RealGM

This was inspired by a thread in the basketball forum.

1. Connors being banned from the 1974 French Open cost him a calendar Grand Slam.

It inarguably robbed Connors of an opportunity to win a Calendar Slam, but, over the years, people have started taking for granted that Jimmy would have shown up in Paris and mowed through the field. The reality is that Connors never won anything of significance on red clay, a surface that played very differently from the green clay/har-tru surface on which Connors had success. While Connors thrived from the baseline, he also fed off of pace (Ashe beat him in Wimbledon 1975 by not giving him pace and Lendl won the last 17 matches they played by adopting somewhat similar tactics).


2. McEnroe "drove" Borg out of tennis by (i.e., Borg quit because he couldn't beat Johnny Mac)

Conventional wisdom says that Borg, after losing to McEnroe at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1981, realized he couldn't beat the temperamental left-hander and decided to take his toys and go home. Really?

By the time the 1981 U.S. Open rolled around, Borg was burned out. While he was only 25, the guy had been a part of the professional circuit for over a decade. The ITF had also just passed a rule requiring that players participate in a minimum number of tournaments or else be forced to qualify for the slams. Borg fought them over this throughout 1982. He didn't officially announce his retirement until the start of the 1983 season. Borg was increasingly discovering that there was life outside of tennis (and he certainly continued this discovery with mixed results for the next 10-15 years).

3. Andre Agassi cost himself numerous slams by not playing in the Australian Open before 1995

Rebound ace suited Agassi's game perfectly. So it seems logical that giving himself 7-8 more chances at winning a major down under would have added to his haul, right?

Not so fast. We're basically talking about 1987-1994. Agassi could not have invented a time machine to bring his older self to Melbourne in the late 80s and early 90s. Basically, even if Agassi had made the trip, there's certainly no guarantee he would have walked away with any major hardware.

1987. Agassi didn't win his first career title until November. Enough said.

1988. Agassi finished the year ranked #3. The semifinalists at that year's Aussie Open were Lendl, Edberg, Cash, and Wilander. Agassi had not shown himself capable, to that point, of beating the top players in a best of 5. (He pushed Wilander to 5 sets at Roland Garros later that year, but the score in the 5th set, 6-0 Wilander, sort of shows you where Agassi was at that point. Lendl simply outlasted and overpowered him in the U.S. Open semis that September.

1989. Don't see Agassi getting past Lendl.

1990. Agassi demonstrated that he wasn't mentally ready to win a major (hairpiece issues aside). Lendl and Edberg both blitzed through the draw that year (his destruction of Wilander in the semis was one of the best performances I've ever seen). Tough to see Agassi beating either of them.

1991. Agassi did not have a good 1991. His lone bright spot was reaching the finals at Roland Garros, where he ended up losing to Courier in 5 (in his autobiography, Andre admits to basically giving up in the 5th set). I don't think Agassi would have had his major breakthrough in Australia in 1991.

1992. Jim.Courier. Courier was at the peak of his powers and confidence. In 1992, he destroyed Agassi in straight sets at Roland Garros and later beat him in 4 sets at the U.S. Open. Hard to see Agassi getting by him at the Aussie Open either. Courier just had a significant edge over Agassi during this period in terms of fitness and mental toughness.

1993. Same as 1992 above, only add to it that Agassi spent most of 1993 battling injuries and apathy. He started the year ranked #9 and ended it ranked #24.

1994. At the start of the year, Andre was at a crossroads. He ended it on the highest possible note, but, tough to see him at that point getting past Sampras who was in the midst of a string where Pete won 3 straight majors and 4 out of 5.

4. If he'd just shown up, Lendl would have won the 1990 French Open

Lendl skipped the French Open in 1990 to prepare for Wimbledon. Again, conventional wisdom looks at Andres Gomez (a guy Lendl beat like a drum) hoisting the trophy and declares that Lendl would have won this tournament easily. It doesn't hurt that Gomez himself has made similar statements, even going so far as to say that if Lendl hadn't withdrawn he (Gomez) might not have even played.

Here's the other side of the coin.

Lendl hadn't won at Roland Garros since 1987. He was still in his prime (albeit barely), but definitely not his peak. He'd won the Aussie Open earlier in the year, but even this is misleading. Edberg had to retire in that match due to injury. Before getting hurt, Edberg was up a set and a break with chances to go up a double break in the second. This was the last major Lendl ever won, and the second-to-last major final he ever reached. If Lendl playing better tennis could lose to Jonas Svensson in the quarters in 1988 and a cramping Michael Chang in the 4th round in 1989, why are people so convinced that he would have won in 1990?

5. Borg couldn't play on hardcourts, hence no U.S. Open titles

The reality is, Borg was an excellent hardcourt player. Borg didn't like playing at the U.S. Open venue. He didn't like the crowds, the noise, or night matches. He also had the misfortune of coming up against two guys (McEnroe and Connors), at their peak, who fed off of the atmosphere at Louis Armstrong. They could have played the U.S. Open on ice and McEnroe and Connors would have shown up with skates in hand to give Borg all he could handle.

6. It's all about the Slams . . . and it always has been.

This has been the case from the late 80s to present, but this has definitely not always been the case throughout tennis history. Everyone knows that professionals were barred from the slams until 1968. Even after that, though, the majors were not always the be-all and end-all in the tennis world.

Roy Emerson held the slams "record" from 1967 to 2000. During that time period, absolutely noone looked at that record and thought Emerson was even on the short list for G.O.A.T. When Borg retired, there wasn't much talk that he was walking away one major shy of tying Emmo.

The Australian Open was so poorly attended and lacking in prestige for much of the 70s and early 80s, that it was in danger of losing "major" status. When Guillermo Vilas won in 1978, he was the only top 10 player who made the trip!

Borg played the Aussie Open once. Connors played it twice. McEnroe played it for the first time in 1983 and skipped it in his dominant 1984 season. Lendl played it in 1980 and didn't show up again until 1983.

There were other tournaments with better fields, bigger purses, and which were held in higher regard during this time period.

It's a shame that, as more time passes, more fans will look back at the records of some of these greats and think their career paled in comparison to the likes of Sampras and Federer based solely on number of majors.

Something similar has happened in golf. Before Jack Nicklaus drew attention to his "taking aim" at Bobby Jones' majors record, no one really gave Jones' total much attention (His Grand Slam was what people focused on). Meanwhile, a guy like Walter Hagen has "only" 11 wins, but this ignores the fact that the Masters wasn't even a tournament, much less a tournament afforded equal status to the U.S. Open, British Open, and P.G.A. Championship, during Hagen's heyday. Hagen won 5 Western Opens during a time period in which that tournament was regarded as one of the 4 most prestigious titles.

Whether he intended to or not, Sampras sort of did the same thing as far as tennis' majors record.

7. The Williams Sisters sent Hingis into retirement

Nope. Hingis has a 17-17 record vs the Williams sisters. Hingis leads Venus 11-10, and Serena leads Hingis 7-6. Also, Hingis beat both Venus and Serena at the 2001 Australian Open. The player who seemed to hurt Hingis the most was Capriati, beating Hingis in 2 Australian Open Finals. Capriati may have been the player who most convinced Hingis to retire, because the Australian Open was Hingis' best shot at winning more slams yet Capriati kept spoiling the party (and Davenport too). Plus she had severe ankle and foot injuries, and that may have made it impossible to continue anyway.

NADALbULLS wrote:7. The Williams Sisters sent Hingis into retirement

Nope. Hingis has a 17-17 record vs the Williams sisters. Hingis leads Venus 11-10, and Serena leads Hingis 7-6. Also, Hingis beat both Venus and Serena at the 2001 Australian Open. The player who seemed to hurt Hingis the most was Capriati, beating Hingis in 2 Australian Open Finals. Capriati may have been the player who most convinced Hingis to retire, because the Australian Open was Hingis' best shot at winning more slams yet Capriati kept spoiling the party (and Davenport too). Plus she had severe ankle and foot injuries, and that may have made it impossible to continue anyway.

