So, does the US Open produce the best champions? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

So, does the US Open produce the best champions?

Tennis Fool
06-15-2005, 08:04 PM
Again, a question raised in the W's mailbag...

Maybe this question would be better posed in August, but is it me or does the U.S. Open crown the best champions? Unlike Wimbledon, Roland Garros and the Australian Open, there are few U.S. Open winners who have only won one Major. Roddick and Svetlana Kuznetsova are the only ones who come to mind from the past decade, and they are still young.
-- Jason Englisbe, Simpsonville, S.C.

Yeah, I agree. I think the democratic surface is the key. The slow-courters can still play their game. The hard-court types -- Roddick, Pete Sampras -- can bang away and get plenty of pop on their serve. The serve-and-volley types -- Stefan Edberg, Patrick Rafter -- can even do their thing. So why (at least until recently) have we seen fluky champs at the Australian, another event played on a hard surface? I think it's partially due to the scheduling. So early in the season, a lot of players have yet to find grooves.

Also, if Roddick and Kuznetsova are your "one-hit wonder" champs, it's sort of akin to by faint damnation. Roddick finished 2003 -- the year he won the U.S. Open -- ranked No. 1, won multiple TMS events and reached the Wimbledon finals the next year. Kuznetsova ain't exactly chopped liver. (But so long as you brought her up, how painful must the second week of Roland Garros have been for her to watch?)

DanEd
06-15-2005, 08:11 PM
i do not think so

JennyS
06-15-2005, 08:54 PM
If you look at the winners at the Australian Open, since the tournament moved to Melbourne and switched to rebound ace there have only been two one-time Slam winners on the men's side (Petr Korda and Thomas J.). Most of the big names (Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Becker, Lendl, Wilander, etc) have all won the Aussie.

KoOlMaNsEaN
06-15-2005, 08:57 PM
wimbledon has the greatest champions and the greatest moments

oneandonlyhsn
06-15-2005, 09:33 PM
Wimby produces good champions, the rest have too many 1 slam wonders.

Melvins
06-15-2005, 09:43 PM
Wimby produces good champions, the rest have too many 1 slam wonders.

Wimbledon have too many 1 slam wonder.

Hardcourts are the democratic surface, no doubt.

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:08 AM
Wimbledon have too many 1 slam wonder.

Explain...I'm dying for the answer :rolleyes:

federerfan7465
06-16-2005, 12:54 AM
Michael Stich, Richard Kraijeck, Goran,

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 01:02 AM
Michael Stich, Richard Kraijeck, Goran,
those are too few to count as "too many 1-slam wonders"
If anyone has hard facts about which slam has produced the most 1-slam wonders, I'd appreciate reading about it

I would guess its the French Open

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:59 AM
Wimbledon have too many 1 slam wonder.

Hardcourts are the democratic surface, no doubt.
that's Wrong

In the Open era (1968 on), altogether 22 players have won only one slam and no slam again

Of these, ten (which is 45%) have come at the French Open, and that is more than at any other slam

EDIT: what do you mean to imply by hardcourts being democratic? fewest 1-slam wonders?

Clara Bow
06-16-2005, 03:03 AM
So much for "democratic" hard courts

I think that what Melvins intended was that hardcourts tend to be more well rounded and have people who can also succeed on other courts because it's not to fast or too slow.

I could be wrong though

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:11 AM
I think that what Melvins intended was that hardcourts tend to be more well rounded and have people who can also succeed on other courts because it's not to fast or too slow.

I could be wrong though

I took another look, you could be right
nevertheless Wimbledon is not the factory of the 1-slam wonders

Chloe le Bopper
06-16-2005, 03:35 AM
I can think of more "one slam wonders" at Wimbledon off the top of my head than the USO. :shrug:

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 04:01 AM
this is a vague list, because it includes current players and of course they may become multi-slam wonders

but as of today, the one-slam list makes USO the least likely followed by W, FO as the most likely and aussie as the second most likely:

Albert Costa 2002 French Open
Juan Carlos Ferrero 2003 French Open
Gaston Gaudio 2004 French Open
Carlos Moya 1998 French Open
Michael Chang 1989 French Open
Andres Gimeno 1972 French Open
Andres Gomez 1990 French Open
Thomas Muster 1995 French Open
Yannick Noah 1983 French Open
Adriano Panatta 1976 French Open
rafael Nadal 2005.... JUST KIDDING

Thomas Johansson 2002 Australian Open
Mark Edmondson 1976 Australian Open
Vitas Gerulaitis 1977 Australian Open
Roscoe Tanner 1977 Australian Open
Brian Teacher 1980 Australian Open
Petr Korda 1998 Australian Open

Richard Krajicek 1996 Wimbledon
Michael Stich 1991 Wimbledon
Pat Cash 1987 Wimbledon
Goran Ivanisevic 2001 Wimbledon

Andy Roddick 2003 U.S. Open
Manuel Orantes 1975 U.S. Open

Chloe le Bopper
06-16-2005, 04:04 AM
Not kidding dear, wishing. But he does belong on that list for the time being.

