Michael88
Banned
LOL. That's funny. Please inform yourself.
Total slam count minus AO titles
- Thread starter dominikk1985
- Start date
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Here's a better one 
Djokovic's best tourneys
AO, WTF
Djokovic: (5 + 4) = 9
Federer: (4 + 6) = 10
Come on Novak, you can do it!
:lol:
Nadal: (1 + zep) = 1
Djokovic's best tourneys
AO, WTF
Djokovic: (5 + 4) = 9
Federer: (4 + 6) = 10
Come on Novak, you can do it!
:lol:
Nadal: (1 + zep) = 1
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
You must be young. He was famous for winning 5 consecutive Ws. That was the Holy Grail to him, winning those.
And he was famous for winning FOs and going directly to Ws and winning them too.
Apologies if this has already been considered but I actually like to look at it in a slightly different way where you subtract each players most successful slam from their overall count as I think that gives a greater representation of a players greatness & consistency across different surfaces.
In doing so you get the following counts:
Fed 10
Rafa 5
Sampras 7
Nole 3
In doing so you get the following counts:
Fed 10
Rafa 5
Sampras 7
Nole 3
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
So according to your statistics, the most successful American player since the 1990's is Andy Roddick just 'cause he's white..
Who cares? They're all American..
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Are you feeling the generation gap on this forum? It really shows when people start talking about players in the 70s-80s.
Fiji
Legend
Clutching at straws...
spencerjudd
Banned
I think there are some cases this make sense. For example, with Court and her Australian Open situation this is clearly the only way to go, and thankfully the way most experts do go:
Most womens slams (minus Australian Open):
Wills Moody (never even played the Australian)- 19
Graf- 18
Evert- 16
Navratilova- 15
Court- 13
Serena- 13
Now regarding Serena it is unfair since the Australian is a fully legit slam today, so this doesn't accurately reflect her standing. She is legitimately better at the Australian than others who played it regularly like Graf, Navratilova, and even Evert (although Evert missed it several years she could have won more). However regarding Court it is fully accurate to how she really compares, and how she is really viewed by the tennis world in comparision to her superiors- Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Serena.
Regarding the men it is also a good example. Again not fair for when it comes to Nadal and Federer. Federer legitimately outdid Nadal at the Australian, and thus has more slams. However for how Borg compares to Sampras and Nadal, it is much more accurate. Borg is still behind even then, but a lot closer.
Most womens slams (minus Australian Open):
Wills Moody (never even played the Australian)- 19
Graf- 18
Evert- 16
Navratilova- 15
Court- 13
Serena- 13
Now regarding Serena it is unfair since the Australian is a fully legit slam today, so this doesn't accurately reflect her standing. She is legitimately better at the Australian than others who played it regularly like Graf, Navratilova, and even Evert (although Evert missed it several years she could have won more). However regarding Court it is fully accurate to how she really compares, and how she is really viewed by the tennis world in comparision to her superiors- Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Serena.
Regarding the men it is also a good example. Again not fair for when it comes to Nadal and Federer. Federer legitimately outdid Nadal at the Australian, and thus has more slams. However for how Borg compares to Sampras and Nadal, it is much more accurate. Borg is still behind even then, but a lot closer.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Absolutely. It's only history if you were not there to see these players. Though thank God we are not trying to watch tennis today on small TVs with distorted color and horrible definition.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
The AO and USO are the most competitive majors out there. I will not even respond to this thread.
Michael88
Banned
Um... you just... did.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
I left out "further".
Michael88
Banned
And you've just done that, as well :lol:
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Michael88
Banned
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
This man knows what he's talking about.
Since late 80s, all top players participated in AO. And AO has been treated as a slam legitimately. They all wanted to win it badly.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Since Sampras and Agassi became the top rankers, they didn't miss AO. For Agassi, when he was in good form and was playing well, he went to AO to win them. It was only when he wasn't paying as much attention to tennis that he didn't participate. I highly doubt if they participated in all of those years, they would've won any AO titles because they were simply not at the top of their game in those years any way.
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
better take out the players who used anything over 90" to win a slam
and award it to the finalist who lost to them using the 90 or smaller.
and award it to the finalist who lost to them using the 90 or smaller.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Not quite. Quite a few top 10 (and top 20) players were still skipping the AO in the late 80s thru the mid 90s. Connors was still in the 10 in the late 80s. He had only played the AO twice in his long illustrious career. He won it in '74 and reached the final again in '75. Even tho' he was playing the other slams until '92, he never played the AO again after '75.
Agassi, who fared extremely well at the AO from the late 90s to '05, did not play it at all for the first full 8 years of his career -- from '87 to '94. Chang also did not play the AO from '87 thru '91. He played it for the next 2 years and skipped it again in '94. I'm sure that there were other top players who skipped the AO regularly or sporadically in the late 80s thru the mid 90s.