Good one.

Was it the aussie open or Wimbeldon that Agassi boycotted? I thought it was the Wimbeldon because he didn't want to wear white shorts.

Very good post by the way.

j-far wrote:Was it the aussie open or Wimbeldon that Agassi boycotted? I thought it was the Wimbeldon because he didn't want to wear white shorts.

The first time Agassi played the Australian Open was 1995.

He played Wimbledon in 1987 (1st round loss) and didn't go back until 1991, when he lost in the quarterfinals to David Wheaton.

Agassi had the oddest career. If Agassi had played the Australian Open for the many years before 1995 and played Wimbledon a bit more, then I'd say he would have won almost as many slams as Sampras. But it was a very competitive era so he just as easily could have lost all those anyway, and probably the breaks away from the game helped him play longer in the end and win a couple of those Australian Opens later in his career. Agassi and Hingis were my 2 favorite players of the 90s.

NADALbULLS wrote:Agassi had the oddest career. If Agassi had played the Australian Open for the many years before 1995 and played Wimbledon a bit more, then I'd say he would have won almost as many slams as Sampras.

I'm not so sure about that. As I stated in an earlier post, Agassi in the late 80s and early 90s wasn't the player or competitor he became in his later years. That's why I think the notion that Agassi left a bunch of slams on the table early in his career is a myth.

oberyn3 wrote:

NADALbULLS wrote:Agassi had the oddest career. If Agassi had played the Australian Open for the many years before 1995 and played Wimbledon a bit more, then I'd say he would have won almost as many slams as Sampras.

I'm not so sure about that. As I stated in an earlier post, Agassi in the late 80s and early 90s wasn't the player or competitor he became in his later years. That's why I think the notion that Agassi left a bunch of slams on the table early in his career is a myth.

Like I said it was a very competitive era so he just as easily could have lost all those anyway, and probably the breaks away from the game helped him play longer in the end and win a couple of those Australian Opens later in his career.

We'll never know for sure what Agassi would have done. He certainly wasn't clutch, so even if he did advance to the latter rounds of the AO in the early 90s it wouldn't have meant he'd win them. But he had some good US Opens pre-1995 (won in 1994, runner-up 1990), and some good French Opens (runner-up 1990 and 1991), and the Australian Open's rebound ace suited him better than the US Open/French Open, so there is reason to think he would have done very well at the AO (maybe even better than he did in the other slams) regardless of his messy lifestyle/mentality.

With re: to Borg and Hardcourts, my understanding was as well he did not consider (or as whole was not really considered a grand slam) the Aussie Open hence why he only played a few times there.

I think Borg is the biggest what if story in Tennis.
I mean he has 11 gs and retired by 26? you also have to take into account how he never played in some of the slams before hand as well.

Ong_dynasty wrote:With re: to Borg and Hardcourts, my understanding was as well he did not consider (or as whole was not really considered a grand slam) the Aussie Open hence why he only played a few times there.

Just to show little prestige the Australian Open had in the late 70s, the only way Borg was going to make the trip to Australia was if he'd won the U.S. Open. From 1977 to 1985, the Aussie Open was played in December as opposed to January. Borg went to the U.S. Open in 1978, 1979, and 1980 having already won the first two majors of the year (French Open and Wimbledon). He lost to Connors and McEnroe in the finals in 1978 and 1980 and lost to Roscoe Tanner in 1979. In none of those years did he bother making the trip Down Under.

I think Borg is the biggest what if story in Tennis.
I mean he has 11 gs and retired by 26? you also have to take into account how he never played in some of the slams before hand as well.