Most of the Wimbledon one-slam wonders were pretty damn good. Krajicek made the semis at every slam except the USO. Goran got to number 2 and made several slam finals.

El Legenda
06-16-2005, 04:07 AM
this is a vague list, because it includes current players and of course they may become multi-slam wonders

but as of today, the one-slam list makes USO the least likely followed by W, FO as the most likely and aussie as the second most likely:

Albert Costa 2002 French Open
Juan Carlos Ferrero 2003 French Open
Gaston Gaudio 2004 French Open
Carlos Moya 1998 French Open
Michael Chang 1989 French Open
Andres Gimeno 1972 French Open
Andres Gomez 1990 French Open
Thomas Muster 1995 French Open
Yannick Noah 1983 French Open
Adriano Panatta 1976 French Open
rafael Nadal 2005.... JUST KIDDING

Thomas Johansson 2002 Australian Open
Mark Edmondson 1976 Australian Open
Vitas Gerulaitis 1977 Australian Open
Roscoe Tanner 1977 Australian Open
Brian Teacher 1980 Australian Open
Petr Korda 1998 Australian Open

Richard Krajicek 1996 Wimbledon
Michael Stich 1991 Wimbledon
Pat Cash 1987 Wimbledon
Goran Ivanisevic 2001 Wimbledon

Andy Roddick 2003 U.S. Open
Manuel Orantes 1975 U.S. Open

has any of those made the final of the same GS before or after...I know Goran has at Wimby few times

Chloe le Bopper
06-16-2005, 04:10 AM
Cash made slam finals in Australia. I think it was played on grass then.

Cash still blows ;)

Chloe le Bopper
06-16-2005, 04:13 AM
Stich at RG :p

And apparently the USO too! I had to look that part up.... only knew about RG.

megadeth
06-16-2005, 04:48 AM
most winners of the USO have done well in Wimbledon (except safin) even if they didn't win it (like rafter).

on a side note, one of the greatest champs didn't win USO - Borg.

Tennis Fool
06-16-2005, 04:53 AM
most winners of the USO have done well in Wimbledon (except safin) even if they didn't win it (like rafter).

on a side note, one of the greatest champs didn't win USO - Borg.

Apparently he never got used to playing in the lights at night matches or the NYC crowd. Many people thought Fed would have the same problem, but obviously not.

MisterQ
06-16-2005, 04:56 AM
The Australian Open is an interesting case, because not all the top players attended for so many years. It might be most useful to consider it after its turn to rebound ace in 1988, or somewhere around there.

It is strange that Borg never won the USO... but then again, he did reach the finals 4 times.

World Beater
06-16-2005, 05:23 AM
moya reached ausopen finals.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 01:50 PM
The Australian Open is an interesting case, because not all the top players attended for so many years. It might be most useful to consider it after its turn to rebound ace in 1988, or somewhere around there.


the US open also is difficult to put on this list because it was (I think?) played on grass when it was in Forest Hills

Shabazza
06-16-2005, 03:38 PM
the US open also is difficult to put on this list because it was (I think?) played on grass when it was in Forest Hills
till '74 on grass, '75-'77 on clay since then on hardcourt - correct me if I'm wrong -
btw. Conners is and will be the only one to win USO on 3 different surfaces ;)

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:40 PM
till '74 on grass, '75-'77 on clay since then on hardcourt - correct me if I'm wrong -
btw. Conners is and will be the only one to win USO on 3 different surfaces ;)

he should be put on that list of career slammers then :)

jacobhiggins
06-16-2005, 03:50 PM
Wimbys the superbowl of Tennis Grand Slams, the big one, the big show. The other three are big, but Wimbeldon has the history and is the essence of tennis!

Shabazza
06-16-2005, 03:53 PM
he should be put on that list of career slammers then :)
in theorie he should, but USO on clay isn't RG ;)

NATAS81
06-16-2005, 04:22 PM
The USo produced a J. Johansson win over Roddick

Good enough for me.

liptea
06-21-2005, 07:18 PM
haha, I know the guy that asked the question.

Melvins
06-22-2005, 01:08 AM
Sorry, I just saw this thread today (after my post).

«Wimbledon has many one slam wonder», ok ok... Wimbledon hans't many, but has more than US Open. I just try make a constrast with Oneandolyhsn's post - "all Grand Slams, except Wimbledon, has many one slam wonder". US Open just has a really one slam wonder in Open Era, Orantes (I think in clay), because Roddick will can win another slam.

"Democratic surface", I think that is a universal expression. Thanks, Clara Bow! Her post said what I think. Roland Garros champions don't make good results in Wimbledon and Wimbledon champions don't make good results in Roland Garros, but all good player make good result in US Open or in anothers Hard's events.

Any question? ;)