Would Budge have won the Grand Slam in 1938 if . . . ?

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
If there had been Open Tennis back then?

Budge (and everyone) would have had to face the like of Vines, Perry, Vinnie Richards, Nüsslein, Koželuh, Frank Hunter, Bruce Barnes, Joe Whalen, Bunny Austin, Henner Henkel, von Cramm, and even an aging Tilden.

I contend that he would not.

(I think Vines, Perry, Nüsslein, or Koželuh would give him too much to handle to win all four.)
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If there had been Open Tennis back then?

Budge (and everyone) would have had to face the like of Vines, Perry, Vinnie Richards, Nüsslein, Koželuh, Frank Hunter, Bruce Barnes, Joe Whalen, Bunny Austin, Henner Henkel, von Cramm, and even an aging Tilden.

I contend that he would not.

(I think Vines, Perry, Nüsslein, or Koželuh would give him too much to handle to win all four.)
hoodjem, I agree. But I should make a few remarks. Budge did face Austin and Henkel. And Richards, Kozeluh, Hunter, Barnes and Whalen were then too weak to threaten Budge. Tilden was stronger in 1938 than Kozeluh.
 

krosero

Legend
If tennis had been open (and Hitler did not imprison von Cramm), I think it's virtually 100% certain that Budge would not have won his GS.

On second thought, I'd say 100.25% certain (you can see I've studied this statistically lol).

But I don't think anyone in history could have won a GS under those circumstances. Vines, Perry, Nusslein, von Cramm would have been a tough lineup for anyone, but what really made this so tough is that they were all at their peaks or close to it. Vines, I think, played his best tennis ever in '38. Perry was still only 28-29, possibly just beginning to decline. Von Cramm was still improving; Nusslein was not far from his peak. The two Germans by themselves would have put a lockdown on the French, since they were probably the two best claycourters of the decade.

imo Laver would not have won a GS with all those men present, but since it's difficult to compare eras I think we could look at it another way. Budge would have faced 4 great rivals at peak or near peak. That would be like Laver facing his 4 greatest rivals, at their peak: early 60s Rosewall, late 50s Gonzalez, Hoad, maybe '71 Newcombe.

Or Gonzalez facing peak Kramer, peak Sedgman, etc.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, all at their peaks, and so on.

I don't think such a GS could be done.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If tennis had been open (and Hitler did not imprison von Cramm), I think it's virtually 100% certain that Budge would not have won his GS.

On second thought, I'd say 100.25% certain (you can see I've studied this statistically lol).

But I don't think anyone in history could have won a GS under those circumstances. Vines, Perry, Nusslein, von Cramm would have been a tough lineup for anyone, but what really made this so tough is that they were all at their peaks or close to it. Vines, I think, played his best tennis ever in '38. Perry was still only 28-29, possibly just beginning to decline. Von Cramm was still improving; Nusslein was not far from his peak. The two Germans by themselves would have put a lockdown on the French, since they were probably the two best claycourters of the decade.

imo Laver would not have won a GS with all those men present, but since it's difficult to compare eras I think we could look at it another way. Budge would have faced 4 great rivals at peak or near peak. That would be like Laver facing his 4 greatest rivals, at their peak: early 60s Rosewall, late 50s Gonzalez, Hoad, maybe '71 Newcombe.

Or Gonzalez facing peak Kramer, peak Sedgman, etc.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, all at their peaks, and so on.

I don't think such a GS could be done.
krosero, Interesting thoughts. Hope you will not be critisized for your speculation about what WOULD or COULD be...
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
If tennis had been open (and Hitler did not imprison von Cramm), I think it's virtually 100% certain that Budge would not have won his GS.

On second thought, I'd say 100.25% certain (you can see I've studied this statistically lol).

But I don't think anyone in history could have won a GS under those circumstances. Vines, Perry, Nusslein, von Cramm would have been a tough lineup for anyone, but what really made this so tough is that they were all at their peaks or close to it. Vines, I think, played his best tennis ever in '38. Perry was still only 28-29, possibly just beginning to decline. Von Cramm was still improving; Nusslein was not far from his peak. The two Germans by themselves would have put a lockdown on the French, since they were probably the two best claycourters of the decade.

imo Laver would not have won a GS with all those men present, but since it's difficult to compare eras I think we could look at it another way. Budge would have faced 4 great rivals at peak or near peak. That would be like Laver facing his 4 greatest rivals, at their peak: early 60s Rosewall, late 50s Gonzalez, Hoad, maybe '71 Newcombe.

