Most Improbable Slam Championships

[Murat Baslamisli]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

 

[Federberg]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

Jeepers! I must have blocked that one from my memory!

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Gaston Gaudio - RG 2004

There's a great article by Steve Tignor about this match on tennis.com. I didn't know they hated each other too. I remember the match well and though I never liked Coria, especially when I knew he doped, it was maybe the cruelest and most revealing defeat in a GS final ever. Revealing, because it showed the guy's limits were nearer than we thought...

I second that shout. Read the article yesterday and even though I never saw that match and was never particularly aware of either player as it's before my time with tennis, I couldn't help but feel incredibly sad for Guillermo Coria.

 

[Kieran]

Well, I'd temper that sympathy by reminding myself he did a seven month stretch for doping...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa won the French Open in his first attempt in 2005. Actually, in 2004 he could not
play in FO due to injury issues and so even though he had not really played FO before,
his fame was spreading and it was not considered a major surprise.

However, to me personally winning a slam, any slam, on the first attempt is
really impressive. You are not even familiar with the surroundings. You have not
even stepped foot before in those courts.

Anyway, I looked it up and to my amazement found out that Rafa is not the
only one to do so. Can you name anyone else who has also done that without
looking up?

Boris Becker at Wimbledon?

No, Boris Becker did not Wimbledon in his first attempt. In his first attempt he played
a few matches and then retired in a match due to injury issues. But, it is a good guess
as he won it very young.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa won the French Open in his first attempt in 2005. Actually, in 2004 he could not
play in FO due to injury issues and so even though he had not really played FO before,
his fame was spreading and it was not considered a major surprise.

However, to me personally winning a slam, any slam, on the first attempt is
really impressive. You are not even familiar with the surroundings. You have not
even stepped foot before in those courts.

Anyway, I looked it up and to my amazement found out that Rafa is not the
only one to do so. Can you name anyone else who has also done that without
looking up?

Wilander, also at Roland Garros. That's the only other one I can think of offhand.

That is correct answer. Nobody else won RG in first attempt other than Rafa and
Mats. I am not so sure of other slams.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Also, Agassi won AO in his first attempt in 1995 (but it is almost like cheating as he
was playing for close to 10 years before that).

 

[tented]

Also, Agassi won AO in his first attempt in 1995 (but it is almost like cheating as he
was playing for close to 10 years before that).

You come up with some of the most interesting information and factoids. Thanks!

 

[Ricardo]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

 

[Ricardo]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

whoopie doo? save the cheapie mouthing off. Just check the kind of players he beat, and question yourself if that's a guy who couldn't play on clay. Only beginners tend to write off players because of what they see on surface, size, power...etc.

In fact only jealous fans with agenda would claim someone 'fluked' a major. Why don't you fluke one yourself? would instantly make you have no axe to grind. now don't try and spin it again, i already refuted your claim that he never did any damage in Euro clay season by pointing out his 95 RG final which you conveniently ignored.

 

[Kieran]

He didn't fluke it, but was highly, highly, improbable...

 

[Ricardo]

He didn't fluke it, but was highly, highly, improbable...

surely, so was Johansson at AO, Goran at Wimbledon, Gaudio at RG etc.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

whoopie doo? save the cheapie mouthing off. Just check the kind of players he beat, and question yourself if that's a guy who couldn't play on clay. Only beginners tend to write off players because of what they see on surface, size, power...etc.

In fact only jealous fans with agenda would claim someone 'fluked' a major. Why don't you fluke one yourself? would instantly make you have no axe to grind. now don't try and spin it again, i already refuted your claim that he never did any damage in Euro clay season by pointing out his 95 RG final which you conveniently ignored.

Are you for real? Jealous....agenda...axe to grind???? What are you talking about????
You have refuted nothing...Show me a masters 1000 on clay he did something at.
We are talking about IMPROBABILITY here, nothing else. Chang was 17 years old, with NO SUCCESS to speak of on clay. He beat Sampras with three breadsticks. He beat Lendl , a three times former champion, from 2 sets down, cramping all over the place... He beat Edberg in the finals! All of these things were IMPROBABLE!.

Or maybe YOU expected him to win? Put money down on him maybe? Do you recall the odds of Chang winning RG in 1989?

I have always respected Chang's game and I have zero agenda or jealousy towards him. He deserved all the success he had and I hope he has more with Nishikori. BUT his winning RG is the definition of IMPROBABLE.

 

[Ricardo]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

whoopie doo? save the cheapie mouthing off. Just check the kind of players he beat, and question yourself if that's a guy who couldn't play on clay. Only beginners tend to write off players because of what they see on surface, size, power...etc.

In fact only jealous fans with agenda would claim someone 'fluked' a major. Why don't you fluke one yourself? would instantly make you have no axe to grind. now don't try and spin it again, i already refuted your claim that he never did any damage in Euro clay season by pointing out his 95 RG final which you conveniently ignored.

Are you for real? Jealous....agenda...axe to grind???? What are you talking about????
You have refuted nothing...Show me a masters 1000 on clay he did something at.
We are talking about IMPROBABILITY here, nothing else. Chang was 17 years old, with NO SUCCESS to speak of on clay. He beat Sampras with three breadsticks. He beat Lendl , a three times former champion, from 2 sets down, cramping all over the place... He beat Edberg in the finals! All of these things were IMPROBABLE!.

Or maybe YOU expected him to win? Put money down on him maybe? Do you recall the odds of Chang winning RG in 1989?

I have always respected Chang's game and I have zero agenda or jealousy towards him. He deserved all the success he had and I hope he has more with Nishikori. BUT his winning RG is the definition of IMPROBABLE.

don't pretend that i had any issue of it being improbable, you know i didn't. My issue is your claim that he totally 'fluked' it, in response to my previous post.

My other issue was your claim that he did nothing apart from that RG win. Your argument that he didn't do something at MS1000? since when does that count for something while a RG final doesn't? i was refuting that you claimed he 'NEVER'..... oh come on, don't play a child's game here and divert the argument to if a MS1000 was more 'something' than a RG final.

Again just look at the players he beat at RG, and tell me if his wins were just improbable or 'flukes'? (again note, i never argued that it wasn't 'improbable')

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Ricardo, here is what I initially wrote:

"Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion."

What is the problem?

Whatever...

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, here is what I initially wrote:

"Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion."

What is the problem?

Whatever...

you know the problem, already listed. Here it goes again, 'with no clay resume to speak of, before AND "AFTER".....' HOW ABOUT 1995 RG FINAL as a clay resume? try deny that!!

whatever....

 

[Kieran]

He didn't fluke it, but was highly, highly, improbable...

surely, so was Johansson at AO, Goran at Wimbledon, Gaudio at RG etc.

Goran less so, but, exactly...

 

[Ricardo]

He didn't fluke it, but was highly, highly, improbable...

surely, so was Johansson at AO, Goran at Wimbledon, Gaudio at RG etc.

Goran less so, but, exactly...

Goran was even more so, because of the level of his tennis back then........ he was playing like a 200th player in the world that year. Couldn't buy a win..... Johansson and Gaudio were among the better players at the very least.

 

[Kieran]

Well, nobody would have pegged any of them as winners before the event, so I suppose they're all improbable in some fashion...