Winning your second slam title in the very next slam event after you won your first

H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
An odd stat is that (I think) the last man to win his second slam in the next event after he won his first was John Newcombe in 1967, the year before the open era began. Newcombe won Wimbledon and the US Open back to back.

Naomi Osaka did manage it, winning the US Open 2018 and then the Australian Open 2019. Five other women have done it in the open era:

1. Evonne Goolagong Cawley won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1971.
2. Chris Evert won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1974.
3. Hana Mandlikova won Australian Open 1981 (in December) and Roland Garros 1982.
4. Venus Williams won Wimbledon and US Open 2000.
5. Jennifer Capriati won Australian Open and Roland Garros 2001.

Many luminaries of the game failed to do this.

The bookies have Sinner at between 3/1 and 11/2 for Roland Garros, with most of them putting him at 7/2 or 9/2. It seems like it'd be the slam that would be hardest for him to win, although if Bull is injured or not at his best, the field might be quite open.

I'm surprised this isn't talked about more often, as in snooker the "Crucible Curse" (no first-time winner has successfully defended his title at the current venue; that is, since 1977 - although in fact the last time it happened was 1964) is frequently discussed. Changes of surface must be part of it.
 
Last edited:
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
mike danny said:
Med came the closest, but we all know how that turned out.
Click to expand...

Funny that. Murray also made the final but he lost in four rather than five. Even making the semis of the next slam has historically been fairly rare - Lendl managed it, and so too Djokovic, as you noted in your next post. But not many.

Alcaraz, Sampras, and Connors didn't play the slam right after their first win, and Connors might have had a shot at Roland Garros 1974 had he played it. Yes, he never won Roland Garros, but he won all the other three slams that year. Quite a few players lost in the first round - for example Korda, Gomez, Cash, Krajicek, and Wawrinka.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
helterskelter said:
Funny that. Murray also made the final but he lost in four rather than five. Even making the semis of the next slam has historically been fairly rare - Lendl managed it, and so too Djokovic, as you noted in your next post. But not many.

Alcaraz, Sampras, and Connors didn't play the slam right after their first win, and Connors might have had a shot at Roland Garros 1974 had he played it. Yes, he never won Roland Garros, but he won all the other three slams that year. Quite a few players lost in the first round - for example Korda, Gomez, Cash, Krajicek, and Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
I guess it’s difficult to get over the high of your first major so quickly and it’s why winning the very next slam has never happened in the Open Era.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
helterskelter said:
Funny that. Murray also made the final but he lost in four rather than five. Even making the semis of the next slam has historically been fairly rare - Lendl managed it, and so too Djokovic, as you noted in your next post. But not many.

Alcaraz, Sampras, and Connors didn't play the slam right after their first win, and Connors might have had a shot at Roland Garros 1974 had he played it. Yes, he never won Roland Garros, but he won all the other three slams that year. Quite a few players lost in the first round - for example Korda, Gomez, Cash, Krajicek, and Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
Roddick’s effort wasn’t too bad either since he lost a 5 set QF to eventual finalist Safin.
 
NoleFam

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Didn't Connors do it in 1974? Won AO then skipped RG and won Wimby and USO. Maybe you meant not to include it if they skipped one in between.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
NoleFam said:
Didn't Connors do it in 1974? Won AO then skipped RG and won Wimby and USO. Maybe you meant not to include it if they skipped one in between.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't count it if they miss an event. I count it only if they win the very next slam after the won they won first. (Similarly, I wouldn't count it as defending a title if you miss a year and then return).
 
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Connors and Nastase won the very next they played at least (Connors even two in a row), winning the very next that took place nobody managed.
 
NAS

NAS

Hall of Fame
helterskelter said:
An odd stat is that (I think) the last man to win his second slam in the next event after he won his first was Lew Hoad, all the way back in 1956. Hoad won the Australian Open and Roland Garros back-to-back, and actually went on to add Wimbledon for his third straight slam title.

Naomi Osaka did manage it, winning the US Open 2018 and then the Australian Open 2019. Five other women have done it in the open era:

1. Evonne Goolagong Cawley won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1971.
2. Chris Evert won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1974.
3. Hana Mandlikova won Australian Open 1981 (in December) and Roland Garros 1982.
4. Venus Williams won Wimbledon and US Open 2000.
5. Jennifer Capriati won Australian Open and Roland Garros 2001.

