The lucky slam ( men or women).

BTURNER

Legend
In my view all champions with a small or large stack of majors, have at least one maybe - or two 'lucky slams'. Those are the ones where half the seeds fall early, two get injured and what's left in the final ain't all that major either - and then that lucky call at 6-5 deuce! Its earned in the sense that you beat everyone you had to grab that title. You did the work and got a well deserved pay-off. Its not earned in the sense that the path had remarkably few potholes for a two week test of the best and the brightest. This is not anticipated as a discussion about who's career was lucky, or had a 'joke era' to play in. Nor is this an invitation to talk about how Sanchez lucked out when Seles was stabbed or how grateful McEnroe should be that Borg retired young. Its about one, maybe two at most lucky slams that our great and near great players saw.

For Evert, I think its obvious. That 1974 Wimbledon draw was priceless. Court playing Mama. King drops in the QF. Goolagong drops in the other QF. Casals drops in the fourth round. Wade is in the other half, so Evert beats #6 seed Melville and then gets Morazova, the woman she finished off in Paris. I honestly don't think Evert was really ready to grab this at Centre Court from a top level grass courter who had been in major finals before. This was about the only draw I see her likely to beat in front of the royal box with the increased press attention and new expectations fresh off Paris . This was an embarrassingly lucky slam.

How about Sampras, Navratilova, Graf, Borg, Wade, Hingis, Connors, Rosewall, Serena, Nasty, Fed, Court, You pick! they all have em.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
In my view all champions with a small or large stack of majors, have at least one maybe - or two 'lucky slams'. Those are the ones where half the seeds fall early, two get injured and what's left in the final ain't all that major either - and then that lucky call at 6-5 deuce! Its earned in the sense that you beat everyone you had to grab that title. You did the work and got a well deserved pay-off. Its not earned in the sense that the path had remarkably few potholes for a two week test of the best and the brightest. This is not anticipated as a discussion about who's career was lucky, or had a 'joke era' to play in. Nor is this an invitation to talk about how Sanchez lucked out when Seles was stabbed or how grateful McEnroe should be that Borg retired young. Its about one, maybe two at most lucky slams that our great and near great players saw.

For Evert, I think its obvious. That 1974 Wimbledon draw was priceless. Court playing Mama. King drops in the QF. Goolagong drops in the other QF. Casals drops in the fourth round. Wade is in the other half, so Evert beats #6 seed Melville and then gets Morazova, the woman she finished off in Paris. I honestly don't think Evert was really ready to grab this at Centre Court from a top level grass courter who had been in major finals before. This was about the only draw I see her likely to beat in front of the royal box with the increased press attention and new expectations fresh off Paris . This was an embarrassingly lucky slam.

How about Sampras, Navratilova, Graf, Borg, Wade, Hingis, Connors, Rosewall, Serena, Nasty, Fed, Court, You pick! they all have em.
Which is why simply counting slam wins is a poor measure of tennis greatness, some eras are weak, some slams are lucky.

Sometimes the top players eliminate each other with marathon matches.

I think that Kramer won a weak Wimbledon in 1947, at least, he did not face a serious challenge.

Budge in 1938 at Wimbledon and elsewhere.
 

tennistiger

Semi-Pro
Stich with important net ball in the Volkov match at Wimbledon 1991. And Becker with the same against Rostagno at US Open 89.
 

BGod

Legend
All I can say for the Big 3 is Fed had a few but none really that were too lucky. Nadal has had 3 joke draws and I cannot recall any lucky Novak draws except maybe one of the Murray Aussie trips.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Which is why simply counting slam wins is a poor measure of tennis greatness, some eras are weak, some slams are lucky.

Sometimes the top players eliminate each other with marathon matches.

I think that Kramer won a weak Wimbledon in 1947, at least, he did not face a serious challenge.

Budge in 1938 at Wimbledon and elsewhere.
Should add Nastase at the FO in 1973, a very weak path to victory.

And Gimeno in 1972 FO, Nastase and Kodes both upset early, leaving an easier path to victory.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
All I can say for the Big 3 is Fed had a few but none really that were too lucky. Nadal has had 3 joke draws and I cannot recall any lucky Novak draws except maybe one of the Murray Aussie trips.
USO 2016 was illarious, but Djokovic didn't win it: 1rd: Janowicz, 2rd Vesely (walkover), 3rd Youzhny (retired), 4rd Edmund, QF Tsonga (retired) SF Monfils (most absurd strategy ever) F: Wawrinka.
 

lobsterrush

New User
Graf 95 French and 99 French- Graf wasnt really ready for the event as injuries prevented her from playing any warm ups on clay, and it showed at times, but she benefitted from underperformance and choking from her opponents. In the 4th round against Huber, Huber had a number of chances to atleast take it to a 3rd set, but frequently choked on big points. She won that 7-5, 6-4. Conchita Martinez should have won the French for sure this year, she was unbeaten on clay this year and was in by far the best clay form of all the players, but unsurprisingly for a chronic big match choker she played by far her worst clay match of the whole year against Graf in the semis, being loudly booed by the crowd at one point in the 2nd set for her lackluster play and effort, and she still came back from 6-3, 4-1 and should have won at 3-3, 0-40 in the 3rd set but choked. Sanchez in the final was sick, and ran out of gas by the 3rd set.

