lot of key names missing from big events. For pretty much everything that wasn't Wimbledon or the US Open.

But this was a top-4 event that year.

 

[buscemi]

The answer is yes, it was well attended. You would be correct to point out that the tour was quite splintered in these years, so you would find a lot of key names missing from big events. For pretty much everything that wasn't Wimbledon or the US Open.

But this was a top-4 event that year.

Yeah, but let's look at the quarterfinalists from Wimbledon and the U.S. Open that year:

-Jimmy Connors
-Alex Metreveli
-Stan Smith
-Roscoe Tanner
-Ken Rosewall
-Vijay Armitraj
-Arthur Ashe
-John Newcombe
-Ken Rosewall
-Ismail El Shafei
-Jan Kodes
-Dick Stockton

That's 12 players who made the QF or better at the two biggest tournaments of the year (Vilas lost in the 3rd round and fourth round).

Out of those 12 players, only one -- John Newcombe -- played in WTF.

 

[Mustard]

The answer is yes, it was well attended. You would be correct to point out that the tour was quite splintered in these years, so you would find a lot of key names missing from big events. For pretty much everything that wasn't Wimbledon or the US Open.

But this was a top-4 event that year.

Even 1973 Wimbledon had 81 players boycotting, and WCT professional contract players absent at 1972 Wimbledon. Newcombe had won Wimbledon in 1970 and 1971, and didn't play there in 1972 and 1973.

 

[thrust]

Yes the ranking were in fact pretty easy. I was emotionally conflicted with the ASV vs Osaka one as I really feel Osaka is the "better" player, but there isn't much case for her to make vs ASV if their careers ended now. If it weren't for the Seles stabbing I am sure ASV's career would not be put above Osaka overall even if she somehow got up to 3 majors still (doubtful, I think 2 is more likely), particularly as I imagine she spends no time at #1 now and we know Osaka had some, and was best player of one year atleast no matter what the often ridiculous rankings said; but as I said in another thread you have to evaluate what is, but if you put them in any of the same eras I am pretty sure Osaka wins more in any of them than ASV would.

And I suspected some would make a case for ASV vs Hana as credentials wise you could but ASV would never beat prime/even peak Evert and prime Navratilova, both in great form, back to back, to win a US Open. Beating a badly injured Graf who was crouching down in the middle of their final, and a washed up/way past her prime Sabatini in the semis, is hardly comparable of course. Or beat Evert and Navratilova in fully prime years en route to Wimbledon finals, even if losing to the alternate. Despite the credit ASV gets for her excellent final vs Graf in the 95 Wimbledon final, she really had no quality wins to get there. Even if she had say beaten an in form Seles or Novotna en route to a final (she didn't of course) it would not be comparable to beating prime Navratilova or prime Evert to make those finals, as Seles is not that strong a grass courter at all, not even in the same universe as Evert, and of course Novotna is not that calibre of player even on grass. Plus all of Hana's other quality wins/runs in majors, beating #2 ranked Navratilova and then huge phenom Jaeger en route to the 80 US Open final, taking Evert to 3 sets. Beating Evert at her peak on CLAY to win the 81 French. Beating Navratilova in the 87 Australian Open final, and many more. Sanchez does not compare to that. She does get credit for beating Graf 4 times in slams of course, that is super impressive, but as said it is generally noted Graf is a favorable match up for her, and she a psychological edge over Graf, although she still has a lopsided losing record as she is the far inferior player. She would need to have some success vs a 2nd key person besides Graf to make more of an argument and there is literally nothing. One win over a non peak Seles in a RG final which is good, and that is it beside the Graf wins.

And of course Clijsters with her YEC titles and semi dominance at the US Open, and amazing comeback after motherhood has to be tops.

Graf benefited as much, or more, than ASV did with the Seles absence.

 

[fezer]

When did Courier ever face anyone as good as Borg on red clay?

certainly there was no Borg, because Courier didnt let any Agassi, Muster et al become one. Courier had top competittion! His 92 rg run is second to none. and he is a tad better than Vilas in my eyes. Vilas was morer or less Borg's punching ball and outside clay Vilas was clearly inferior to Connors, McEnroe or Nastase. Courier otoh did beat Edberg eg in wimbledon or Sampras at the yec.

 

[jrepac]

When did Courier ever face anyone as good as Borg on red clay?

never...thanks for the chuckle!

 

[Mustard]

I gave him full credit for the 77 French, when in fact it was a super depleted field,

"Super depleted" would be the Australian Opens of the time, with a small few exceptions like the 1969 and 1971 events, and the 1975 final, perhaps even the 1977 (Jan) final to a lesser extent. No French Open was as weak as Australian Opens of that time, not 1970-71, or even the WTT period of 1974-78.

"Super depleted" would also be 1973 Wimbledon, which 81 players boycotted.

 

[flyingforehands]

"Super depleted" would be the Australian Opens of the time, with a small few exceptions like the 1969 and 1971 events, and the 1975 final, perhaps even the 1977 (Jan) final to a lesser extent. No French Open was as weak as Australian Opens of that time, not 1970-71, or even the WTT period of 1974-78.

"Super depleted" would also be 1973 Wimbledon, which 81 players boycotted.

OK given the context of the era I overstated it (for today it would easily be termed that, but not for back then). I would say somewhat depleted then. I still give him full credit for that victory mind you, but definitely not the 2 Australians, particularly given a realistic assessment of his grass skills as evidenced by all his performances at Wimbledon.