Plenty to take away from the AO prior to the 90s. It was a slam/major in name only for decades. Back in the day, top players regularly skipped the AO. It was even worse in Laver's day. The AC/AO was primarily an Aussie tournament, not an international tournament in the '60 and part of the '70s.
For much of the period the draw size was very small. The women's draw was 32 while the men's draw was 48. The top male seeds were only required to play 5 rounds rather than the 7 rounds of play for the modern AO. Wimbledon and the USO consisted of a full 7 round draw of 128 in the 60s and 70s. In 1977 the draw size was 64 (6 rounds). Not sure when it was finally increased to 128 players.
As I indicated previously, the AC/AO was pretty much a local Aussie tournament with very few non-Aussies. Top players from other countries almost never played it in Laver's day. Take a close look at the flags in the draws below. Primarily Aussie flags. In 1962, the top 8 seeds in the AC were all Aussies. When Laver won the AO in in the Open Era in 1969, 10 of the 16 seeds were Aussie players. At least 60% of the 48-man draw were Aussie players.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Australian_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles#Seeds
http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/year_by_year.html
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Biggest names of the late 80s like Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Wilander made the trip to Australia every year. McEnroe, Connors and Agassi didn't as you've mentioned, but the players that mattered most at that time were those 4 European players who won most of majors during that period anyway. I wasn't expecting the 3 Americans would win slams back then, even Agassi because I thought he had to mature a bit more yet. Sampras also was a work in progress even after his 1st USO win in 1989 so I don't think he could've won 1990 event which he didn't participate (I think). He started his yearly trip down under in 1991 and didn't manage any titles until 1997. I highly doubt if any of those 5 Americans could've won AO in the early 90s. Even with Agassi winning AO during 1988-1994 seems highly doubtful as I believe Agassi's true prime started in 1995, after he won his 1st USO title.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Look at the draws in the 70's and tell me it was a major :lol:
It's a major now and has been for about 30 years but before that - hell no.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Should we then undermine Lavers achievements? Undermine his two CYGS?
Laver doesn't have many ''real'' slams then.. His greatness is overrated then
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
You're pretty misinformed. His 1962 GS is worth very little. His 1969 is still the pinnacle of the sport. Despite the AO being of reduced value in those days he beat some good players on route. He also won all the other major events of that year - including the biggest HC event.
Not to mention he was #1 for at least 7 years in a row and won tons of top tournaments in the pro's as well.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Who are we to decide what is important and what is less important?
At that very time, it was big. They didn't have a time machine in 62 or before the Open Era. And that is what we can say. Considering he is the only one along Don Budge to achieve the CYGS (and I mean the ''worthless'' cygs in 62) in mens singles tennis history makes it even more impressive, as no one earlier or after did achieve it, apart from Budge as I mentioned above.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well some of us are have actually read books, seen matches and interviews etc...from that time period. So we know that the AO wasn't valued in the 70's. We also know that the best players were in the pro ranks in the 30's onwards. Laver winning the CYGS in 1962 would be like Ferrer winning it in 2012 in the absence of all the Big 4 and half the rest of the top 20.
Borg didn't play the AO but once, neither did McEnroe until the mid 80's, Connors only played it twice. But you think it was major? Borg when interviewed in the build up to one of the USO's (can't remember which) said he'd won all the big ones and included titles like Rome and not the AO.
I know what was considered important in those days. It's you that is viewing that era's accomplishments through your modern lenses. Get some perspective. This has no barring on Djokovic's achievements in this era, his AO's are worth as much in my mind as any slam bar Wimbledon.
But keep talking both of those up it's not like I could lose respect for you as a poster :lol:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Again, the time machine. What is it that you don't get? You can't compare like that. At that time, Laver did what was needed to achieve that feat and beat the competition across the net. The only player to do so along with Budge. If it was that easy, why is it then that only two men has achieved it across tennis history?
Lose respect for me cause I consider AO being a major event in that time and that Lavers CYGS was a great feat? What a sad human being.
And note, I'm not trying to go against what mcenroe, and other players considered what was bigger, and what you are saying, I'm just recognizing the facts, unfortunately that doesn't exist in your sad world.
''The first Australian championships that were recognised as a major tournament on the same level as Wimbledon, the Hard Court Championships, and the US Champs was the 1924 Melbourne meeting. The ILTF recognised the tournament in a meeting in 1923 and the Australian committee changed the structure of the tournament to include seeding''
Thats the fact I'm talking about. Now, I'm giving you the honour of having the last say
BB.
Last edited:
m2nk2
Hall of Fame
Lol? What's your source mate. It doesn't count if you make it up yourself...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Again, the time machine. What is it that you don't get? You can't compare like that. At that time, Laver did what was needed to achieve that feat and beat the competition across the net. The only player to do so along with Budge. If it was that easy, why is it then that only two men has achieved it across tennis history?
