So Long, Mate

看板Tennis (網球)作者noanoa (noanoa)時間22年前 (2003/01/15 19:31)推噓1(1推 0噓 0→)

留言1則, 1人參與討論串1/1

有趣的文章列出選手贏得冠軍與贏的大滿貫的排名 & 贏得冠軍中贏得大滿貫的比例的排名 Pat雖第一項排名不高,但第二項卻排第三名 So Long, Mate Call it "The Law of Conservation of Players." Yevgeny Kafelnikov refused to retire, so Pat Rafter stepped up and maintained the number of active Slam-holders by officially removing himself from the list of active players. Rafter also, as is his way, picked a very good time: By retiring just before the Australian Open, he made sure that the media attention would not detract from the coverage of his national event -- and got the media out of his hair during the contest itself. We published a farewell to Rafter at the time of his real retirement (following the 2001 Davis Cup). But we can at least summarize. In his career, Rafter won two Slams: The 1997 and 1998 U. S. Opens. He also made the Wimbledon final in 2000 and 2001, producing an epic final in the latter whi ch he barely lost to Goran Ivanisevic. He reached the Australian Open semifinal in 2001, and the Roland Garros semifinal in 1997, making him one of the handful of players to make it to the semis of all four events in the four-surface era. (We'll have a feature about that particular accomplishment in an upcoming column .) Rafter also picked up a Slam doubles title -- rather unusual in this age of sing les specialists. He won the 1999 Australian Open with Jonas Bjorkman. He had nin e other doubles titles as well, including two Masters Series (1998 Indian Wells and 1999 Canadian Open). He made it as high as #6 in the world in doubles. And #1 in the world in singles, in 1999. That didn't last long, but he twice end ed the year in the Top Five (1997 and 1998) and was Top 20 every year from 1997 till his effective retirement in 2001. He was #7 when he quit. If there is one fly in the ointment, it's his list of titles. He had only eleven : Manchester 1994, U. S. Open 1997, Chennai 1998, 's-Hertogenbosch 1998, Canadian Open 1998, Cincinnati 1998, Long Island 1998, U. S. Open 1998 's-Hertogenbosch 1999, 's-Hertogenbosch 2000, Indianapolis 2001. Even more noteworthy is the (lack of) balance of those surfaces: Four grass events, seven outdoor hardcourt events, no clay, no indoors. He had two clay finals (St. Poelten 1997, Rome 1999) and two indoors (Philadelphia 1997, Lyon 2000) plus the 1998 Grand Slam Cup. What's odd about this is his ratio of Slams to other titles: Eleven titles, two Slams, a 5.5:1 ratio. That's not common at all, especially among multiple Slam winners. If there is anything that will keep him from the Hall of Fame, it will surely be his lack of titles. Which is probably worth at least part of a column. Let's look at recent multi-Slam winners and their ratio of titles to Slams (the ratio being expressed as the number of titles won for each Slam won). Player..........Titles...Slams...Ratio Agassi.............54.......7......7.7 Becker.............49.......6......8.2 Bruguera...........14.......2......7.0 Courier............23.......4......5.8 Edberg.............41.......6......6.8 Hewitt.............17.......2......8.5 Kafelnikov.........26.......2.....13.0 Kuerten............18.......3......6.0 Lendl..............94.......8.....11.8 McEnroe............77.......7.....11.0 Rafter.............11.......2......5.5 Sampras............64......14......4.6 Wilander...........33...... 7......4.7 If we sort these by ratio, we get the following: Player..........Titles...Slams...Ratio Sampras............64......14......4.6 Wilander...........33...... 7......4.7 Rafter.............11.......2......5.5 Courier............23.......4......5.8 Kuerten............18.......3......6.0 Edberg.............41.......6......6.8 Bruguera...........14.......2......7.0 Agassi.............54.......7......7.7 Becker.............49.......6......8.2 Hewitt.............17.......2......8.5 McEnroe............77.......7.....11.0 Lendl..............94.......8.....11.8 Kafelnikov.........26.......2.....13.0 Thus Rafter ends up with the lowest ratio of any players except Sampras and Wilander, both of whom are special cases (Sampras because, well, he's Sampras and was so dominant on the surfaces where he won at all, and Wilander because he stopped caring and so stopped winning lesser events at the same time he stopped winning Slams). The next player up, Courier, is also an odd case, because he like Wilander suffered a degree of burnout. (An informal survey shows the women having rather lower ratios. Of course, they have the Williams Sisters, who play limited schedules, and Jennifer Capriati, who can't win titles away from Slams, and they also had Chris O'Neill....) What this means must be left as an exercise for the reader. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw) ◆ From: 61.217.122.186 ※ 編輯: noanoa 來自: 61.217.122.186 (01/15 19:31)