Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:02 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
aloniv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Age: 34
Posts: 829
                     
Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

1. Bjorn Borg won several of his French open titles during a time when one of the best players wasn't allowed to compete.

Borg won his first French Open title in 1974. The other remaining majors that year were all won by Jimmy Connors. Guess who wasn't allowed to compete in the French Open that year since he was a member of the 'wrong' tennis organization? That's right, Jimmy Connors. In fact, Connors didn't play in the French open in any of the five years between 1974 and 1978 in which his year-end ranking was number one, and when he finally returned to Roland Garros in 1979 he managed to reach the semifinals there (which he also achieved on three other occasions). In addition, Connors actually defeated Borg twice in the US Open in the years 1975-6 when it was held on clay. It should also be noted that Borg skipped the French Open in 1977 in order to play for world teamtennis. Can you imagine any top player doing that today?

And yet, whenever the discussion of greatest clay court player is discussed on tennis forums, this fact is conveniently omitted and people say Borg is better than Nadal since 6>4. Can you imagine how many US open titles Nadal would have if it was held on clay at some point during his career?

2. Not all the top players showed up for The Australian Open and the French Open in the past.

As mentioned before, Connors wasn't allowed to play in the French Open for several years. He also only showed up twice for the Australian Open (and achieved strong results by winning once and being the runner up the second time). Borg only played once in the Australian Open.

Thus, one cannot really compare the number of majors won by players from different eras. By winning 16 majors, Federer has become the most accomplished tennis player, however noone can really say how many majors Borg and Connors would have won had they regularly participated in the Australian Open and in Roland Garros (in Connors' case).

3. It was harder until recent years to win majors since you could meet top 30 players in the first two rounds.

Part of the reason why many top players in the past lost in early rounds of majors was due to the fact that there were only 16 seeds and not 32 like today, and thus they could lose to a top 30 player in the first round. Notable examples of this include Richard Krajicek losing in the 1996 US Open (after he won Wimbledon) to then top 30 player Stefan Edberg in the first round, Thomas Muster losing to then top 25 player Tim Henman in the first round of the 1997 US Open, defending champion Boris Becker losing to then top 25 player Carlos Moya in the first round of the 1997 Australian Open and Jonas Bjorkman losing to then top 25 player (and former champion) Thomas Muster in the first round of the 1998 Roland Garros.

Even if the top player does manage to win his match against his top 30 opponent, it might require many hours (and sets) to do so, and thus it might lower his chances of advancing to the latter stages. A fine example of this is then number 1 Pete Sampas' 1996 French Open run, which included a long second round match win over former 2-time winner (and then top 25 player) Sergi Bruguera and a third round win over then top 20 player Todd Martin. Under today's rules he would also meet a lower ranked opponent in his third round.

Nowadays, since players do not face top 30 players in the first two rounds, it is usually easier for them to at least reach the third round and find their rhythm and the tennis form needed to advance to the latter stages of the majors. This is why it is slightly unfair to compare today's players achievements in majors with past players' achievements.
aloniv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:09 PM
Forum Umpire:
Gaston Gaudio
 
Action Jackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 124,507
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Connors never won a red clay title in his career. Connors was never in Borg's class on red clay yes red clay not the green they played in the US. Yes, they play differently.

On Nadal bumping him on the changeover, Rosol said: "It's ok, he wanted to take my concentration; I knew he would try something".


Wilander on Dimitrov - "He has mind set on imitating Federer and yes it looks good. But he has no idea what to do on the court".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filo V. View Post
I definitely would have preferred Gaba winning as he needs the points much more, but Jan would have beaten him anyway. I expect Hajek to destroy Machado, like 6-1 6-2.
Machado wins 6-2 6-1
Action Jackson is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:16 PM
Registered User
 
Taz Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,169
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Disagree about the 2nd point - I hear that mentioned all the time esp. about the Aus Open.

Agree on the 3rd point though - I hated when they changed to 32 seeds as I felt it diminished the importance of being seeded at a slam. I used to love the fact that #1 could potentially meet a top 20 player in the first round.
Taz Warrior is offline  
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:18 PM
Registered User
 
Apophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 1,533
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Especially points 2 and 3 are resp. often and occasionally mentioned. As for 1), Federer would still outperform everyone in the Open Era counting only Wimbledon and US titles.

The Wimbledon 1973 boycott is also important to remember...
Apophis is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:20 PM
Forum Umpire:
Gaston Gaudio
 
Action Jackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 124,507
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

32 seeds is a joke, but it was bought in to protect the top brass and also to prevent the boycott of Wimbledon by some of the best claycourt players like Kuerten, Corretja and Costa who were fucked off by Wimbledon seeding.

