ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
First let me just say I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on FPPT.
My threads often deal with questions that include both the past and the present of the sport.
We often talk about the fast vs. slow surface distinction as one of the major predictors to determine how a certain player's Grand Slam career will pan out.
From a very early age I was interested in the careers of multiple Slam winners and how these victories were distributed across the four Slams and their different surfaces/conditions.
While the fast vs. slow surface contrast is rather important, I don't think it should be the overwhelming factor when analysing Grand Slam careers - the best example of this is perhaps the great Björn Borg, whose two most successful Slams were Roland Garros and Wimbledon. He was a natural surface specialist, so to speak, which cuts across (and undermines) the fast vs. slow surface determinism.
There are, of course, classic examples of success limited to slow(er) surfaces, which in this case means that your most likely combo is Australian Open + Roland Garros: Kafelnikov and Courier easily fall under this category.
The best example of fast surface specialisation at the Slams is perhaps Edberg, with his Wimbledon - US Open combo, and when he won the Australian Open it was (if I'm not mistaken) still played on grass.
We've recently had another example of natural surface success in the women's game, with Halep, and Muguruza before her.
It seems to me that the rarest combo is Roland Garros - US Open as your top Slams (I can only think of Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario) and NOT the fastest vs. slowest surface dichotomy, and yet fans and pundits still talk about this as if it determines almost everything in the sport. Interestingly, another Spaniard, Nadal, also has Roland Garros and the US Open as his top Slams, but I tend to dismiss players like him in these discussions because they've won so much and basically everywhere, and in an era where the surfaces have become increasingly homogenous.
So my question, which is a multiple question, is the following: which other factors should we be talking about and focusing on that aren't just the slow vs. fast dichotomy, what is it that determines that a player is better on natural surfaces, or better on hardcourts (another factor that challenges fast vs. slow), what is it that potentially makes someone's game translate better at Roland Garros and the US Open, which seem so different?
My threads often deal with questions that include both the past and the present of the sport.
We often talk about the fast vs. slow surface distinction as one of the major predictors to determine how a certain player's Grand Slam career will pan out.
From a very early age I was interested in the careers of multiple Slam winners and how these victories were distributed across the four Slams and their different surfaces/conditions.
While the fast vs. slow surface contrast is rather important, I don't think it should be the overwhelming factor when analysing Grand Slam careers - the best example of this is perhaps the great Björn Borg, whose two most successful Slams were Roland Garros and Wimbledon. He was a natural surface specialist, so to speak, which cuts across (and undermines) the fast vs. slow surface determinism.
There are, of course, classic examples of success limited to slow(er) surfaces, which in this case means that your most likely combo is Australian Open + Roland Garros: Kafelnikov and Courier easily fall under this category.
The best example of fast surface specialisation at the Slams is perhaps Edberg, with his Wimbledon - US Open combo, and when he won the Australian Open it was (if I'm not mistaken) still played on grass.
We've recently had another example of natural surface success in the women's game, with Halep, and Muguruza before her.
It seems to me that the rarest combo is Roland Garros - US Open as your top Slams (I can only think of Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario) and NOT the fastest vs. slowest surface dichotomy, and yet fans and pundits still talk about this as if it determines almost everything in the sport. Interestingly, another Spaniard, Nadal, also has Roland Garros and the US Open as his top Slams, but I tend to dismiss players like him in these discussions because they've won so much and basically everywhere, and in an era where the surfaces have become increasingly homogenous.
So my question, which is a multiple question, is the following: which other factors should we be talking about and focusing on that aren't just the slow vs. fast dichotomy, what is it that determines that a player is better on natural surfaces, or better on hardcourts (another factor that challenges fast vs. slow), what is it that potentially makes someone's game translate better at Roland Garros and the US Open, which seem so different?
