August

06-18-2012, 05:27 PM

Even if Nole didn't achieve NCYGS ar Roland Garros, we saw a Non-Calendar Year Djodal Slam, it was the 4th consecutive Djodal GS final. And actually, Rafa or Nole have won every slam since RG '10. Also, since USO '10, the runner-up has been only twice someone else than Rafa or Nole. And, since Wimbledon '10 we've always had Federer or Murray in semis with both players missing semis only twice. That's why I went through all GS results from 1990 to see if there has recently been a situation like this.

Here's a diagram of development of the number of champions, finalists, semifinalists, and quarterfinalists in four consecutive slams since USO '90:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7528/final8diagram.jpg

And here's the same in table:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8042/final8table.jpg

So, we can see the current number of finalists (2) would be even low for the number of champions. Also the number of semifinalists (6) would be more typical for finalists. And, since 1990, the only case when each GS finalist has had a title was after Wimbledon '93, and actually only three of them had been runner-ups. Also the number of quarterfinalists has been decreasing in the last two years to lowest since AO '93.

So, what do you think, why has the number of final eight players decreased? One could say the top players are now more consistent. But, I think surface homogenization and possibly the development of racquet technology have made all slams more similar. We don't have anymore players like Bruguera whose only success comes from one slam.

Also, would you like to see more real GS title contenders? I'd like. Actually, I think the current situation with Djodal domination and Federer and/or Murray in semis is boring. Homogenized surfaces wouldn't be so bad thing if we had mole slam winners. Unfortunately homogenized surfaces lead to certain players domination and unfortunately ATP/ITF seems to want that.

Here's a diagram of development of the number of champions, finalists, semifinalists, and quarterfinalists in four consecutive slams since USO '90:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7528/final8diagram.jpg

And here's the same in table:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8042/final8table.jpg

So, we can see the current number of finalists (2) would be even low for the number of champions. Also the number of semifinalists (6) would be more typical for finalists. And, since 1990, the only case when each GS finalist has had a title was after Wimbledon '93, and actually only three of them had been runner-ups. Also the number of quarterfinalists has been decreasing in the last two years to lowest since AO '93.

So, what do you think, why has the number of final eight players decreased? One could say the top players are now more consistent. But, I think surface homogenization and possibly the development of racquet technology have made all slams more similar. We don't have anymore players like Bruguera whose only success comes from one slam.

Also, would you like to see more real GS title contenders? I'd like. Actually, I think the current situation with Djodal domination and Federer and/or Murray in semis is boring. Homogenized surfaces wouldn't be so bad thing if we had mole slam winners. Unfortunately homogenized surfaces lead to certain players domination and unfortunately ATP/ITF seems to want that.