Many luminaries of the game failed to do this.

The bookies have Sinner at between 3/1 and 11/2 for Roland Garros, with most of them putting him at 7/2 or 9/2. It seems like it'd be the slam that would be hardest for him to win, although if Bull is injured or not at his best, the field might be quite open.

I'm surprised this isn't talked about more often, as in snooker the "Crucible Curse" (no first-time winner has successfully defended his title at the current venue; that is, since 1977 - although in fact the last time it happened was 1964) is frequently discussed. Changes of surface must be part of it.
Click to expand...
Med came close, I don't remember last time who came close.
Another stat after Hewitt 2001 Sinner became first player to win next tournament after winning first slam
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
mike danny said:
I guess it’s difficult to get over the high of your first major so quickly and it’s why winning the very next slam has never happened in the Open Era.
Click to expand...

That is probably part of it, especially with Roland Garros and Wimbledon winners, as the gap before the next slam isn't that long. I think another part of it must be the different surfaces.

It's odd that it hasn't happened in almost 70 years in men's singles, whereas it's happened five times in 53 years in women's singles. It's true that for much of that time, the depth in men's tennis tended to be greater than in women's tennis, but for the last 20 years that hasn't been the case. (Then again, there have been few first-time winners in men's singles in the last 20 years).

When Hoad did it, he was actually the third man to do so in the 1950s: Rosewall won Australian Open and Roland Garros 1953, and Budge Patty won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1950 (the only two he ever won).
 
NAS

NAS

Hall of Fame
helterskelter said:
That is probably part of it, especially with Roland Garros and Wimbledon winners, as the gap before the next slam isn't that long. I think another part of it must be the different surfaces.

It's odd that it hasn't happened in almost 70 years in men's singles, whereas it's happened five times in 53 years in women's singles. It's true that for much of that time, the depth in men's tennis tended to be greater than in women's tennis, but for the last 20 years that hasn't been the case. (Then again, there have been few first-time winners in men's singles in the last 20 years).

When Hoad did it, he was actually the third man to do so in the 1950s: Rosewall won Australian Open and Roland Garros 1953, and Budge Patty won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1950 (the only two he ever won).
Click to expand...
It can happen if somebody good hc player wins his first slam in us open like Med or Novak of 2007 us open.

Fed of 2003 yec could have won Us Open 2003

Rafa winning Wimbledon 2005 was out of question and so is Novak winning RG 2008.

Med got head start with 2021 us open win and no Novak in 2022 AO with 2-0 lead in final
 
T

thrust

Legend
helterskelter said:
An odd stat is that (I think) the last man to win his second slam in the next event after he won his first was Lew Hoad, all the way back in 1956. Hoad won the Australian Open and Roland Garros back-to-back, and actually went on to add Wimbledon for his third straight slam title.

Naomi Osaka did manage it, winning the US Open 2018 and then the Australian Open 2019. Five other women have done it in the open era:

1. Evonne Goolagong Cawley won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1971.
2. Chris Evert won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1974.
3. Hana Mandlikova won Australian Open 1981 (in December) and Roland Garros 1982.
4. Venus Williams won Wimbledon and US Open 2000.
5. Jennifer Capriati won Australian Open and Roland Garros 2001.

Many luminaries of the game failed to do this.

The bookies have Sinner at between 3/1 and 11/2 for Roland Garros, with most of them putting him at 7/2 or 9/2. It seems like it'd be the slam that would be hardest for him to win, although if Bull is injured or not at his best, the field might be quite open.

I'm surprised this isn't talked about more often, as in snooker the "Crucible Curse" (no first-time winner has successfully defended his title at the current venue; that is, since 1977 - although in fact the last time it happened was 1964) is frequently discussed. Changes of surface must be part of it.
Click to expand...
Rosewall did what Hoad did in 53, winning the Australian and French titles.
 
itrium84

itrium84

Hall of Fame
helterskelter said:
An odd stat is that (I think) the last man to win his second slam in the next event after he won his first was Lew Hoad, all the way back in 1956. Hoad won the Australian Open and Roland Garros back-to-back, and actually went on to add Wimbledon for his third straight slam title.