On Nadal bumping him on the changeover, Rosol said: "It's ok, he wanted to take my concentration; I knew he would try something".


Wilander on Dimitrov - "He has mind set on imitating Federer and yes it looks good. But he has no idea what to do on the court".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filo V. View Post
I definitely would have preferred Gaba winning as he needs the points much more, but Jan would have beaten him anyway. I expect Hajek to destroy Machado, like 6-1 6-2.
Machado wins 6-2 6-1
Action Jackson is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:39 PM
Registered User
 
Frooty_Bazooty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 31
Posts: 5,304
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

i just dont understand this obsession everyone has about trying to determine the greatest at this, and the greatest at that. why cant we just watch the tennis and enjoy it?

Andy Murray ~ Richard Gasquet ***David Nalbandian*** Rafael Nadal ~ Gilles Simon
Paw Ranking (Race) : ? (?)
Brought PAW to MTF in 2004
Year end no. 1 in 2012

PAW Titles : 9 (WIMBLEDON '12, Washington '11, Acapulco '08, Stockholm '07, Houston '05, Monte Carlo TMS '04, Newport '04, Beijing '04, Moscow '04)
Finalist: 15 (Buenos Aires '12, Stockholm '11, Barcelona '11, Queen's 09, Nottingham '08, Las Vegas '08, Adelaide '08, Tokyo '06, St Poelten '06, Australian Open '05, St Poelten '05, Newport '05, Wimbledon '04, Houston '04, Basel '04)
Frooty_Bazooty is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:44 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 683
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

in Borg's time, only Wimbledon did count. And he won it every year.
We should remember Borg for that and not for things that did not have the meaning.
Boris Franz Ecker is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 12:44 PM
Registered User
 
marifline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,185
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

human nature
marifline is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 04:21 PM
Registered User
 
Ouragan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 34
Posts: 1,223
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Good points. Just can't compare eras. You can't rank greatness when parameters aren't equal. Let's be content with having several GOATs.
Ouragan is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 04:25 PM
Registered User
 
MrChopin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 2,356
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Nice first post. Welcome to a tennis forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viruzzz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Start da Game View Post
Nadal will be fine by australian open......
You're like a living unforced error.
MrChopin is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 07:42 PM
Registered User
 
General Suburbia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 27
Posts: 1,136
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouragan View Post
Just can't compare eras.
I wonder, what constitutes an "era"? When can you start fairly comparing players? If you can't compare Nadal with Borg, can you compare his accomplishments fairly with Guga?

wat.
General Suburbia is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 10:20 PM
Registered User
 
Ouragan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 34
Posts: 1,223
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Suburbia View Post
I wonder, what constitutes an "era"? When can you start fairly comparing players? If you can't compare Nadal with Borg, can you compare his accomplishments fairly with Guga?
I guess you can't define an era, it's got to be left to each and everyone's appreciation.
Ouragan is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 10:29 PM
Registered User
 
CyBorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,166
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Is it to downgrade Borg's accomplishments?

Borg's greatness isn't really best understood by counting his majors. Likewise, for clay, it's far too simplistic to just say that he won six French Opens.

What's most impressive about Borg are his percentages. Do your homework and look at his winning percentages on red clay throughout his career. They're oustanding and he faced all of the best players - whether at RG or in other events.

And, yes, Connors was not very good on red clay. Comparable to Becker. Not bad, but never won a title. Har-tru was a different material.

'This isn't right. This isn't even wrong'.
- Wolfgang Pauli upon seeing a paper by a young physicist

'A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.'
- Bertrand Russell
CyBorg is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 10:30 PM
Registered User
 
CyBorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,166
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Franz Ecker View Post
in Borg's time, only Wimbledon did count. And he won it every year.
We should remember Borg for that and not for things that did not have the meaning.
Wimbledon counted. And the US Open counted. And the French Open counted. And Dallas WCT counted. And the masters counted.

Above all others.

'This isn't right. This isn't even wrong'.
- Wolfgang Pauli upon seeing a paper by a young physicist

'A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.'
- Bertrand Russell
CyBorg is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old 06-06-2010, 10:32 PM
.
 
rocketassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 29,027
                     
Re: Facts that are hardly ever mentioned in tennis forums

This stat is hilarious. Borg would have roasted Connors alive any year he won RG.

unbiased analyst extraordinaire
rocketassist is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome