9-10 RGs Titles v. CYGS, and the relative difficulty of each Major

[Moxie]

Rather than further derail the main RG thread, I thought I'd bring what is an interesting discussion here. To recap, Carol posted an article which argues for the potential 10 RG titles as the "greatest achievement in tennis," and Mrzz and El Dude have made interesting points about it, as well.

We've had conversations about the CYGS, for example v. "(your name here) Slam." We all agree it is very difficult, and its rarity bears that out. But Mrzz points out that even 9 titles at one Major is difficult, (let alone 10) and has been only been done once, by Nadal. So that one's unchartered territory. The calendar year Slam, the proper "Grand Slam" is very specifically time-sensitive. However, winning the same title 9 (or 10) times is time-sensitive in the opposite way. It requires a dominance over it for most of a career.

Mrzz, facetiously (I believe,) suggested that winning Wimbledon 7 times was harder. The argument is often made that Roland Garros is the most physically demanding of the Majors, because the points and therefore games and matches tend to be longer. Does everyone agree with this perceived wisdom?

 

[El Dude]

Not sure I have much more to add at this point, but here are some numbers to consider:

Most Australian Open Titles:
6 Novak Djokovic
5 Roger Federer
4 Andre Agassi
3 Mats Wilander

Most Roland Garros Titles:
9 Rafa Nadal
6 Bjorn Borg
3 Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, Gustavo Kuerten

Most Wimbledon Titles:
7 Pete Sampras, Roger Federer
5 Bjorn Borg
3 John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Novak Djokovic

Most US Open Titles:
5 Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer
4 John McEnroe
3 Ivan Lendl

-------------------------------------------
OK, there are a few other records that stand out as very impressive. I'm particularly impressed with Borg's 5+ titles at each of the "Channel Slams." Also, there's Roger's 5 or more at three different Slams.

On a very different note, I am still amazed at Novak's 10 big titles in 2015 - three Slams, WTF, 6 Masters. Only one other player (Roger) has ever even had 8 in a year, and Novak did that a separate time.

 

[Carol]

Well. I count AO 18 total titles
RG 24 titles
Wimbledon 28 titles
USO 22 titles

I see that Wimbledon titles has been more split between some players than the others GS
RG second place but 9 titles by only one player

 

[Moxie]

Not sure I have much more to add at this point, but here are some numbers to consider:

On a very different note, I am still amazed at Novak's 10 big titles in 2015 - three Slams, WTF, 6 Masters. Only one other player (Roger) has ever even had 8 in a year, and Novak did that a separate time.

This just diffuses the conversation. It's not a GOAT question, and I think you're just muddying the waters. However, if you feel you must, you're within your rights.

 

[Moxie]

It seems that the AO and USO should be more likely to have a competitive field, at least now that their on HC. RG and Wimbledon are more surfaces for "specialists" in this era. So less likely to have winners that dominate, as @El Dude's numbers show.

 

[El Dude]

Well. I count AO 18 total titles
RG 24 titles
Wimbledon 28 titles
USO 22 titles

I see that Wimbledon titles has been more split between some players than the others GS
RG second place but 9 titles by only one player

Just to be clear, those lists only include players who won 3 or more titles on that surface. Tons of players won 1-2 and, of course, the total numbers even out over the years.

 

[mrzz]

Thanks for opening this thread, Moxie. It is a two-folded thread by design, so it is a bit harder to derail. Anyway it only took @El Dude 1 post to show us how...

I am pending a bitto think that 9 RG´s (let alone 10) is harder than CYGS. For a moment, take Nadal out of the question. He chose to play football in a different reality. We would probably still have Borg topping the RG list with six titles (Federer and Djokovic would have around 3.5 each).

In this world, we would have Laver´s CYGS, Djokovic´s 4 straight slams and quite possibly a Federer CYGS and a Djokovic CYGS.

Even giving Federer one more Wimbledon (thus his total would be eight), if we were living in this reality, (almost) no one would have any doubt that reaching 10 in any major (let alone RG with 6) would be harder than doing something that 3 guys had done.

The point is: Nadal is so good on clay that he taints the stats.

Even if I think I made a good case for 10 (or 9) RG´s, I am not completely sold yet, because there is the court diversity factor. Tweak a little bit here and there (making it as diverse as possible), and it gets almost impossible (correct me if I am wrong, but Laver won on two different surfaces, right?). In this another parallel universe, the only guy with a shot (IMO) would be a prime Federer, that would probably win 3 and reach the final in the fourth...

 

[mrzz]

Second post, as it is a two-folded thread.

About Wimbledon and RG (yes, I was joking), the serious point is:

Statistically, I guess it is harder to string a sequence of results in Wimbledon, because I guess (and probably everyone agrees with me here) that an upset is more likely on a quicker court, specially a grass court. Points and matches are shorter. An average guy feeling like GOAT would need to connect, say, 100 insane forehands to spring a surprise. He would need 300 or more in a clay court (as he would hardly end the point that quickly).

But this has nothing to do with the personal effort needed to win 7+ Wimbledon´s or RG´s, I guess it shows that they ask different things from the players. I think Federer made it possible given his absurd talent, and Nadal made it possible not only by his physical strength, but specially by his giant tennis IQ at such an young age (which for me is the main factor explaining how he started to win so young).

 

[isabelle]

Rather than further derail the main RG thread, I thought I'd bring what is an interesting discussion here. To recap, Carol posted an article which argues for the potential 10 RG titles as the "greatest achievement in tennis," and Mrzz and El Dude have made interesting points about it, as well.

We've had conversations about the CYGS, for example v. "(your name here) Slam." We all agree it is very difficult, and its rarity bears that out. But Mrzz points out that even 9 titles at one Major is difficult, (let alone 10) and has been only been done once, by Nadal. So that one's unchartered territory. The calendar year Slam, the proper "Grand Slam" is very specifically time-sensitive. However, winning the same title 9 (or 10) times is time-sensitive in the opposite way. It requires a dominance over it for most of a career.

Mrzz, facetiously (I believe,) suggested that winning Wimbledon 7 times was harder. The argument is often made that Roland Garros is the most physically demanding of the Majors, because the points and therefore games and matches tend to be longer. Does everyone agree with this perceived wisdom?

I totally agree, RG's probably the most difficult GS to win (Edberg, Sampras, Becker and even Coria failed) clay's very demanding surface especially in 5 sets

 

[britbox]

I totally agree, RG's probably the most difficult GS to win (Edberg, Sampras, Becker and even Coria failed) clay's very demanding surface especially in 5 sets

It's all relative to the player. Nadal clearly doesn't find RG the most difficult slam to win, so I wouldn't really put one slam over another in "how difficult they are to win". They are all difficult, but some will be easier for certain types of players... and you could put a decent list of greats who haven't won a particular slam up against all of them.

Coria's collapse against Gaudio was something else :bloodsucker1:

 

[atttomole]

I agree with mrzz. It is way easier to get knocked out at Wimbie than RG. At Wimbie, a good serve and excellent play at the net is enough to eliminate a grass court superstar, while at RG, a player has to hit 6 winners to win a single point. In my opinion, the 7 Wimbies won by Federer and Sampras are almost as good as Nadal's 9 or 10 RG's.

 

[rafanoy1992]

If there is one stat I would look at Nadal's 9 (hopefully 10) RG titles, I would look at his finals record. What I mean is that he has never played a 5 setter in the final. That to me is more "special" than winning 9 or 10 titles in ANY slam.

Just think about it: To win 4 plus titles in 1 GS event is already spectacular but to win 9 (possibly 10) titles without ever going into a 5th set in the final is really remarkable to say the least.

Now, I am not saying it is a better accomplishment than Fed/Sampras 7 Wimby titles or Djokovic's 6 AO titles, in my opinion, they are all equally impressive!

But to be 9-0 (possibly 10-0) in the finals without going into a 5th set is just mind boggling to think about.

 

[britbox]

If there is one stat I would look at Nadal's 9 (hopefully 10) RG titles, I would look at his finals record. What I mean is that he has never played a 5 setter in the final. That to me is more "special" than winning 9 or 10 titles in ANY slam.

Just think about it: To win 4 plus titles in 1 GS event is already spectacular but to win 9 (possibly 10) titles without ever going into a 5th set in the final is really remarkable to say the least.

Now, I am not saying it is a better accomplishment than Fed/Sampras 7 Wimby titles or Djokovic's 6 AO titles, in my opinion, they are all equally impressive!

But to be 9-0 (possibly 10-0) in the finals without going into a 5th set is just mind boggling to think about.

Does anyone know off the top of their head, how many 5 set matches Nadal has played in total at RG?

 

[Moxie]

Two. 2011: 1st Round v. Isner, and 2013: SF v. Djokovic. Never dropped a set in 2008 and (I think 2010?), but I'm pretty sure 2x.

 

[El Dude]

There is little doubt that Rafa, at Roland Garros but also on clay in general, is the most dominant player in the Open Era, if not the history of the sport, in a specific context. No one really even comes close. But back to the original question, I don't think it is answerable - or at least it is an apples and oranges thing. It is like asking, "What human achievement is more impressive, flying to the moon or building the Great Pyramids?" They're both incredibly impressive in their own right and to compare them only lessens either one.

That said, I do think that Rafa's 9 or 10 Roland Garros titles is solidly more impressive than any other Slam title lead, even Pete's and Roger's 7 Wimbledons. Why? Well, not only is he alone in 1st place, but he's far ahead of #2...he's got 3 more than Borg's 6, which is 50% more! Even if Roger wins #8, he's only 14% more than Pete.

Don't get me wrong: 7 (or 8) Wimbledons is enormously impressive, but 9 (or 10) Roland Garros titles is even more so.

 

[Moxie]

Second post, as it is a two-folded thread.

About Wimbledon and RG (yes, I was joking), the serious point is:

Statistically, I guess it is harder to string a sequence of results in Wimbledon, because I guess (and probably everyone agrees with me here) that an upset is more likely on a quicker court, specially a grass court. Points and matches are shorter. An average guy feeling like GOAT would need to connect, say, 100 insane forehands to spring a surprise. He would need 300 or more in a clay court (as he would hardly end the point that quickly).

But this has nothing to do with the personal effort needed to win 7+ Wimbledon´s or RG´s, I guess it shows that they ask different things from the players. I think Federer made it possible given his absurd talent, and Nadal made it possible not only by his physical strength, but specially by his giant tennis IQ at such an young age (which for me is the main factor explaining how he started to win so young).

I'm sorry for the two-folded thread, but I didn't think the 9 RG v. CYGS really had legs, and I thought the relative difficulty of winning multiple Majors by surface was a more interesting conversation, thus the poll.

I take your points, mostly, about grass, being fast, that things can change quickly, with one break often meaning the set. However, I do still believe that at Wimbledon, as with all bo5, the superior player is still favored, esp. with no TB in the 5th. And the increased rarity of S&V play favors certain kinds of players, not just big servers or those that do well on HC. And unlike clay, it's not as much a war of attrition, so a great grass player could he fit enough to win across multiple years. This is where winning on clay, specifically across so many years, gets a leg-up in estimation: even given that Nadal has been the most dominating player ever on clay, he's slogged his way through 16 RG tournaments and only lost twice, with one withdrawal.

As to the CYGS, I will say this about it: It comes (if it ever does again) with unique pressure that even winning some crazy amount of Majors at one tournament does not. Whatever Rafa has accomplished and will at RG (like Roger at Wimbledon, or any major going forward) comes with its own pressure, but it's unique to the tournament. I have no idea if the press was breathing down Laver's neck when he was approaching his CYGSs, but I'm guessing it was not so much a thing back then. (And, as you say, it was on two surfaces.) We have only to look at Serena, the impervious, wilting to Roberta Vinci, just 2 matches away, to see how much pressure comes to bear. I agree with El Dude that it's comparing apple to oranges amongst amazing achievements. But for the record, I'd still be inclined to say that winning the CYGS would be a herculean display of dominance across surfaces, and the withstanding of enough pressure to turn coal into a diamond.

 

[isabelle]

It's all relative to the player. Nadal clearly doesn't find RG the most difficult slam to win, so I wouldn't really put one slam over another in "how difficult they are to win". They are all difficult, but some will be easier for certain types of players... and you could put a decent list of greats who haven't won a particular slam up against all of them.

Coria's collapse against Gaudio was something else :bloodsucker1:

it's difficult for guys like Edberg, Sampras....their game didn't match with clay but for Manacor's bull ? he's at home here...he always celebrates his birthday with us, maybe could we offer him to be French ? he could be a valuable addition in DC...

 

[Ricardo]

I'm sorry for the two-folded thread, but I didn't think the 9 RG v. CYGS really had legs, and I thought the relative difficulty of winning multiple Majors by surface was a more interesting conversation, thus the poll.

I take your points, mostly, about grass, being fast, that things can change quickly, with one break often meaning the set. However, I do still believe that at Wimbledon, as with all bo5, the superior player is still favored, esp. with no TB in the 5th. And the increased rarity of S&V play favors certain kinds of players, not just big servers or those that do well on HC. And unlike clay, it's not as much a war of attrition, so a great grass player could he fit enough to win across multiple years. This is where winning on clay, specifically across so many years, gets a leg-up in estimation: even given that Nadal has been the most dominating player ever on clay, he's slogged his way through 16 RG tournaments and only lost twice, with one withdrawal.

As to the CYGS, I will say this about it: It comes (if it ever does again) with unique pressure that even winning some crazy amount of Majors at one tournament does not. Whatever Rafa has accomplished and will at RG (like Roger at Wimbledon, or any major going forward) comes with its own pressure, but it's unique to the tournament. I have no idea if the press was breathing down Laver's neck when he was approaching his CYGSs, but I'm guessing it was not so much a thing back then. (And, as you say, it was on two surfaces.) We have only to look at Serena, the impervious, wilting to Roberta Vinci, just 2 matches away, to see how much pressure comes to bear. I agree with El Dude that it's comparing apple to oranges amongst amazing achievements. But for the record, I'd still be inclined to say that winning the CYGS would be a herculean display of dominance across surfaces, and the withstanding of enough pressure to turn coal into a diamond.

if you don't know any better, it was at least as big a thing back then......was always regarded as the holy grail in tennis.

 

[mrzz]

I'm sorry for the two-folded thread

Don´t be. I actually thought it was a great idea.

the superior player is still favored

(just quoting small parts for better reading, but I read it all, don´t worry): Yes, for sure, but the things is that one or two slips in concentration may cost much more in Wimbledon than in RG. But this is one particular aspect of comparing them both, and as I said above, I think the challenges for winning those tournaments are so much different (so not easy to compare).

Your points about CYGS are surely true, as @El Dude ´s arguments above, but I´ll tell you that I convinced myself with my own alternate-world statistical analysis above, so, if I had to pick one of the two to be harder, it would be winning 10 (possibly 9) of any major (which obviously includes RG). It is the relative/apparent easiness that Nadal had that makes it look less impressive. Mark my words, if Nadal fails to win 10, and Federer sees himself close to eight in the following weeks, you will see people out of their mind for the absurd effort necessary to do so (in other words, you need to lose a few hard fought finals to convince people that it is hard...).

In case anyone haven´t noticed yet, I am for a while defending a point dear to most Nadal fans. Today is a good day for me to do it, just won a hard fought match in a tournament in my club, so I ´m feeling generous.

 

[Moxie]

Don´t be. I actually thought it was a great idea.



(just quoting small parts for better reading, but I read it all, don´t worry): Yes, for sure, but the things is that one or two slips in concentration may cost much more in Wimbledon than in RG. But this is one particular aspect of comparing them both, and as I said above, I think the challenges for winning those tournaments are so much different (so not easy to compare).

Your points about CYGS are surely true, as @El Dude ´s arguments above, but I´ll tell you that I convinced myself with my own alternate-world statistical analysis above, so, if I had to pick one of the two to be harder, it would be winning 10 (possibly 9) of any major (which obviously includes RG). It is the relative/apparent easiness that Nadal had that makes it look less impressive. Mark my words, if Nadal fails to win 10, and Federer sees himself close to eight in the following weeks, you will see people out of their mind for the absurd effort necessary to do so (in other words, you need to lose a few hard fought finals to convince people that it is hard...).

In case anyone haven´t noticed yet, I am for a while defending a point dear to most Nadal fans. Today is a good day for me to do it, just won a hard fought match in a tournament in my club, so I ´m feeling generous.

Congratulations on your win, Mrzz! And I had noticed you were arguing the presumptive "Nadal fan" POV. That IS generous, but you're always fair.

I take your point on Wimbledon and grass...that a bad game/loss of serve can cost a set more easily on grass, whereas on clay, a break-back is more plausible. (Say what you will about that weird Isner/Mahut match at Wimbledon a few years back, for 136 games in the 6th, neither blinked on serve. By the same token, the commentators noted that, had they been playing it on clay, they'd been dead long before. That's sort of the difference in a nutshell.)

If anyone thinks that winning 9 or 7 of the same Major is easy, then it's because we live in this era of tennis with 3 All-Time Greats. Perhaps a little perspective is needed. I suspect that will be coming in about 2 years.