Tennis Forum banner

Which is harder?

  • Defending a grand slam

    Votes: 31 51.7%
  • Winning back-to-back slams

    Votes: 29 48.3%
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
To defend a grand slam or to win back-to-back grand slams (i.e. Wimbledon and then US Open)?

To three-peat at the same slam or win three consecutive grand slam titles?

And so on and so on...

I wanted to know this because after the Australian Open 93 Monica Seles was the holder of the last 3 Australian Opens and 3 French Opens and 2 US Opens. That is very very dominant. However, it doesn't appear that good as compared to if someone had won 5 straight slams for example. But I think it's actually harder to three-peat and to do it at another slam venue is really special too. What do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,954 Posts
i would say it is harder to defend a slam than win back-to-back slams. although back-to-back slams would be on different surfaces the form and confidence is more likely to be there whereas defending a slam is a year later and by then the player may be out of form and have no confidence or they could have gotten injured so they are just coming back or the young players may have stepped it up by then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,624 Posts
It's harder to defend a Slam. It means you have to be playing incredibly well a year later. Play lights out tennis for one and a half to two and a half months and you can have back to back Slams. Just look at 1997 til now. Hingis won the Australian Open 3 straight years. Serena won 4 Slams in a row. Venus defended 2 Slams, and Capriati defended one. meanwhile, Venus also won two in a row twice and Capriati won 2 in a row once. So Venus and Capriati are total washes. But Hingis also won 2 Slams in a row twice.

So with Venus and Capriati being exact washes, what we end up comparing is Hingis winning the same Slam 3 straight years compared to Hingis winning 2 Slams in a row twice PLUS Serena winning 4 Slams in a row.

Note also Lindsay. She won 3 Slams in a 5 Slam period, when she was one a roll. But she's never won the same Slam twice, much less defended one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
I would say back to back slams depending on which slams are won back to back. If the two slams are the French Open and Wimbledon then there really is little discussion as to which is more difficult. Defending a slam on one's best surface is difficult but alot easier to accomplish than winning on clay and a couple of weeks later being victorious on grass. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,624 Posts
Winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back is a tough one. In the past 25 years, only Serena, Steffi, Martina, and Chrissie have done it. But in all fairness to Monica, none of them did it when they were 18.
 

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
disposablehero said:
Winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back is a tough one. In the past 25 years, only Serena, Steffi, Martina, and Chrissie have done it. But in all fairness to Monica, none of them did it when they were 18.
Chrissie did it at 19, which is pretty good.

But yeah I agree it depends on the situation. I just wanted to point out really how hard it is to defend a slam, let alone three-peat etc...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
disposablehero said:
Winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back is a tough one. In the past 25 years, only Serena, Steffi, Martina, and Chrissie have done it. But in all fairness to Monica, none of them did it when they were 18.


Margaret Court did it in 1970, and in 1971 at age 19 Evonne Goolagong won the French Open and Wimbledon back to back. Thats was before Serena, Steffi, Martina, and Chrissie. In contrast, Borg did it three times in a row (78,79 and 80).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
No doubt about it...defending. That´s why prior to this year I had Venus higher than Serena, ´cause Venus was actually defending her titles. It´s easy to go on a tear in one year, but when you come back and defend...that means that you´re business. This is the area where I think Serena can and will improve: mantaining that high level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Definitely winning back-to-back majors is more difficult. A player who is good enough on any one of the surfaces (and it helps that they're all different now), stands a better chance of coming back the following year to repeat. It is much more difficult now with the differences in surfaces for someone to win the Australian, and then with the French; or to win the French, and then win Wimbledon, and Wimbledon, then take the U.S. Open.

Back in the day (I know, I'm old), when 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, it was much easier to win back-to-back majors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
alfajeffster said:
Definitely winning back-to-back majors is more difficult. A player who is good enough on any one of the surfaces (and it helps that they're all different now), stands a better chance of coming back the following year to repeat. It is much more difficult now with the differences in surfaces for someone to win the Australian, and then with the French; or to win the French, and then win Wimbledon, and Wimbledon, then take the U.S. Open.

Back in the day (I know, I'm old), when 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, it was much easier to win back-to-back majors.
So Margareth Court didn´t really win the GS back in the days?! If all the GS´s were on grass then she really didn´t win on all four surfaces.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top