Big 3: 17-17-17-12

[Nadalfan2013]

The Big 3 winning each slam:

AO: 17 times (9 + 6 + 2)
RG: 17 times (14 + 2 + 1)
WB: 17 times (8 + 7 + 2)
US: 12 times (5 + 4 + 3)

This year again they won the other 3 slams but not the USO. Why is the USO by far the weakest link for the Big 3? Discuss.

 

[TheSicilian]

Because Djokovic keeps losing in the final in NYC

 

[TheSicilian]

I think most years a big 3 player has made the final, but not won every time. Interestingly no one has successfully defended the USO title since Federer in 08 Different champion for the 15th? year now. Very unusual compared to the other slams.

 

[Front242]

The Big 3 winning each slam:

AO: 17 times (9 + 6 + 2)
RG: 17 times (14 + 2 + 1)
WB: 17 times (8 + 7 + 2)
US: 12 times (5 + 4 + 3)

This year again they won the other 3 slams but not the USO. Why is the USO by far the weakest link for the Big 3? Discuss.

Burnt out by that part of the season. A lot of tennis played by then. Hard to be physically 100% by then and they're older than the rest so this has more of an impact.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Burnt out by that part of the season. A lot of tennis played by then. Hard to be physically 100% by then and they're older than the rest so this has more of an impact.

I think it's a combination of Djokovic not being great on real HC compared to the plexicushion AO, and also GOATdal being injured many years at the USO.

 

[Kieran]

The USO was always traditionally considered to be hardest to win, because it never was an extreme surface like grass or clay. It was more neutral, and so dirtballers and grass courters could compete on neutral ground. It was never a given that the FO champ might struggle against the Wimbledon champion in New York, and vice versa.

The last 3 USO’s have given us a healthy change of winners too. And Stan, Cilic, Murray, Del Potro have all won it. I think it’s the best slam for this reason, it’s just much more unpredictable, among its many other virtues…

 

[Ricardo]

It’s the slam most greats seem to choke on. Fed, Djoker and even Borg all made deep runs and quite often just came up short when victory was within sight. The chokiest slam ever!!

 

[Moxie]

The USO was always traditionally considered to be hardest to win, because it never was an extreme surface like grass or clay. It was more neutral, and so dirtballers and grass courters could compete on neutral ground. It was never a given that the FO champ might struggle against the Wimbledon champion in New York, and vice versa.

The last 3 USO’s have given us a healthy change of winners too. And Stan, Cilic, Murray, Del Potro have all won it. I think it’s the best slam for this reason, it’s just much more unpredictable, among its many other virtues…

I hate to correct you, but the USO has at times been played on grass and on clay. (Great trivia answer is that Connors won it on all 3 surfaces.) I think it was played on grass until 1975, then clay until 1978, when it moved to Flushing Meadows and went hards. But I take your point...in most of our memories, the USOpen has been on hards, and at the end of the year. (Though the AO used to be end of year.) Anyway, in recent times, it comes late in a long season, and is played on what we could call a "neutral surface," meaning much more players contend on it. I do think this explains why it has changed hands more that most of the others, at least in recent years. I think it is the French Open that has had more different winners than the other 3, historically, even in the Open Era, but I'd have to look that up.

 

[Fiero425]

I hate to correct you, but the USO has at times been played on grass and on clay. (Great trivia answer is that Connors won it on all 3 surfaces.) I think it was played on grass until 1975, then clay until 1978, when it moved to Flushing Meadows and went hards. But I take your point...in most of our memories, the USOpen has been on hards, and at the end of the year. (Though the AO used to be end of year.) Anyway, in recent times, it comes late in a long season, and is played on what we could call a "neutral surface," meaning much more players contend on it. I do think this explains why it has changed hands more that most of the others, at least in recent years. I think it is the French Open that has had more different winners than the other 3, historically, even in the Open Era, but I'd have to look that up.

History says the USO is probably the toughest event no matter the surface! It was amazing that Fed successfully took 5 in a row; even Sampras couldn't defend it but once ('95-96)! It was quite impressive of Rafter & Edberg to defend their titles as well! Borg tried his best on all 3 surfaces and he just couldn't get over the hump even when on that slippery Har-Tru clay! His main problem really was playing at night! He hated it and his coach Lenard B. constantly lobbied for Borg to get daytime matches! He had to play at least one so he got it out of the way in the 1st Rd. vs old man Bob Hewitt! Bjorn's worst upset was vs Tanner in a night match in '79 w/ aces haunting Borg to this day! Borg's inability to pull this one tournament out still drags me down! I was glad Roger stole a FO in '09! His resume would have had a huge hole after being in so many finals! A Career Grand Slam became all the rage to elevate Agassi after he completed the task in Paris! Now it's almost common with the Big 3! Too bad for Stan Wawrinka! He had no hope of winning Wimbledon! Murray will have a lot of regrets with his many chances to join the club; esp. all those AO final losses to Djokovic! In Paris he wore himself out early by getting into 4-5 set battles from Day 1 in 2016! By the time he got to the final vs Novak, "he was done!" Djokovic got his 1st to complete his CGS; now w/ 2 after 2021 win in Paris! End Rant!

 

[Kieran]

I hate to correct you, but the USO has at times been played on grass and on clay. (Great trivia answer is that Connors won it on all 3 surfaces.) I think it was played on grass until 1975, then clay until 1978, when it moved to Flushing Meadows and went hards. But I take your point...in most of our memories, the USOpen has been on hards, and at the end of the year. (Though the AO used to be end of year.) Anyway, in recent times, it comes late in a long season, and is played on what we could call a "neutral surface," meaning much more players contend on it. I do think this explains why it has changed hands more that most of the others, at least in recent years. I think it is the French Open that has had more different winners than the other 3, historically, even in the Open Era, but I'd have to look that up.

I hate to counter correct you but I knew that. It’s not relevant to what I was saying. You did repeat what I was saying when you described the hard court as a more neutral court, though, which is why it was more open to all comers to win…

 

[Kieran]

History says the USO is probably the toughest event no matter the surface! It was amazing that Fed successfully took 5 in a row; even Sampras couldn't defend it but once ('95-96)! It was quite impressive of Rafter & Edberg to defend their titles as well! Borg tried his best on all 3 surfaces and he just couldn't get over the hump even when on that slippery Har-Tru clay! His main problem really was playing at night! He hated it and his coach Lenard B. constantly lobbied for Borg to get daytime matches! He had to play at least one so he got it out of the way in the 1st Rd. vs old man Bob Hewitt! Bjorn's worst upset was vs Tanner in a night match in '79 w/ aces haunting Borg to this day! Borg's inability to pull this one tournament out still drags me down! I was glad Roger stole a FO in '09! His resume would have had a huge hole after being in so many finals! A Career Grand Slam became all the rage to elevate Agassi after he completed the task in Paris! Now it's almost common with the Big 3! Too bad for Stan Wawrinka! He had no hope of winning Wimbledon! Murray will have a lot of regrets with his many chances to join the club; esp. all those AO final losses to Djokovic! In Paris he wore himself out early by getting into 4-5 set battles from Day 1 in 2016! By the time he got to the final vs Novak, "he was done!" Djokovic got his 1st to complete his CGS; now w/ 2 after 2021 win in Paris! End Rant!

Nice rant, and very true about Borg. And it was always interesting to me that the players he beat in Wimbledon from 78-80 all got their revenge against him at the USO that same year, the Tanner match being the most shocking, though Connors gave him a real hiding in 1978. There were often mentions of the high bounce affecting his shot-making, the floodlights, a foot injury in 78, i think, another injury in 1980. In this sense, he’s a lot in common with Rafa.

The two years it was on clay, he played only once I think, and Connors beat him in the final. When people whine that Laver did his CYS on only two surfaces, I often remind them that the grass played differently from place to place, probably even more than the difference between the courts in Australia and New York now. The evidence here being Mats different records at the Australian on grass, where he even beat McEnroe, and his single qf at Wimbledon. Likewise, the clay they used in the US Open wasn’t red clay like Paris. I think Borg would eventually have won it, had they kept the clay surface, but they didn’t. It’s often a discussion here, how many slams would the Big 3 have if two surfaces favoured Rafa instead of favouring Roger and Novak…

 

[Fiero425]

I hate to counter correct you but I knew that. It’s not relevant to what I was saying. You did repeat what I was saying when you described the hard court as a more neutral court, though, which is why it was more open to all comers to win…

I thought it weird too to reiterate what you had already said! Few don't remember USO has gone thru unprecedented surface changes over a very short period of time'74-78! I understood wanting to get rid of the grass, but it made no sense to go to clay here in the States! Our Juniors at the time did training on clay, but the top pros needed faster surfaces to play successful! European and So. Americans flourished as they upset our top players including Orantes in '75 & Vilas in '77 over Connors! The HC's of Flushing Meadows brought stability back; early on Butch Walts upset Vilas in 4th round in '78! The court was so fast! Borg in another final, but had a thumb injury! He lost the handle on his racket more than a few times! Connors won in straight sets IIRC!

 

[Kieran]

I thought it weird too to reiterate what you had already said! Few don't remember USO has gone thru unprecedented surface changes over a very short period of time'74-78! I understood wanting to get rid of the grass, but it made no sense to go to clay here in the States! Our Juniors at the time did training on clay, but the top pros needed faster surfaces to play successful! European and So. Americans flourished as they upset our top players including Orantes in '75 & Vilas in '77 over Connors! The HC's of Flushing Meadows brought stability back; early on Butch Walts upset Vilas in 4th round in '78! The court was so fast! Borg in another final, but had a thumb injury! He lost the handle on his racket more than a few times! Connors won in straight sets IIRC!

2, 2 and 4, almost a mirror image of their Wimbledon match. The last time Jimbo bested Bjorn, too.

It’s true Americans have never really been dirtballers, and I think before Courier winning the French you need to go back to Tony Trabert in Paris in the fifties or sixties? But didn’t you have a green clay event in Indianapolis for a long time? Is it still there?

Going back on topic, the HC was a typical professional era innovation, one that worked, far as I’m concerned. Had Borg persevered, he might finally have nabbed one. But it became a middle ground where everyone could have a chance of winning. Rogers 5 in a row might be his greatest achievement, almost concurrently with his Wimbledon 5 in a row. He kinda got lucky with the opposition in New York but that’s Napoleons definition of a great general, I think…