TSR Tennis Society III

Original post by ubi1

Why Wimby an not any other slams?

There's something really appealing about Wimbledon. The tradition, the history, the lush, pleasant green lawns, the fact that it is pretty much the home of tennis (the oldest Grand Slam). The atmosphere is brilliant (no loud music like at the US, and respectful crowds unlike at RG). For me, without a doubt it's my favourite to watch.

Reply 3182

Original post by TopHat

I was copy-pasting! D: Damnit. I meant 2010.

Do you have the figures for Aussie Open - French Open double?

Reply 3183

Slumpy

16

Original post by TopHat

I was copy-pasting! D: Damnit. I meant 2010.

My edit suggested as much :p:

Original post by Krish4791

There's something really appealing about Wimbledon. The tradition, the history, the lush, pleasant green lawns, the fact that it is pretty much the home of tennis (the oldest Grand Slam). The atmosphere is brilliant (no loud music like at the US, and respectful crowds unlike at RG). For me, without a doubt it's my favourite to watch.

Also the queue is the most hilariously middle class thing in the world.

Reply 3184

Original post by Krish4791

Do you have the figures for Aussie Open - French Open double?

Jim Courier in 1992, Mats Wilander in 1988, Rod Laver in 1969.

So actually probably the hardest.

EDIT: In fact, whenever anyone has had a 3 slam year and is looking for a CYGS, it's always been either the French or the Australian which has eluded them.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3185

Rakas21

21

Murray - In reply to the earlier discussion of his peak i would say that it started in 2011 since he has not done worse than a QF since and reached the final in 4 of the 9 slams. With that said i certainly view it as the Djokovic era because not only does Djokovic have the higher percentage of finals but he does not have a QF (to call Murray dominant when he was toppled at a QF would still mean to call Federer dominant now) so while Murray is good i think he's mainly capitalized on no Nadal for the later part and a decaying Federer (who still beat him last year). In terms of seasons however none of the above factors have really changed (we are yet to see vintage Nadal outside clay) and so he could well have a peak period starting now and through 2014 (and possibly 2015 if Del Potro does not move).

In terms of surfaces i personally would have thought the FO to AO or USO would be harder than Wimbledon hence why Murray and Djokovic do not inspire on clay.

The best grand slam for me by far is Wimbledon both because it's a premier rare event (short grass season) and because when it's 10pm at night and the roof is closed over center court there is no atmosphere like it.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3186

Del Potro won't improve until his fitness gets better. He just can't beat two greats over best of five sets unless he's lucky enough for both to go AWOL in a row - which is very unlikely.

Reply 3187

Original post by TopHat

Del Potro won't improve until his fitness gets better. He just can't beat two greats over best of five sets unless he's lucky enough for both to go AWOL in a row - which is very unlikely.

His best shot at a 2nd GS is at the US Open quite clearly. I suppose it could happen (like in 2009) and if in 2015 his only two real competitors are Djoko and Murray, it is conceivable.

Reply 3188

TheMagicRat

15

Original post by TopHat

Jim Courier in 1992, Mats Wilander in 1988, Rod Laver in 1969.

So actually probably the hardest.

EDIT: In fact, whenever anyone has had a 3 slam year and is looking for a CYGS, it's always been either the French or the Australian which has eluded them.

It's worth noting that back in the day not all the big names played in the Australian Open.

Reply 3189

Original post by TheMagicRat

It's worth noting that back in the day not all the big names played in the Australian Open.

This is quite true, but it's status as CYGS-denier has continued into the modern era - Nadal in 2011.

Reply 3190

Original post by TheMagicRat

It's worth noting that back in the day not all the big names played in the Australian Open.

Why not?

Reply 3191

Rakas21

21

Yeah, there's a stupid statistic like he's never won a 5 set match or something but then again most of the time he either just rips that forehand so hard you can't reply or meets somebody that moves too quickly for him. Personally i could actually see him winning a Wimbledon in the future, his serve is fantastic, Nadal and Federer have recently struggled against him a bit and we saw at the likes of Indian Wells and the US Open 09 that when he turns it on players really have no answer. Unfortunately as Tophat says he needs more stamina and also he seems to have Murray's old mental issues.

Still at any rate he's almost certainly the world number 1 after Djokovic and Murray.

Reply 3192

TheMagicRat

15

Original post by Krish4791

Why not?

Distance and costs, I assume. If you look at players like Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Nastase and a few others they played in one or two Australian Opens. In fact, one of two years Connors played it, he won it but he didn't play the French Open that year :angry:

Reply 3193

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by TopHat

This is quite true, but it's status as CYGS-denier has continued into the modern era - Nadal in 2011.

2010 surely?

Reply 3194

Slumpy

16

Original post by Rakas21

Yeah, there's a stupid statistic like he's never won a 5 set match or something but then again most of the time he either just rips that forehand so hard you can't reply or meets somebody that moves too quickly for him. Personally i could actually see him winning a Wimbledon in the future, his serve is fantastic, Nadal and Federer have recently struggled against him a bit and we saw at the likes of Indian Wells and the US Open 09 that when he turns it on players really have no answer. Unfortunately as Tophat says he needs more stamina and also he seems to have Murray's old mental issues.

Still at any rate he's almost certainly the world number 1 after Djokovic and Murray.

Delpo? Won the final of USO 2009 in 5 sets off the top of my head.

Reply 3195

Original post by Rakas21

Yeah, there's a stupid statistic like he's never won a 5 set match or something but then again most of the time he either just rips that forehand so hard you can't reply or meets somebody that moves too quickly for him. Personally i could actually see him winning a Wimbledon in the future, his serve is fantastic, Nadal and Federer have recently struggled against him a bit and we saw at the likes of Indian Wells and the US Open 09 that when he turns it on players really have no answer. Unfortunately as Tophat says he needs more stamina and also he seems to have Murray's old mental issues.

Still at any rate he's almost certainly the world number 1 after Djokovic and Murray.

He's won 1 five set match I think - and that happened to be the US Open Final

EDIT: Actually he also beat Gilles Simon in 5 sets at US Open 2008

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3196

Rakas21

21

Original post by Slumpy

Delpo? Won the final of USO 2009 in 5 sets off the top of my head.

Your correct, the AO commentators must have been wrong.

Reply 3197

Original post by Chief Wiggum

2010 surely?

Well, depends on how you want to look at it. He had the 2010 Wimbledon/French/US, so if he'd won the Australian in 2010 or 2011 he'd have had the necessary run of 4. Either way, it was the Australian he failed to capture.

Reply 3198

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by TopHat

Well, depends on how you want to look at it. He had the 2010 Wimbledon/French/US, so if he'd won the Australian in 2010 or 2011 he'd have had the necessary run of 4. Either way, it was the Australian he failed to capture.

You said CYGS, so it has to be 2010. :p:

Reply 3199