Or Gonzalez facing peak Kramer, peak Sedgman, etc.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, all at their peaks, and so on.

I don't think such a GS could be done.
Off topic , are you the same who have uploaded some great matches on YouTube, you both share the same name.
 

KG1965

Legend
If there had been Open Tennis back then?

Budge (and everyone) would have had to face the like of Vines, Perry, Vinnie Richards, Nüsslein, Koželuh, Frank Hunter, Bruce Barnes, Joe Whalen, Bunny Austin, Henner Henkel, von Cramm, and even an aging Tilden.

I contend that he would not.

(I think Vines, Perry, Nüsslein, or Koželuh would give him too much to handle to win all four.)
0%
ZERO.

How Laver in 1962 .
Easy Hoodjem.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
If tennis had been open (and Hitler did not imprison von Cramm), I think it's virtually 100% certain that Budge would not have won his GS.

On second thought, I'd say 100.25% certain (you can see I've studied this statistically lol).

But I don't think anyone in history could have won a GS under those circumstances. Vines, Perry, Nusslein, von Cramm would have been a tough lineup for anyone, but what really made this so tough is that they were all at their peaks or close to it. Vines, I think, played his best tennis ever in '38. Perry was still only 28-29, possibly just beginning to decline. Von Cramm was still improving; Nusslein was not far from his peak. The two Germans by themselves would have put a lockdown on the French, since they were probably the two best claycourters of the decade.

imo Laver would not have won a GS with all those men present, but since it's difficult to compare eras I think we could look at it another way. Budge would have faced 4 great rivals at peak or near peak. That would be like Laver facing his 4 greatest rivals, at their peak: early 60s Rosewall, late 50s Gonzalez, Hoad, maybe '71 Newcombe.

Or Gonzalez facing peak Kramer, peak Sedgman, etc.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, all at their peaks, and so on.

I don't think such a GS could be done.
Possible but in deference to Laver he did win the 1971 Champions Classic when he was two years older facing peak Newk, Roche, Ashe, a top notch Rosewall, peak Okker, Ralston, decent Emerson so who knows. However I don't think any of them was a Vines on a fast court in the late 1930s. I suppose I would agree with that assessment that Budge or perhaps anyone wouldn't win the Grand Slam in 1938. However to win a Grand Slam in any year would be very tough against the best competition.

But to answer the question I would tend to think Budge wouldn't win the Grand Slam in 1938. Vines and Perry would be monsters on grass. Nusslein and von Cramm would be super tough on clay as you said. Even Bitsy Grant would be tough on clay and he has beaten Budge on that surface.

I think the best shot for a Grand Slam would be Gonzalez in the mid 1950s when he didn't have to face peak Kramer but Sedgman, Segura would be tough also.

Actually now that I think of it perhaps the best chance for a Grand Slam could be this year 2016 with Djokovic. Now maybe Novak wouldn't win a major but right now he towers over the field. He's probably the best player on every surface.
 
Last edited:
7

70sHollywood

Guest
No.

I don't think Gonzalez would have won it. I don't fancy him on clay, especially with Segura, Trabert, Drobny and Rosewall around. Sedgman, Hoad and Kramer on the fast stuff too (and they were no mugs on dirt either, just as the clay guys were class acts elsewhere - seriously, the 50's competition was brutal).

Excluding Tilden, I would give the best shot to Kramer, in 48 or 49.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
No.

I don't think Gonzalez would have won it. I don't fancy him on clay, especially with Segura, Trabert, Drobny and Rosewall around. Sedgman, Hoad and Kramer on the fast stuff too (and they were no mugs on dirt either, just as the clay guys were class acts elsewhere - seriously, the 50's competition was brutal).

Excluding Tilden, I would give the best shot to Kramer, in 48 or 49.
Kramer at his best was great on all surfaces so yes he could have.
 

krosero

Legend
Possible but in deference to Laver he did win the 1971 Champions Classic when he was two years older facing peak Newk, Roche, Ashe, a top notch Rosewall, peak Okker, Ralston, decent Emerson so who knows. However I don't think any of them was a Vines on a fast court in the late 1930s. I suppose I would agree with that assessment that Budge or perhaps anyone wouldn't win the Grand Slam in 1938. However to win a Grand Slam in any year would be very tough against the best competition.

But to answer the question I would tend to think Budge wouldn't win the Grand Slam in 1938. Vines and Perry would be monsters on grass. Nusslein and von Cramm would be super tough on clay as you said. Even Bitsy Grant would be tough on clay and he has beaten Budge on that surface.

I think the best shot for a Grand Slam would be Gonzalez in the mid 1950s when he didn't have to face peak Kramer but Sedgman, Segura would be tough also.

Actually now that I think of it perhaps the best chance for a Grand Slam could be this year 2016 with Djokovic. Now maybe Novak wouldn't win a major but right now he towers over the field. He's probably the best player on every surface.
I'd forgotten all about Grant but he's got a great record on clay. Not a single loss on clay in '35: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Grant

He beat all the amateur greats of the 30s except Perry. His consistency probably didn't bother Perry, and Grant liked to out-last players but that was impossible with Perry too.

I checked once and if I did it correctly, Grant never played at Roland Garros.

If everyone played all the Slams, I'm sure Grant would do damage at the French. Probably not to Perry; and von Cramm and Nusslein were probably too good on clay to lose to him. But Budge and Vines could have had a lot of trouble with him (and historically they did).

Played tennis this morning. My opponent ran me around and punished me.
 

krosero

Legend
1938 with everyone playing everywhere

Wimb/USO -- between Budge and Vines (Perry a big threat in England too)
French -- between von Cramm and Nusslein (Grant playing spoiler)
AO -- anyone's guess

Australia's heat might have come into play, in which case Perry and von Cramm would do well with their great stamina.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I'd forgotten all about Grant but he's got a great record on clay. Not a single loss on clay in '35: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Grant

He beat all the amateur greats of the 30s except Perry. His consistency probably didn't bother Perry, and Grant liked to out-last players but that was impossible with Perry too.

I checked once and if I did it correctly, Grant never played at Roland Garros.

If everyone played all the Slams, I'm sure Grant would do damage at the French. Probably not to Perry; and von Cramm and Nusslein were probably too good on clay to lose to him. But Budge and Vines could have had a lot of trouble with him (and historically they did).

Played tennis this morning. My opponent ran me around and punished me.
Well Budge and Vines were power players and I wonder if Grant's lesser pace would have bothered them. Budge had some topspin but he was basically a semiflat hitter so the margin of error wasn't that high for him. Vines as we know hit the ball perhaps harder than Budge and had even flatter strokes with less margin.

Perry was well known for almost taking the ball on the half volley on his forehand and approaching the net. I wonder if Grant would be able to get enough pace to pass Perry regularly.
 

krosero

Legend
It's worth considering Davis Cup in 38. The players who had a full Davis Cup season's duties might have less to give in the majors and may even have skipped some.

Budge, I think, said he decided to travel to Australia and go for the Grand Slam in 38 only because he knew he only had to defend the Cup in the Challenge Round. Even then the USLTA essentially forced him to take a full sabbatical from February to May just because they wanted him to stay fresh.

Vines had traveled to Australia in the winter of 1932-33 with a full Davis Cup season still ahead of him, and many felt it had been an unwise decision.

Playing all the events like today is a fun exercise to think about but it really wasn't done very often back then.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Vines himself thought that he made a poor decision to go to Australia.

It wasn't done often because the inconvenience was extremely high. They would have to travel by boat for weeks at a time.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
To get a better idea of Budge's play that year, here is the Victoria final from 1938, Budge defeating Bromwich.

This final apparently was the Victorian championship played in Melbourne about December 20-25 1937. Bromwich lost in a close match, 8-6, 6-3, 9-7.
 
Top