Lose respect for me cause I consider AO being a major event in that time and that Lavers CYGS was a great feat? What a sad human being.
And note, I'm not trying to go against what mcenroe, and other players considered what was bigger, and what you are saying, I'm just recognizing the facts, unfortunately that doesn't exist in your sad world.
''The first Australian championships that were recognised as a major tournament on the same level as Wimbledon, the Hard Court Championships, and the US Champs was the 1924 Melbourne meeting. The ILTF recognised the tournament in a meeting in 1923 and the Australian committee changed the structure of the tournament to include seeding''
Thats the fact I'm talking about. Now, I'm giving you the honour of having the last say
If non of the top players are participating how can it be a major? If the elite of the sport didn't consider it worth playing I think it's pretty obvious the AO didn't have the status you afford it.
Go learn about the era. Also learn what a counter puncher is while you're at it :lol:
And actually I was saying I couldn't lose respect for you...because I have non in the first place.
Tennisknowledge99
Banned
Agreed. Connors won the AO in 1974 and played final in 75 but never played from 76-85 which he could easily have won 2-3 more since he was in his prime and competitive.
Pre-open era slams are not worthless, but not value the same as the open-era slams. It's the reason why Emerson's 12 amateur slams aren't worth as much as 8 slams by Agassi, Connors, Lendl, or Mac 7 slams. Laver himself said that modern day GS is worth 2 GS in his heyday.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Not so for Agassi. In '89, Andre reached the SF round at RG and USO. His year-end ranking that year was #3. He reached the Finals at RG and USO in '90 (and ranked #4 at year's end). Another Final at RG in '91. He won his first slam title at Wimby in '92 and another in '94 at USO. He was in the top 10 for most of this period. Despite all this success he avoided playing the AO until 1995.
He won the the title in his 1st try at the AO in '95. In the 9 times he played the AO in his career, he won the title 4x. His W-L at the AO was 48-5. If he had started playing the AO 7 or 8 years earlier, there is a very good chance that he would have reached more finals and conceivably won more AO titles.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Again, the time machine. What is it that you don't get? You can't compare like that. At that time, Laver did what was needed to achieve that feat and beat the competition across the net. The only player to do so along with Budge. If it was that easy, why is it then that only two men has achieved it across tennis history?
Lose respect for me cause I consider AO being a major event in that time and that Lavers CYGS was a great feat? What a sad human being.
And note, I'm not trying to go against what mcenroe, and other players considered what was bigger, and what you are saying, I'm just recognizing the facts, unfortunately that doesn't exist in your sad world.
''The first Australian championships that were recognised as a major tournament on the same level as Wimbledon, the Hard Court Championships, and the US Champs was the 1924 Melbourne meeting. The ILTF recognised the tournament in a meeting in 1923 and the Australian committee changed the structure of the tournament to include seeding''
Thats the fact I'm talking about. Now, I'm giving you the honour of having the last say
RF-18, honestly you're one of my favourite posters here, as you're strong willed and tell it as it is and have a strong sense of truth, justice and kappa... but some of the things you believe strongly to be the truth don't always actually match up to the reality. There really were times for example when the AO wasn't really respected as a "major" and there are well established tennis historians who have documented the changing sense of perception of the Slam events and the majors through the years, from the perspective of the players and the fans. All the information is out there and well documented.
I appreciate that you have a willingness to learn about the game and give credit where credit is due.
Last edited by a moderator:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Thank you, likewise. Maybe I'm wrong in that department, but what about it being an official major? Thats the fact I'm trying to get at.
The Laver thing though, I'm not gonna back away from that. The CYGS he achieved (especially in 1962) is an incredible feat along with his CYGS in 1969. I don't buy that ''it was easier then'', fact is Laver was the best in the field and beat the competition that was proposed across the net across all the slams. If it was that easy, then I don't think it would be only two men in tennis singles history that would achieve this feat in that ''easy'' time as NatF stated. And I asked him plenty of times now to give me an explanation to why anybody else didn't achieve it. Tennis was also played before 62 you know and only Budge won the CYGS. Then Laver came.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I think his 1969 Slam is an incredible achievement. The 1962 Slam is less regarded because it wasn't done in the Open Era and the fields were split. It's more or less agreed that Rosewall was a better player than Laver in 1962 but he had turned pro, so couldn't enter the Grand Slam events. I think if we asked Laver himself, he'd probably regard his 1969 Grand Slam as his greatest achievement because it was done against literally all available top level competition. Or maybe he prefers his 1967 Pro Slam???
Gonzales and Rosewall, among others, were Pro at the time Laver won his 1962 Slam, so it would be like if Djokovic had won the Grand Slam in 2011 while Nadal and Federer were playing on a new tour and were prohibited from the Grand Slam events.