Absolutely. Again, the slams record/majors record was really not that big of a deal at that time. No one thought Roy Emerson was in contention for greatest player of all time status just because he had 12 majors. The Australian wasn't one of the 4 most prestigious tournaments out there and Roland Garros had its own problems in the 70s as well. Ironically, Borg winning Wimbledon in 1976 lent the French Open more prestige than it had enjoyed in several years (you had a recent French Open champ who'd proved himself capable of winning the big W).

Ong_dynasty wrote:With re: to Borg and Hardcourts, my understanding was as well he did not consider (or as whole was not really considered a grand slam) the Aussie Open hence why he only played a few times there.

I think Borg is the biggest what if story in Tennis.
I mean he has 11 gs and retired by 26? you also have to take into account how he never played in some of the slams before hand as well.

Aussie open was on grass back then.

oberyn3 wrote:This was inspired by a thread in the basketball forum.

1. Connors being banned from the 1974 French Open cost him a calendar Grand Slam.

It inarguably robbed Connors of an opportunity to win a Calendar Slam, but, over the years, people have started taking for granted that Jimmy would have shown up in Paris and mowed through the field. The reality is that Connors never won anything of significance on red clay, a surface that played very differently from the green clay/har-tru surface on which Connors had success. While Connors thrived from the baseline, he also fed off of pace (Ashe beat him in Wimbledon 1975 by not giving him pace and Lendl won the last 17 matches they played by adopting somewhat similar tactics).

Interesting thread in general, I'll look more at it later.

On this point specifically, I'd be interested to hear you talk more about the difference between green & red clay. Everything I've ever read has indicated that these were slow surfaces that were much more similar to each other than to hard court or grass.

With that said, Connors won the Cincinnati tournament on red clay on '72, and when he started regularly playing on at Roland Garros he did about as well there as on any other surface. So while I wouldn't assume Connors would have won the Grand Slam in '74, I am very skeptical about assumptions that he was actually extremely weak on clay.

As far as biggest myths go, the two big ones that come to mind:

1) Laver and the Grand Slams

2) That Navratilova dominated Evert.

Also:

Jordan defeated Jimmy Connors in a tennis match in the mid-1980s.

(Actually I'm not sure if it's a myth but I've heard people refer to it and other people claim it never happened)

Doctor MJ wrote:
Interesting thread in general, I'll look more at it later.

On this point specifically, I'd be interested to hear you talk more about the difference between green & red clay. Everything I've ever read has indicated that these were slow surfaces that were much more similar to each other than to hard court or grass.

1. Har-tru plays faster. Opinions differ on how much faster. (For what it's worth, I've played on both and har-tru and came away with the opinion that har-tru is noticeably both harder and faster.)

2. Much tougher to slide on har-tru. Movement-wise it's (to a degree) more similar to a slow hardcourt.

3. Because of the way the surface is "packed", Connors' flat groundies were more effective on Har-Tru than they were on red clay.

It's tough for me to know how much relative weight to give Connors' performances at the U.S. Open when it was played on har-tru (1975-77). Connors loved the U.S. Open and was in the midst of a run that would see him make at least the semis 12 years in a row.

He did lose 2/3 finals on the slower surface (har-tru) while he went 3/3 when it was played
on either grass or hardcourts.

Connors performed better on faster surfaces. Putting his victory over Borg in perspective, I'm one of those people who thinks Borg's problem at the U.S. Open was the venue itself. He didn't like night matches, he didn't like the noise (airplanes overhead, etc.).

With that said, Connors won the Cincinnati tournament on red clay on '72, and when he started regularly playing on at Roland Garros he did about as well there as on any other surface. So while I wouldn't assume Connors would have won the Grand Slam in '74, I am very skeptical about assumptions that he was actually extremely weak on clay.

Perhaps I should clarify this. I don't think Connors was extremely weak on red clay. It was his weakest surface, though, as it would be for anyone with flat groundstrokes and who thrived on being given pace by his opponent.

I think that what's become a myth is the assumption that Connors would have been a favorite at Roland Garros in 1974 or that his being banned "robbed" him of a Calendar Slam. He was denied the opportunity to compete for one, which is terrible, but I think it's far from a given that Jimbo, even the 1974 version, would have pulled it off.

To further expand on this, another reason I feel this way is that the intimidation factor definitely worked in his favor in 1974. This intimidation factor grew throughout the 1974 season but his destruction of Rosewall at Wimbledon and later at the U.S. Open was really what cemented it. I'm not sure that intimidation would have been as much as a factor at Roland Garros for the simple reason that this tournament came before Connors made Rosewall look helpless. He'd won the Australian Open earlier in the year, but keep in mind this was still during the time period when a lot of the top players skipped the event, so his beating Phil Dent in the final didn't exactly send shock waves through the tennis world.

Against this, of course, you have the fact that Connors was beating Borg pretty regularly (6 straight between 1974 and 1976) during this time period.

Back to the Agassi issue for a moment - I think Marat Safin would be a great comparison for the first half of Agassi's career. Agassi had undeniable talent and could beat almost anyone when he was on and motivated, much like Safin. But the days where he had it where outnumbered by the days where he was distracted, had been out partying, or flat out didn't feel like playing that day.

The difference is that for Agassi something eventually clicked and he went on to become a consistently elite player, while Safin never got there and only had sporadic moments of brilliance.

I'll go with the view that Agassi's mental game wasn't there early in his career, so playing more tournaments in Australia or Wimbledon wouldn't have made much difference. The surface doesn't make much difference if you're head isn't in the game.

Marmoset wrote:Back to the Agassi issue for a moment - I think Marat Safin would be a great comparison for the first half of Agassi's career. Agassi had undeniable talent and could beat almost anyone when he was on and motivated, much like Safin. But the days where he had it where outnumbered by the days where he was distracted, had been out partying, or flat out didn't feel like playing that day.

The difference is that for Agassi something eventually clicked and he went on to become a consistently elite player, while Safin never got there and only had sporadic moments of brilliance.

I'll go with the view that Agassi's mental game wasn't there early in his career, so playing more tournaments in Australia or Wimbledon wouldn't have made much difference. The surface doesn't make much difference if you're head isn't in the game.

That's a very interesting comparison. Just imagine if Agassi had decided to call it quits after 1997 (which he came pretty close to doing). I think he'd have been regarded as a bigger underachiever than Safin. Picture Agassi with no career slam, 3 majors, and 34 career titles. I think people would have him ranked behind Courier.

Courier was a great player, kind of unique in a way that he was probably one of the few non - spanish/south american players that dominated clay for albeit a short period of time.

Safin's best comparison is Ivanisevic though. It'd have been a tragedy had he not won that Wimbeldon over Rafter. I probably would have cried for a week if he lost that game. I adored him as a kid.

j-far wrote:Courier was a great player, kind of unique in a way that he was probably one of the few non - spanish/south american players that dominated clay for albeit a short period of time.

Safin's best comparison is Ivanisevic though. It'd have been a tragedy had he not won that Wimbeldon over Rafter. I probably would have cried for a week if he lost that game. I adored him as a kid.

I think that temperament-wise, Safin has a lot in common with Ivanisevic. I think Safin had more talent, though, which is where I think a comparison with pre-1999 Agassi makes sense.

Note: I'm not saying Ivanisevic didn't have skills, but Safin really had it all. Big serve, steady groundstrokes, excellent movement for a guy his size, etc. It's why he's considered an underachiever despite 2 majors and 5 masters series titles. If Agassi hadn't made it back after 1997, he'd be looked at as that kind of a waste of talent. If Goran had retired without winning Wimbledon, it would have been a real shame, but I don't think people would have said he squandered his gifts to the same extent because, except for Nick Bollettieri, I don't really know anyone who's said that Ivanisevic had the raw talent to be an all-time great. Plenty of people have said that about Safin.