Joined
·
17,683 Posts
No Fluke
When Thomas Johansson won his Australian Open title this year, the reaction seems to be that it was a fluke.
Men Who Won Their Only Career Slam Since 1992
Player: Albert Costa
Slam Won: Roland Garros 2002
Status: Fluke
Comment: At just-about-27, had never been past a Slam quarterfinal when he won his big one.
Player: Thomas Johansson
Slam Won: Australian Open 2002
Status: Fluke
Comment: Won his Slam two months before turning 27, and to that time had only six career titles.
Player: Goran Ivanisevic
Slam Won: Wimbledon 2001
Status: Not a fluke
Comment: It was a surprise when it came, but he did have 21 titles already.
Player: Marat Safin
Slam Won: U. S. Open 2000
Status: Not a fluke
Comment: Everyone "knows" he had the skills. The question is, when will he win another?
Player: Carlos Moya
Slam Won: Roland Garros 1998
Status: Marginal, but probably not a fluke
Comment: A pretty good player when healthy, as he's shown this year. He just isn't healthy often enough.
Player: Petr Korda
Slam Won: Australian Open 1998
Status: Fluke
Comment: This was the last title of a fairly long career
Player: Richard Krajicek
Slam Won: Wimbledon 1996
Status: Probably not a fluke
Comment: Seventeen career titles despite constant injuries; quarterfinals at all four Slams and semifinals at all but the USO.
Player: Thomas Muster
Slam Won: Roland Garros 1995
Status: Not a fluke
Comment: The guy won 44 titles despite what should have been a career-ending injury.
Now we have something to work with: Three flukes (Johansson, Costa, Korda), two perhaps marginals (Krajicek, Moya), and three definite non-flukes (Ivanisevic, Moya, Safin).
Let's stack up some statistics for these guys and see what we find.
Statistic: Total career titles
44: Muster
22: Ivanisevic
17: Krajicek
12: Costa
11: Moya
10: Korda
10: Safin
7: Johansson
Obviously this doesn't tell us much. Safin has fewer titles than Costa, but is considered less of a fluke. Why? Age.
So let's try a twist: Years between the player's first title and his first Slam.
Statistic: Years Between First Title and First Slam
1: Safin
3: Moya
5: Johansson
5: Krajicek
7: Costa
7: Korda
9: Muster
11: Ivanisevic
That doesn't tell us anything either. How about this?
Statistic: Titles at the time of first Slam
4: Moya
4: Safin
6: Johansson
9: Korda
9: Krajicek
11: Costa
21: Ivanisevic
28: Muster
The problem with this, of course, is that some of these guys won their Slams early, others late. Maybe a better test is to take an arbitrary period early in their careers. Say, the four years from the time each man won his first title.
Statistic: Titles in four years after first title (inclusive)
10: Safin
9: Ivanisevic
8: Costa
7: Krajicek
6: Korda
5: Moya
5: Muster
4: Johansson
This is getting rather frustrating, isn't it? (At least for us, since we're having to look this stuff up. Maybe not for you.)
So let's try a different approach....
Statistic: Number of surfaces on which has won titles
4 (Clay, Grass, Hard, Indoor): Ivanisevic
4 (Clay, Grass, Hard, Indoor): Krajicek
3 (Clay, Hard, Indoor): Korda
3 (Clay, Hard, Indoor): Muster
3 (Clay, Hard, Indoor): Safin
3 (Grass, Hard, Indoor): Johansson
2 (Clay, Hard): Moya
1 (Clay): Costa
This isn't a great help, either.
Frankly, we're stumped. It's pretty obvious that some players are flukes, and others aren't -- but it's going to take a lot more than one statistic to determine which is which. Career titles would probably do it -- but it's awfully early to be counting Safin's, or even Moya's.
When Thomas Johansson won his Australian Open title this year, the reaction seems to be that it was a fluke.
Men Who Won Their Only Career Slam Since 1992
Player: Albert Costa
Slam Won: Roland Garros 2002
Status: Fluke
Comment: At just-about-27, had never been past a Slam quarterfinal when he won his big one.
Player: Thomas Johansson
Slam Won: Australian Open 2002
Status: Fluke
Comment: Won his Slam two months before turning 27, and to that time had only six career titles.
Player: Goran Ivanisevic
Slam Won: Wimbledon 2001
Status: Not a fluke
Comment: It was a surprise when it came, but he did have 21 titles already.
Player: Marat Safin
Slam Won: U. S. Open 2000
Status: Not a fluke
Comment: Everyone "knows" he had the skills. The question is, when will he win another?
Player: Carlos Moya
Slam Won: Roland Garros 1998
Status: Marginal, but probably not a fluke
Comment: A pretty good player when healthy, as he's shown this year. He just isn't healthy often enough.
Player: Petr Korda
Slam Won: Australian Open 1998
Status: Fluke
Comment: This was the last title of a fairly long career
Player: Richard Krajicek
Slam Won: Wimbledon 1996
Status: Probably not a fluke
Comment: Seventeen career titles despite constant injuries; quarterfinals at all four Slams and semifinals at all but the USO.
Player: Thomas Muster
Slam Won: Roland Garros 1995
Status: Not a fluke
Comment: The guy won 44 titles despite what should have been a career-ending injury.
Now we have something to work with: Three flukes (Johansson, Costa, Korda), two perhaps marginals (Krajicek, Moya), and three definite non-flukes (Ivanisevic, Moya, Safin).
Let's stack up some statistics for these guys and see what we find.
Statistic: Total career titles
44: Muster
22: Ivanisevic
17: Krajicek
12: Costa
11: Moya
10: Korda
10: Safin
7: Johansson
Obviously this doesn't tell us much. Safin has fewer titles than Costa, but is considered less of a fluke. Why? Age.
So let's try a twist: Years between the player's first title and his first Slam.
Statistic: Years Between First Title and First Slam
1: Safin
3: Moya
5: Johansson
5: Krajicek
7: Costa
7: Korda
9: Muster
11: Ivanisevic
That doesn't tell us anything either. How about this?
Statistic: Titles at the time of first Slam
4: Moya
4: Safin
6: Johansson
9: Korda
9: Krajicek
11: Costa
21: Ivanisevic
28: Muster
The problem with this, of course, is that some of these guys won their Slams early, others late. Maybe a better test is to take an arbitrary period early in their careers. Say, the four years from the time each man won his first title.
Statistic: Titles in four years after first title (inclusive)
10: Safin
9: Ivanisevic
8: Costa
7: Krajicek
6: Korda
5: Moya
5: Muster
4: Johansson
This is getting rather frustrating, isn't it? (At least for us, since we're having to look this stuff up. Maybe not for you.)
So let's try a different approach....
Statistic: Number of surfaces on which has won titles
4 (Clay, Grass, Hard, Indoor): Ivanisevic
4 (Clay, Grass, Hard, Indoor): Krajicek
3 (Clay, Hard, Indoor): Korda
3 (Clay, Hard, Indoor): Muster
3 (Clay, Hard, Indoor): Safin
3 (Grass, Hard, Indoor): Johansson
2 (Clay, Hard): Moya
1 (Clay): Costa
This isn't a great help, either.
Frankly, we're stumped. It's pretty obvious that some players are flukes, and others aren't -- but it's going to take a lot more than one statistic to determine which is which. Career titles would probably do it -- but it's awfully early to be counting Safin's, or even Moya's.