Does anyone find it very ironic... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does anyone find it very ironic...

lleytonfan!
08-24-2008, 01:13 PM
that there is no player (at least I think) that has won 3/4 slams, and is eluded by the Australian Open? It is the youngest slam, and many players skipped for long periods of time.

Horatio Caine
08-24-2008, 01:15 PM
I'm sorry but I don't understand. :tape:

Chiseller
08-24-2008, 01:47 PM
Yes, very much.

Iván
08-24-2008, 01:48 PM
:timebomb:

Voo de Mar
08-24-2008, 01:51 PM
:scratch:

Mateya
08-24-2008, 02:06 PM
:spit:


Who can win USopen, can also win Australian open, because they are both played on hardcourts. For instance Safin.
That's why Roland Garros stands out in case of Federer and Sampras. :) And not Australian open.

trixtah
08-24-2008, 02:09 PM
How is this ironic?

Bobby
08-24-2008, 02:11 PM
I'm having problems here. Don't understand.

finishingmove
08-24-2008, 02:14 PM
the question is pretty clear.

what are u people inhaling?

trixtah
08-24-2008, 02:19 PM
the question is pretty clear.

what are u people inhaling?

I'm ODing on common sense!

jonathancrane
08-24-2008, 03:49 PM
Manuel Santana won the other three slams
Not ironic, but a bit strange is

Morgan Z
08-24-2008, 03:56 PM
Question seems pretty clear to me!


But as Matyaz says, it's not *that* ironic as the USO and AO are both on hardcourts. Plus they are between clay and grass in terms of speed, so a sufficiently great player should have the ability to pull off Slams on hard if they can win on clay and grass.

Black Adam
08-24-2008, 06:42 PM
Strange or weird are the words you are looking for. You might need to check up the definition of irony. Cheers mate .

Acer
08-24-2008, 07:05 PM
This is a bit off topic but I always wonder how some players, Lendl for instance, could win the AO on grass but not Wimbledon.

jonathancrane
08-24-2008, 07:13 PM
This is a bit off topic but I always wonder how some players, Lendl for instance, could win the AO on grass but not Wimbledon.

Lendl won it twice, but on rebound ace (1989-90). It was Wilander who won it on grass (twice), and one more time on Rebound ace (88)

nateyang
08-24-2008, 07:21 PM
Yeah, Black Adam is right. Strange, weird may be, but definitely not ironic.

Acer
08-24-2008, 07:24 PM
Lendl won it twice, but on rebound ace (1989-90). It was Wilander who won it on grass (twice), and one more time on Rebound ace (88)

Oh, right! Well Wilander is an example then, won twice on grass but couldn't get past the QF in Wimbledon.

~*BGT*~
08-24-2008, 07:40 PM
Not at all ironic. Makes sense actually. :)

FiBeR
08-24-2008, 08:16 PM
This is a bit off topic but I always wonder how some players, Lendl for instance, could win the AO on grass but not Wimbledon.

vilas too

jonathancrane
08-24-2008, 08:41 PM
In Australia the conditions were different. The extremely hot makes the ball bounces higher. In Wimbledon (before they change the grass) the ball slips more and the bounces were lower, so it was almost impossible to win it without S&V or coming constantly to the net. That explains why clay courters rarely succeed at Wimbledon.

Garson007
08-24-2008, 09:23 PM
It would have been ironic if it was the case since it's the youngest and least contested at Grand Slam. Can you people read?

lavar78
08-24-2008, 11:02 PM
It would have been ironic if it was the case since it's the youngest and least contested at Grand Slam. Can you people read?

Agreed. It's the opposite of what is expected, which makes it ironic by definition.

Nev
08-24-2008, 11:25 PM
But it's not ironic the way he proposed it.
As someone said, it makes sense, because of a variety of factors.

finishingmove
08-24-2008, 11:45 PM
whats with the mass confusion? it IS ironic (the way he put it). and its a valid question.

and im curious now...

has anyone won 3/4 , being short of the US Open?

jonathancrane
08-25-2008, 07:23 AM
whats with the mass confusion? it IS ironic (the way he put it). and its a valid question.

and im curious now...

has anyone won 3/4 , being short of the US Open?

Lew Hoad, Jean Borotra