Were McEnroe/Borg/Lendl/Connors/Becker slam counts screwed up
Raja, The Great
That is one additional surface Sampras/Agassi/Federer did not have to
deal with much.
CL = Clay
GR = Grass
HA = Hard
CA = Carpet
Player CL GR HA CA Total
Connors 13 9 43 39 104
Borg 30 6 5 22 63
McEnroe 5 8 22 42 77
Wilander 21 2 9 2 34
Lendl 29 2 30 32 93
Becker 1 7 16 26 50
Edberg 6 5 23 11 45
Sampras 4 10 36 15 65
Agassi 7 1 45 6 59
Federer 9 11 40 2 62
Nadal 25 2 9 0 36
Borg won 22 titles on carpet, Connors won 39, McEnroe 42, Lendl 32,
Becker 26. Thats too many titles won on that surface. And that is an
additional surface to adapt to. Since the early 90s, carpet has all
but disappeared. If you spend too much time on a surface which has no
slam, then your slam chances get ruined doesnt it. If there was no
carpet, would Borg/Connors/McEnroe/Lendl/Becker would have won more
slams?
Joe Ramirez
> If there was no carpet, would Borg/Connors/McEnroe/Lendl/Becker would have
> won more slams?
No, of course not. Just think about it logically. A factor that
affects all players equally *within* an era can be disregarded when
making comparisons *between* eras. Your question is like asking
whether those players would have won more slams if they didn't have to
play with small-headed rackets, or if they could have used Luxilon
strings. All the opponents of "Borg/Connors/McEnroe/Lendl/Becker" also
had to play on carpet.
Raja, The Great
No, that is not my point. My point is that those guys had to change
their game constantly for the 4 different surfaces. Having an extra
surface makes you less of a specialist, if your focus is to get to
number #1. Now you can exclusively make your game hard court oriented
and you have three slams in the bag (you can throw in Wimbledon) and
also get the #1 because there are so many friggin hard court
tournaments. Back then they are so many friggin carpet court
tournaments that if specialized on hard court only you are hosed as
some other dude will win a ton of carpet tournament and get to #1. So
to be #1 you had to great on at least two surfaces (since there were
three majors surfaces - either hard court and carpet or hard court
and clay or clay and carpet.
Connors specialized on carpet and hard and got to #1 and stayed there
for a long time
Borg specialized on clay and carpet and got to #1 and stayed there for
a long time
McEnroe specialized on carpet and hard and got to #1 and stayed there
for a long time
Lendl specialized on clay, carpet and hard (the only one to do so) and
got to #1 and stayed there for a long time
In contrast Sampras/Agassi/Federer had to specialize on one surface
only... hard court. The disappearance of carpet has made life easier.
stephenJ
> In contrast Sampras/Agassi/Federer had to specialize on one surface
> only... hard court. The disappearance of carpet has made life easier.
er, Sampras was as good a carpet player as anyone ever was.
--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.
- John Maynard Keynes
Raja, The Great
> > Raja, The Great wrote:
>
> > In contrast Sampras/Agassi/Federer had to specialize on one surface
> > only... hard court. The disappearance of carpet has made life easier.
>
> er, Sampras was as good a carpet player as anyone ever was.
yeah but by mid 95 carpet was gone.
Manco
Wasn't this "carpet" wood? I never recall tennis being played on a rug.
kaennorsing
You're making it sound like they had to play on ice. Playing on carpet
isn't much different from playing on hardcourt - except that it's
easier on the body. A reason why playing carpet in stead of hardcourt
should lengthen the career of a player, actually making it more likely
to build a large slam tally over time.
A more likely reason why the elite players won relatively more slams
in the last decade than non-slams is because the focus of players have
shifted in that direction. This can be contributed to a greater
marketing positioning of the slams. Greater crowds, rewards, money,
points etc. Another reason is Sampras pushed Federer to focus on the
slam record and the 80's had one great champ too many between Borg,
Connors, Mac, Lendl, Becker and Edberg. I personally blame Lendl :)
Whisper
No you dumb cunt because the whole field is playing the same conditions.
Duh.
Whisper
Raja is way too dumb to comprehend - ignore the prick.
His point would make sense if say Lendl spent 3 months playing on carpet
in his backyard, while none of the other pros did & there were no carpet
tournaments.
Trust me - he won't understand. He's a code monkey.
bubba
Raja, will you be slamming your goat today?
Raja, The Great
Stats prove otherwise. Borg had problems in hard court but excelled on
carpet. Becker was better on carpet, Edberg was better on hard court.
Player CL GR HA CA Total
Borg 30 6 5 22 63
Quincy
But he is right in one point: Sampras played in super weak ans soft
era (especially his second half to career).
Even softer than your penis at "hardest" state.
kaennorsing
Borg played many more tournaments on carpet and most of them in his
prime - when there were still more carpet tournaments than hard.
That's the biggest reason why he won more on carpet. He only won two
major titles on carpet (masters) and zero on hardcourt. Compare that
to 6 major titles on clay and 5 on grass. The only advantage he had on
carpet was that the surface took his spin better than hardcourts.
Becker clearly benefitted from the softer carpet on his big frame.
It's not that he couldn't be as effective on hard but he was too heavy
for it. Edberg likely played far less on carpet than hardcourt so
these stats are misleading. You need to show how many tournaments they
played on each surface to make those stats more indicative of surface
specialism.
Superdave
whisper has a penis? wonders never cease.
Rodjk #613
What clay court tournament did Becker win?
Rodjk #613
Raja, The Great
Not sure. I pulled the stats from ATP website.