The 99 French was even more lucky. Venus who probably wins this year taken out by an on fire Schwartz after having a match point. Getting Kournikova and bad clay courter Davenport as her round of 16 and quarter rather than more dangerous players to her at this point like Pierce, Schynder, Coetzer, or Sanchez. And Hingis's meltdown in the final when she totally had it won at 6-4, 5-4 and the crowd getting involved.

Navratilova 78 Wimbledon- Goolagong injures herself in the semis at 3-3 in the 3rd when there is a very good chance she was on her way to winning the match. Evert should have won the final after being up 4-2 in the 3rd set and uncharacteristically made a bunch of bad errors in the final 6 games, which combined with good play by Navratilova, allowed Martina to come back and win 7-5 in the 3rd.

Federer 2006 Australian- He wasnt in really good form at this event, and his draw was quite easy. Davydenko had a pretty good shot in the quarters had he not choked on nearly all the big points. Baghdatis in the final probably has a good shot at coming out the winner if he takes his break points to go up a 2nd break in the 2nd set. Arguably lucky Nadal didnt play (this is questionable I know as Nadal had not really done well in a hard court slam yet) but probably more lucky he didnt play Nalbandian. Considering Nalbandian had beaten Federer in the YEC final, the surface, that Nalbandian always was a tough match up, and Federer's form, Nalbadian would have had a very good shot. Nalbandian also should have beaten Federer in the semis, choking after being up a break and on the verge of winning in his semis vs Baghdaits. Granted that might have happened in the final too even if he got in a winning position, but even so this would have to be Federer's luckiest slam of his 20.

Nadal 2017 U.S Open- I know some would say the 2010 or 2013 US Open but I think he was always winning those regardless unless Djokovic had played a better match in the final of the 2013 U.S Open, as he was the only one either year who was potentially beating Nadal. Had Nadal played Del Potro before the semis, or a match he wasnt so tired there is a good shot he loses. He probably was lucky to avoid playing Federer given their hard court matches this year. Murray and Wawrinka being out of contention altogether, also made things easier for him. His draw all around was a joke, complete with a joke final opponent which is a big difference from 2010 and 2013 where you atleast cant say that, and unlike both 2010 and 2013 I dont think it is fairly clear he would have handled a more difficult opponent.

Seles 1990 French and 1992 French- I honestly think she got a big lucky in both of these events. 1990 Kelesi and Meskhi both had a lot of chances in their matches of potentially beating her, but blew it on the big points, particularly Meskhi who lost two tiebreaks, but had a good shot of winning both sets. Maleeva in the quarters definitely should have won after being up 4-1 in the 3rd, but incurred an injury which visibly affected her movement and serve, and also choked a big which is a norm for her in big matches. Then in the final Graf first of all playing a mediocre match and far below her form of the other matches at this event, which considering Seles's form at this event which was definitely not her best as all the previous matches showed was superior to Seles's prior to the final. Then blowing a 6-2 lead in the 1st set tiebreaker on top of that, which probably determined the outcome of the final.

92 wasnt as lucky as 1990 IMO but she still was down 4-1 double break to Kijimuta who predictably panicked being so close to such a heroic career win and totally collapsed in the final 5 games. Semis was down 4-2 vs Sabatini who got tenative and couldnt close it out, again typical Sabatini in big matches. Then the final vs Graf was fortunate to survive choking a bit herself when Graf fought back from 5-3 match points down. Despite a ridiculous 76 unforced errors Graf still had a good shot of winning in the end.

@BTURNER, I am not sure if I entirely agree on Wimbledon 74. You know even if Evert played Wade in the final she was probably winning, lets face it. Just given their history, the head to head match up, and all the pressure Wade would have been under. I am sure it would have been a closer final than Morozova, but it is unlikely Wade would have beaten Evert. Goolagong probably would beat Evert if they played her, but Goolagong going out in a big upset prior to a big name happens in a lot of slams so it isnt even really that noteable. King was in godawful form, losing in easy straight sets to Morozova, LOL, and really noticeably struggling all event for whatever reason, that I think in this particular occasion Evert probably would have wound up winning even if they did play despite that I usually would easily pick King over Evert on grass at this point. King barely beat Evert in 75, needing to come back in the 3rd set, in a million times better form than she was in at the 74 event.

I would say her luckiest slam was the 83 French. Navratilova goes out in upset of the decade, almost certainly beats Evert since this was in the midst of their 13 match win streak. Hana really outplayed her in their encounter but Evert was able to tough a win. Sukova had real chances in their round of 16 match too. And a joke finals opponent, and just an overall really weak womens field all around at the time.
 
Last edited:
Top