Naomi Osaka did manage it, winning the US Open 2018 and then the Australian Open 2019. Five other women have done it in the open era:

1. Evonne Goolagong Cawley won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1971.
2. Chris Evert won Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1974.
3. Hana Mandlikova won Australian Open 1981 (in December) and Roland Garros 1982.
4. Venus Williams won Wimbledon and US Open 2000.
5. Jennifer Capriati won Australian Open and Roland Garros 2001.

Many luminaries of the game failed to do this.

The bookies have Sinner at between 3/1 and 11/2 for Roland Garros, with most of them putting him at 7/2 or 9/2. It seems like it'd be the slam that would be hardest for him to win, although if Bull is injured or not at his best, the field might be quite open.

I'm surprised this isn't talked about more often, as in snooker the "Crucible Curse" (no first-time winner has successfully defended his title at the current venue; that is, since 1977 - although in fact the last time it happened was 1964) is frequently discussed. Changes of surface must be part of it.
Click to expand...
Can you please translate those rettard units to the civilized ones?
 
MeatTornado

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
The mental challenge must be crazy. Every 1st slam won is the culmination of an entire life's work to that point, whether they're 18 or 28, doesn't really matter. Winning a major is probably the thing they're envisioning every practice session and what motivates them during every workout. It has to be such a relief to finally lift the trophy. Now how do you recapture that drive to maintain your level just a month or two later?

Not to mention some of them probably put even more pressure on themselves in a "now I know I can do it, so there's no excuse to lose" mentality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS
kevin qmto

kevin qmto

Hall of Fame
helterskelter said:
Yes, I don't count it if they skip an event. I count it only if they win the very next slam after the won they won first. (Similarly, I wouldn't count it as defending a title if you miss a year and then return).
Click to expand...
You should count connors then as he was banned from the FO for having the audacity to play world team tennis. He didn’t skip by choice. Then he won Wim.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
kevin qmto said:
You should count connors then as he was banned from the FO for having the audacity to play world team tennis. He didn’t skip by choice. Then he won Wim.
Click to expand...

No, I should not count Connors. I didn't say I don't count it if they skip an event by choice. I said I don't count it if they skip an event, the implication being regardless of the reason. I should have said "miss" rather than "skip," and have edited the post to which you replied to say "miss." The point is that it has to be two consecutive events, not two in a row that a player plays. It is unfair that Connors couldn't play Roland Garros 1974. That unfairness doesn't change the fact that he didn't win the slam immediately after his first slam title, and doesn't make Wimbledon 1974 the first slam after the Australian Open 1974.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
helterskelter said:
No, I should not count Connors. I didn't say I don't count it if they skip an event by choice. I said I don't count it if they skip an event, the implication being regardless of the reason. I should have said "miss" rather than "skip," and have edited the post to which you replied to say "miss." The point is that it has to be two consecutive events, not two in a row that a player plays. It is unfair that Connors couldn't play Roland Garros 1974. That unfairness doesn't change the fact that he didn't win the slam immediately after his first slam title, and doesn't make Wimbledon 1974 the first slam after the Australian Open 1974.
Click to expand...
AO wasn't a real major at the time though, so Connors did kind of win a second major (USO) right after the first one (WB).
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
AnOctorokForDinner said:
AO wasn't a real major at the time though, so Connors did kind of win a second major (USO) right after the first one (WB).
Click to expand...

Fair enough, though if counting that way, we'd have to do a much more fine-grained look over time and consider things like the Masters and perhaps whether pro/amateur majors should count before 1968. (Also, I did say "slam title" rather than "major").
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

money_ball
Worst players ever to win a Grand Slam title, a statistical approach
Replies
44
Views
7K
falkenburg
F
H
Six finals per slam event
Replies
3
Views
331
Wander
Wander
NADALRECORD
Nadal has beaten #1 at every slam title, except for RG 2010 (but he beat Soderling!)
2 3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Russeljones
Russeljones
donquijote
It was 1970 last time a 35 yo won a slam
Replies
3
Views
432
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
Fiji
No male player in the open era won multiple slams at 28
Replies
14
Views
553
Fiji
Fiji
Top