You have a point about the AO always being a sort of official Grand Slam event and therefore at the very least always an "arguable" major, though the perception doesn't always match up to the name throughout history.
Anyway, for the general reasons I stated, the 1969 Slam is more impressive than the 1962 Slam. Laver got a rude awakening after he turned pro after the '62 season, and was schooled for quite a while by Rosewall.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, don't get me wrong I also think the 1969 CYGS is more impressive, but it doesnt make his 1962 so much less worth. Are all slams pre open era not worth much just because we are in a different time where almost everything is concentrated on slams? Laver is considered to be one of the ATG acc. to experts, I don't think they exclude his achievements pre open era when talking about this.
kiki
Banned
From 1968 to 1970, the big five were the Four Traditional Slams and Johannesbourg (albeit Rome was a serious contender to be considered instead of the South African)
From 1970 to 1985, the big five were Wimbledon,Roland Garros,Forest Hills/Flushing Meadows,Masters and WCT Finals.From 1986 to 1990, The AO could be regarded in a second tier with Dallas and Masters, and the big three would be the French,UK and US Championships
Form 1990 onwards, the 4 slams and the ATP Finals are the big five.Miami never really challenged for a place as a top five event.
From 1970 to 1985, the big five were Wimbledon,Roland Garros,Forest Hills/Flushing Meadows,Masters and WCT Finals.From 1986 to 1990, The AO could be regarded in a second tier with Dallas and Masters, and the big three would be the French,UK and US Championships
Form 1990 onwards, the 4 slams and the ATP Finals are the big five.Miami never really challenged for a place as a top five event.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
No, although his achievements in the Pro ranks are, funnily enough, are often ignored. So, we hear very little about Laver's incredible 1967 year, and we tend to credit him with 11 Major titles when really you can argue he won 19/20. We credit his Amateur era Slam wins, yet some of his Pro wins were probably more difficult to attain. He had to break through Rosewall and Gonzales, after all.
Last edited by a moderator:
NatF
Bionic Poster
His 1962 Grand Slam is worth less precisely because he didn't have to go through the best players. When he turned pro in 1963 he was taken to the cleaners by Rosewall and Hoad over and over again. He was not the best player in the world in 1962 - not by a long shot.
Pre-Open grand slams are not worth as much because they had much weaker fields missing the top players. Again if you removed half the top 20 players including the top 4 then you'd end up with a field relatively like the one Laver dealt with in 1962.
How you could think that a slam won in those conditions is worth as much as if all the top players were competing is beyond me. Slams won in that time frame were factually won in a weak era - not because the top players were weak but because they were not competing.
Pre-Open grand slams are not worth as much because they had much weaker fields missing the top players. Again if you removed half the top 20 players including the top 4 then you'd end up with a field relatively like the one Laver dealt with in 1962.
How you could think that a slam won in those conditions is worth as much as if all the top players were competing is beyond me. Slams won in that time frame were factually won in a weak era - not because the top players were weak but because they were not competing.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
I think Agassi's first slam would've been Wimbledon 92 in any case. He was already very good at the young age, but I thought he still lacked a little bit of something until he broke through and won his 1st slam. Then, his career went into a bit of a slump, but he came back with the US 94 victory, Brooke Shields on his side. That was the last of the 'rock star' Agassi, though. He shaved his hair and wore bandana on the head in Australia. I didn't recognize him at first when I turned on TV in the middle of his match. Anyway, I don't think Agassi would've won that many more AO titles, and even if I give the benefit of doubt, maybe 1 more. He still didn't have the maturity to win a slam before his first Wimbledon title, I think. Even after that, it took him more than 2 years to become the true prime version.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Also, Borg didn't compete after age 26, so when comparing Federer to Borg, all of Federer's post age 26 achievements shouldn't be counted either.
Therefore Borg has 11 majors and Federer has 9 (taking away his 3 AO's)
Nadal has 10 majors taking away his 1 AO. Still more than Federer...
So, that settles it, Borg is the goat, right? :lol:
diggler
Hall of Fame
If you want to be strictly accurate, you would have to go back and see what were the important tournaments of that era instead of just looking at how many grand slam titles each player has. If anybody would like to draft a table of titles based on their strength at the time, they are welcome to do so.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I don't understand why the AO is viewed as the "worst" slam. If you people actually go there you will change your tune. Trust me. This slam is organised to perfection
Supertegwyn
Hall of Fame
Total Slam Count minus all slams:
Federer: 0
Nadal: 0
Djokovic: 0
Federer: 0
Nadal: 0
Djokovic: 0
Mainad
Bionic Poster
It's not the worst Slam and its organisation is superb like you say but some people still think it carries a bit less prestige than the other Slams because it is the newest and many top players didn't bother to play it until the 1980s.
Similar threads
