Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Futtocks

Tennis

140 posts in this topic

So does this mean that it is very unlikely that someone will win all four grand slams in a year?

 

Highly unlikely I would have thought. Nadal might have had a chance I guess but his knees coupled with the rise of Murray and Djokovic would suggest other wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Olympic title.

 

Which makes Murray's feat of two grand slams and the Olympic title pretty impressive too. Sometimes we need to recognise something special at the time and not years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And is it a Grand Slam if you win all four consecutively, or do you have to win them all in the same calendar year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes Murray's feat of two grand slams and the Olympic title pretty impressive too. Sometimes we need to recognise something special at the time and not years later.

 

It really is impressive, and didn't he get to the final of the Australian as well? I think he is finally getting the recognition he has always deserved. I know his mother always used to get criticised for being a 'pushy mother' but if you read a bit about his background it was Andy who was the pushy one. He'd have friends from all over Europe through tennis and he'd see what facilities they had access to, and the opportunities to train with and play against the best, and he wanted some of that too. That determination to constantly push himself has continued into adulthood and we are now seeing the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And is it a Grand Slam if you win all four consecutively, or do you have to win them all in the same calendar year?

 

I wasn't sure so I've checked wiki.

 

If you say "Grand Slam" without qualification you're referring to someone holding all four at once (apparently).  Other than that you can have a career or non-calendar Grand Slam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure so I've checked wiki.

 

If you say "Grand Slam" without qualification you're referring to someone holding all four at once (apparently).  Other than that you can have a career or non-calendar Grand Slam.

Apologies for misusing the term grand slam then, but isn't it occasionally used to describe the four top events, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open and French? So when Murray won the US Open, he had won one of the grand slams?

 

Regardless, it's a wonderful feat, and over the last year or so he has been outstanding in the big events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a term used with a certain degree of vagueness, even by players and professional pundits. The tournaments that make up a Grand Slam are also sometimes called the Majors. The hierarchy goes (I think) Futures, Challengers, ATP World Tour 250, ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour Masters (9 of these) and Majors (the 4 'Grand Slam' events. Then, at the end of the season, you get the World Tour Finals, where the top 8 ranked players compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't 'majors' more of a golfing term. I am happy to be proved incorrect mind

'Open' is also a term shared by golf and tennis. No monopoly on terms, I suppose... like 'Superleague'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for misusing the term grand slam then, but isn't it occasionally used to describe the four top events, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open and French? So when Murray won the US Open, he had won one of the grand slams?

 

Regardless, it's a wonderful feat, and over the last year or so he has been outstanding in the big events.

 

No, I think you are correct, I often hear commentators talking about "winning his first grand slam" meaning winning one of the four top events you've listed. I suppose what they really mean is "grand slam tournament". A "Grand Slam" is to get all four of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think you are correct, I often hear commentators talking about "winning his first grand slam" meaning winning one of the four top events you've listed. I suppose what they really mean is "grand slam tournament". A "Grand Slam" is to get all four of them.

This is also my understanding, rightly or wrongly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like it when they refer to him as the "British No 1" as though there's quite a battle with the No 2 for the top spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that ALL sporting events should be without seeding.  Put all names in a hat and draw them out.  If two top names come out in the 1st round, so what?  You should have to beat the best to be classed as the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like it when they refer to him as the "British No 1" as though there's quite a battle with the No 2 for the top spot.

 

Yes, I thought that when a previous poster mentioned it. Being Britain's No 1 isn't that much of an honour. In fact, it's almost as much of honour to be known as the best player from Dunblane (albeit his brother doesn't play singles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017