Piece of trivia
- mick1303
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
- Location: Ukraine
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Piece of trivia
I've noticed that there is one achievement that never happened in men's tennis (not in Open Era anyway) but on ladies side it happened quite a bit (6 or 7 times, depending on how to look at it). And this can happen as soon as next Australian Open. What is this achievement and what player can do this?
-
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:00 am
- Location: Smiths Falls
- Has thanked: 1190 times
- Been thanked: 943 times
Re: Piece of trivia
Win their first & second Grand Slam titles at consecutive events, which Daniil Medvedev could do if he wins the Australian Open.
Open Era Women's players
Naomi Osaka - 2018 US Open, 2019 Australian Open
Jennifer Capriati - 2001 Australian Open, 2001 French Open
Venus Williams - 2000 Wimbledon, 2000 US Open
Chris Evert - 1974 French Open, 1874 Wimbledon
Evonne Goolagong - 1971 French Open, 1971 Wimbledon
Open Era Women's players
Naomi Osaka - 2018 US Open, 2019 Australian Open
Jennifer Capriati - 2001 Australian Open, 2001 French Open
Venus Williams - 2000 Wimbledon, 2000 US Open
Chris Evert - 1974 French Open, 1874 Wimbledon
Evonne Goolagong - 1971 French Open, 1971 Wimbledon
-
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:00 am
- Location: Smiths Falls
- Has thanked: 1190 times
- Been thanked: 943 times
- mick1303
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
- Location: Ukraine
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Piece of trivia
Actually, when I was outlining calendar while composing my results database, it irritated me to no end, that calendar was inconsistent with slams and the period from 1977 to 1986 was different from previous and subsequent years. What I ended up doing was arbitrary assigning December AOs to the next year. This way in "my" Grand Slams calendar there is no years with 5 slams and years with 3 slams. And order of the slams is always the same - from Australian to US Open. As a result - I consider that Martina Navratilova has Grand Slam in 1984. Because Australian Open in December of 1984 (which she didn't win) in my view already a part of next season. While Australian Open in December of 1983 (which she won) - is a part of 1984 Slam season.skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:30 amThose December Australian Open tournaments are always snag.
-
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
- Location: India
- Has thanked: 2547 times
- Been thanked: 897 times
Re: Piece of trivia
This is not really trivia but..
Wimbledon appears to be unique in that, at least in this millenium, there have been hardly any one-off winners - every Wimbledon champion, male or female, with the solitary exception of Bartoli and Stich, has either gone on to win another major, or had already won one...it seems to take class to win Wimbledon! The other majors are a bit more forgiving- Delpo and Cilic, Sloane and Penetta at the USO for instance...let us hope Raducanu doesn't add to the list! Too early to write off Sloane, actually...
Wimbledon appears to be unique in that, at least in this millenium, there have been hardly any one-off winners - every Wimbledon champion, male or female, with the solitary exception of Bartoli and Stich, has either gone on to win another major, or had already won one...it seems to take class to win Wimbledon! The other majors are a bit more forgiving- Delpo and Cilic, Sloane and Penetta at the USO for instance...let us hope Raducanu doesn't add to the list! Too early to write off Sloane, actually...
- mick1303
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
- Location: Ukraine
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Piece of trivia
You're probably confusing Stich with Ivanisevic. Stich won his in previous millennium. Also, when a player besides a single slam title has slam final appearances, I do not consider his title run a random fluke. Both Stich and Ivanisevic been in other slam finals.
-
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
- Location: India
- Has thanked: 2547 times
- Been thanked: 897 times
-
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
- Location: India
- Has thanked: 2547 times
- Been thanked: 897 times
- ponchi101
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15163
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
- Location: New Macondo
- Has thanked: 3948 times
- Been thanked: 5819 times
- Contact:
Re: Piece of trivia
Wimbledon is the least affected slam in that aspect. There are truly no champions there that didn't at least reach a slam final somewhere else or, in the case of Bartoli and Goran, another final at WImbledon. The USO is not terribly affected, but the real one that was open to being won by anybody was RG. You have winners there that did not even come close to a slam final anywhere else: Costa, Bruguera, Guga, Majoli, Myskina and Schiavone come to mind.
I gather that there really way more players that feel comfortable on clay than on grass. Personally, the grass season has to be extended. It would be good to see more grass matches, I think.
I gather that there really way more players that feel comfortable on clay than on grass. Personally, the grass season has to be extended. It would be good to see more grass matches, I think.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
-
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
- Location: India
- Has thanked: 2547 times
- Been thanked: 897 times
Re: Piece of trivia
Which really raises the question- why is the FO easier for random players to win? Or the USO even...I have no idea...
Could be, as you say, more players know how to play on clay and hard, so the universe of potential champions is larger..?
Could be, as you say, more players know how to play on clay and hard, so the universe of potential champions is larger..?
- meganfernandez
- Posts: 5203
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:04 pm
- Has thanked: 2640 times
- Been thanked: 1828 times
Re: Piece of trivia
I'd expand it to finalist or even semifinalists and see if the results are similarly skewed or even out among the Slams. Wining the tournament isn't the only measure of success on a surface. There's not much difference between finalists and winners for the purposes of this exercise - one match, and a match against two top players can go either way about any time (with the exception of a super favorable style matchup or someone just having the other person's number psychologically).
- ponchi101
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15163
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
- Location: New Macondo
- Has thanked: 3948 times
- Been thanked: 5819 times
- Contact:
Re: Piece of trivia
I did that analysis in TAT1.0. At RG, you have all those unusual winners, and then you have the Martin Verkerks, Alberto Berasategui's, Mikael Pernfors and Guillermo Coria making the final, never to be seen again. And RG is also the tournament where a lot of teenagers break through: Borg, Wilander, Chang, Rafa, Steffi, Monica, Arantxa, etc, which is a data point AGAINST the famous "you need experience and learn how to play the game" mantra about tennis. At RG, at least during the 70's and 80's, you needed lungs, legs and one good shot to win it.
RG is unique in that aspect, if you exclude the lean years at the Aussie, when the top players did not go.
RG is unique in that aspect, if you exclude the lean years at the Aussie, when the top players did not go.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests