Wimbledon 2021

[BSR]

As a die-hard Novak fan, I am tickled pink by his victory.  Wow, 6 Wimbledon titles and 20 Slams, tying rivals Roger & Rafa.  This looked pretty unlikely 10 years ago.  Before the 2011 Australian Open, Roger had 16 Slams, Rafa 9, and Novak just 1.  After the 2018 Australian, Roger had 20, Rafa 16, and Novak just 12.  The Serb caught up in a hurry.

Everyone was talking about Berrettini's serve and understandably so.  His average 1st serve speed was 126mph, and even his 2nd serve averaged an eye-popping 108.  Novak fell far short on pace (1st serve 111mph average, 2nd serve 88) yet was arguably more effective.  1st serve percentage was pretty close -- 61% for Novak, 59% for Berrettini.  Despite a much slower 1st serve, Novak won 79% of 1st serve points vs. 76% for Berrettini.  The gap in 2nd serve points won is even greater: 53% for Novak, just 38% for Berrettini.

The quality of play from both players was pretty scratchy in the 1st set.  Both improved in Set 2, although it still wasn't great tennis.  Novak got much better in Sets 3 & 4.  Matteo was pretty decent, but you got the sense that he never had a chance once Novak found his groove.

The Big 3 all go to the US Open seeking to break the tie & grab Slam #21. Hopefully Roger will be 100% physically and will be able to play plenty of matches in the lead-up to get match-sharp.  I'm pretty sure Rafa will be fully rested (he cited exhaustion for his decision to skip Wimbledon) and hopefully healthy (he didn't mention it, but he injured his foot in the RG semi).  I know Novak will be raring to go.  All three will not only be trying to beat each other but also will be fending off the NextGen (players 25 & under).  Even though Novak won the first 3 Slams of 2021 and is on paper the strong favorite in New York, the pressure of the calendar year Grand Slam will weigh on him like an anvil.  Oh, this should be damn good.

Edited July 13, 2021 by BSR

[+ Charlie]

Actually, I have never made a bet on anything; I am too ignorant about how the process works, because I grew up in a conservative Republican family that didn't approve of gambling. I have never even bought a lottery ticket.

[+ WilliamM]

5 hours ago, BSR said:

As a die-hard Novak fan, I am tickled pink by his victory.  Wow, 6 Wimbledon titles and 20 Slams, tying rivals Roger & Rafa.  This looked pretty unlikely 10 years ago.  Before the 2011 Australian Open, Roger had 16 Slams, Rafa 9, and Novak just 1.  After the 2018 Australian, Roger had 20, Rafa 16, and Novak just 12.  The Serb caught up in a hurry.

Everyone was talking about Berrettini's serve and understandably so.  His average 1st serve speed was 126mph, and even his 2nd serve averaged an eye-popping 108.  Novak fell far short on pace (1st serve 111mph average, 2nd serve 88) yet was arguably more effective.  1st serve percentage was pretty close -- 61% for Novak, 59% for Berrettini.  Despite a much slower 1st serve, Novak won 79% of 1st serve points vs. 76% for Berrettini.  The gap in 2nd serve points won is even greater: 53% for Novak, just 38% for Berrettini.

The quality of play from both players was pretty scratchy in the 1st set.  Both improved in Set 2, although it still wasn't great tennis.  Novak got much better in Sets 3 & 4.  Matteo was pretty decent, but you got the sense that he never had a chance once Novak found his groove.

The Big 3 all go to the US Open seeking to break the tie & grab Slam #21. Hopefully Roger will be 100% physically and will be able to play plenty of matches in the lead-up to get match-sharp.  I'm pretty sure Rafa will be fully rested (he cited exhaustion for his decision to skip Wimbledon) and hopefully healthy (he didn't mention it, but he injured his foot in the RG semi).  I know Novak will be raring to go.  All three will not only be trying to beat each other but also will be fending off the NextGen (players 25 & under).  Even though Novak won the first 3 Slams of 2021 and is on paper the strong favorite in New York, the pressure of the calendar year Grand Slam will weigh on him like an anvil.  Oh, this should be damn good.

As some people have correctly mentioned, there was a time when players skipped the Australia Open.

When I was in Melbourne in the 1990s, most of the players were there, but it was common in the 1980s to rate the the French Open as. not hugely important

[BSR]

12 hours ago, WilliamM said:

As some people have correctly mentioned, there was a time when players skipped the Australia Open.

When I was in Melbourne in the 1990s, most of the players were there, but it was common in the 1980s to rate the the French Open as. not hugely important

Yes, non-Aussie players used to skip the Australian Open more often than they played it.  Bjorn Borg played it only once, skipped it 10 times.  Chris Evert played it 6 times but skipped 13.  Martina Navratilova complains that had she known that she would be judged on how many Slams she won, she would have made the schlep (played 10, skipped 12).  Borg, king of clay before Rafa, even skipped Roland Garros once.  Queen of clay Evert skipped RG 6 times!

I'm not sure exactly when or why the Slams became the be all & end all of professional tennis.  My guess is it started in the early 1990s when Pete Sampras became quite vocal about his goal of breaking Roy Emerson's record of 12 Slams.  The 4 Slams also started to increase prize money by eye-popping amounts, always a motivator.  Adjusted for inflation, Chris Evert won about $150K for winning the 1978 US Open.  In 2019 (prize money took a hit due to Covid), Bianca Andreescu's winner's check was $3.85 million!

[+ Charlie]

The Aussie Open also used to be the last slam tournament of the year, so anyone hoping for a Grand Slam year would have lost interest by the time the year was coming to an end if he/she hadn't already won the first three of the year. One consequence of moving it to January and making it the first slam of the year was that more people wanted to play, because you had to win it first or you had no hope of winning the Grand Slam that year.

[+ WilliamM]

21 hours ago, Charlie said:

The Aussie Open also used to be the last slam tournament of the year, so anyone hoping for a Grand Slam year would have lost interest by the time the year was coming to an end if he/she hadn't already won the first three of the year. One consequence of moving it to January and making it the first slam of the year was that more people wanted to play, because you had to win it first or you had no hope of winning the Grand Slam that year.

For some players, flying back and forth to Australia in early January may have been too  costly so close to the Christmas and New Year's holiday. Frankly, I remember following the Australian Open closely around 1983 and 1984, no one ever mentioned a problem with missiing the Grand Slam

[+ Charlie]

4 hours ago, WilliamM said:

For some players, flying back and forth to Australia in early January may have been too  costly so close to the Christmas and New Year's holiday. Frankly, I remember following the Australian Open closely around 1983 and 1984, no one ever mentioned a problem with missiing the Grand Slam

Perhaps you didn't understand my point. In 1983 and 1984, the Australian Open was not held in January: in those days it was held in Nov.-Dec. Top international players often didn't bother to go all the way to Australia for it because, as the last slam of the year, it wasn't as important as the other slams unless they were interested in winning a Grand Slam (defined as winning all the slams in a single calendar year), and rarely had any of them already won the first three.  But the Grand Slam was a desirable goal for a player, and anyone who wanted it definitely had to win the first slam of the year to be in contention for it at all, so moving the AO to January made winning it more important strategically for the top players. Cost and closeness to the end-of-year holidays was more of a deterrent for the lower ranked players, who often were exhausted at the end of the year from just trying to make a living, and the AO didn't even pay as well as the other slams. One of the main reasons why Margaret Court holds the record for most slams won is that almost half of her wins were at the AO at the end of the year, where she was playing at home, primarily against local talent rather than against the other top international women players.

[+ WilliamM]

36 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Perhaps you didn't understand my point. In 1983 and 1984, the Australian Open was not held in January: in those days it was held in Nov.-Dec. Top international players often didn't bother to go all the way to Australia for it because, as the last slam of the year, it wasn't as important as the other slams unless they were interested in winning a Grand Slam (defined as winning all the slams in a single calendar year), and rarely had any of them already won the first three.  But the Grand Slam was a desirable goal for a player, and anyone who wanted it definitely had to win the first slam of the year to be in contention for it at all, so moving the AO to January made winning it more important strategically for the top players. Cost and closeness to the end-of-year holidays was more of a deterrent for the lower ranked players, who often were exhausted at the end of the year from just trying to make a living, and the AO didn't even pay as well as the other slams. One of the main reasons why Margaret Court holds the record for most slams won is that almost half of her wins were at the AO at the end of the year, where she was playing at home, primarily against local talent rather than against the other top international women players.

No, I knew the Australian Open was held in December in 1983 and 1984.

 

I remember skiing in Vermont in  December 1984  while the Australian Open was going on. By then, I had been going to the US Open since 1981. Edberg may won in 1984, just a guess 

And I know who Margaret Court is, of course. One doesn't have to know much about tennis - she did very well at the Australian Open for the reasons you stated

[BSR]

1 hour ago, Charlie said:

Perhaps you didn't understand my point. In 1983 and 1984, the Australian Open was not held in January: in those days it was held in Nov.-Dec. Top international players often didn't bother to go all the way to Australia for it because, as the last slam of the year, it wasn't as important as the other slams unless they were interested in winning a Grand Slam (defined as winning all the slams in a single calendar year), and rarely had any of them already won the first three.  But the Grand Slam was a desirable goal for a player, and anyone who wanted it definitely had to win the first slam of the year to be in contention for it at all, so moving the AO to January made winning it more important strategically for the top players. Cost and closeness to the end-of-year holidays was more of a deterrent for the lower ranked players, who often were exhausted at the end of the year from just trying to make a living, and the AO didn't even pay as well as the other slams. One of the main reasons why Margaret Court holds the record for most slams won is that almost half of her wins were at the AO at the end of the year, where she was playing at home, primarily against local talent rather than against the other top international women players.

Margaret Court's record of 24 Grand Slam titles is a bit skewed because, as you point out, she won 11 Australian Opens back when few non-Aussies played the tournament.  Also, most years that Court won the AO, the singles draw was just 32 players (Slams all now have 128-player draws).  One detail that boosts Court's CV is that she gave birth to three children during her playing career.  Compare that to Serena's struggles to win a Slam after having one.  Court retired when she became pregnant with her fourth child.