Piece of trivia
-
- 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
Re: Piece of trivia
One more unique thing about W is that there are hardly any tournaments to get practice..so to win W you need class? Just good form and momentum will not do..?
- 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
very hard to say. Pete won it seven times with almost no preparation ever, Borg won it five going almost straight from RG. Roger has been the opposite, winning Halle almost always, Serena has done it with no preparation.
It is an odd tournament, by now.
It is an odd tournament, by now.
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
Also, there aren't enough grass tournaments for anyone to make a living as a grass court specialist..a clay court specialist is viable, and might even go to the finals or win RG..
-
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
- Location: India
- Has thanked: 2547 times
- Been thanked: 897 times
Re: Piece of trivia
True but it doesn't really explain why nobody other than great players seems to be able to win W..
- 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
Isn't that sort of circular? You win W, you are a great player. You are a great player, you win W.
In the open era, and even counting Jan Kodes (who won a RG too), there have been only 4 winners at Wimbledon that won no other slam: Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic. They all made other slam finals, and only Goran made them only at W. At the USO, you now have: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Delpo and Roddick. All have made other finals, with Delpo making it twice to the USO.
W and the USO are very similar in that aspect. Only the best make it, but that is, again, circular. It is also very similar for the women. At W, only three one time winners that never won anywhere else: Martinez, Novotna and Bartoli. At the USO right now we have a few one timers: Sabatini, Stosur, Penetta, Stephens, Bianca and Raducanu, and the last two are far from over.
Plus Wimbledon cultivates that image. I wonder if they would like more grass court tournaments before theirs. They would not be competition, but they like being "exclusive".
In the open era, and even counting Jan Kodes (who won a RG too), there have been only 4 winners at Wimbledon that won no other slam: Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic. They all made other slam finals, and only Goran made them only at W. At the USO, you now have: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Delpo and Roddick. All have made other finals, with Delpo making it twice to the USO.
W and the USO are very similar in that aspect. Only the best make it, but that is, again, circular. It is also very similar for the women. At W, only three one time winners that never won anywhere else: Martinez, Novotna and Bartoli. At the USO right now we have a few one timers: Sabatini, Stosur, Penetta, Stephens, Bianca and Raducanu, and the last two are far from over.
Plus Wimbledon cultivates that image. I wonder if they would like more grass court tournaments before theirs. They would not be competition, but they like being "exclusive".
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
No, what I am saying is - if you win multiple majors, you are a great player..that is not circular, it is an independent definition.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:12 pm Isn't that sort of circular? You win W, you are a great player. You are a great player, you win W.
In the open era, and even counting Jan Kodes (who won a RG too), there have been only 4 winners at Wimbledon that won no other slam: Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic. They all made other slam finals, and only Goran made them only at W. At the USO, you now have: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Delpo and Roddick. All have made other finals, with Delpo making it twice to the USO.
W and the USO are very similar in that aspect. Only the best make it, but that is, again, circular. It is also very similar for the women. At W, only three one time winners that never won anywhere else: Martinez, Novotna and Bartoli. At the USO right now we have a few one timers: Sabatini, Stosur, Penetta, Stephens, Bianca and Raducanu, and the last two are far from over.
Plus Wimbledon cultivates that image. I wonder if they would like more grass court tournaments before theirs. They would not be competition, but they like being "exclusive".
- 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
I have a theory that the factor affecting "random" winners is the interval between Slams. Wimbledon has so much less of them because of the short turnaround. Only elite players can handle this.
- 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
Yes, but not my preferred idea. I say very few players really know how to play on grass, while a lot are perfectly able to play on clay.
To me, for ages, the idea was that big servers would always win W. The list does not support that: Connors, Borg, Agassi, Rafa and Novak are not big servers (but they were smart servers). The one ability that ALL W winners have is their foot work. They are very good but also light on their feet. Rafter could not win it because he was very fast and had great footwork, but his strides where "heavy" meaning, he would plant too hard. His split coming to the net was superb on a hard court, but in grass, it would dig him in.
To me, for ages, the idea was that big servers would always win W. The list does not support that: Connors, Borg, Agassi, Rafa and Novak are not big servers (but they were smart servers). The one ability that ALL W winners have is their foot work. They are very good but also light on their feet. Rafter could not win it because he was very fast and had great footwork, but his strides where "heavy" meaning, he would plant too hard. His split coming to the net was superb on a hard court, but in grass, it would dig him in.
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
Yes, the way you have to move on grass is very different from how you have to move anywhere else.. but it doesn't really explain, I think, why some random player who is a good grass mover cannot win this and never win anything else..in fact if this theory is correct, we should have even more players who can win one Wimbledon and nothing else? I am thinking Rybarikova, for instance..she floated like a wraith on the grass...ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:36 pm Yes, but not my preferred idea. I say very few players really know how to play on grass, while a lot are perfectly able to play on clay.
To me, for ages, the idea was that big servers would always win W. The list does not support that: Connors, Borg, Agassi, Rafa and Novak are not big servers (but they were smart servers). The one ability that ALL W winners have is their foot work. They are very good but also light on their feet. Rafter could not win it because he was very fast and had great footwork, but his strides where "heavy" meaning, he would plant too hard. His split coming to the net was superb on a hard court, but in grass, it would dig him in.
- 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
These things rarely depend on one single reason but rather on the combination of them. Rarity of grass, short turnaround, maybe something else that we can't pinpoint at the moment. Movement is extremely important but it can't solve all problems if there are glaring deficiencies in the game (comparing to top players). On the other hand, the relative deficiency in movement can be compensated. Becker was good mover but far from archetypal grass mover (how many of his "flights" were the results of being out of position?). Davenport was below average mover. So were Sharapova and Kvitova.
-
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:01 am
- Location: New Orleans
- Has thanked: 67 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
Re: Piece of trivia
Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 and never won another slam or even reached a slam final before or after.
- 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
He also had at least 8 major injuries in his career. He makes Phillipousis or Delpo look like the stalwarts of endurance.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests