Andy Murray vs Robin Haase, Thursday, Time - 1:00pm BST - Discuss the match
MurraysWorld  >  Andy Talk  >  Consecutive Slam Semi-Finals
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Reply

Consecutive Slam Semi-Finals

Quote

Obviously I'm not taking anything for granted here with the match tomorrow, but the thought occurred to me to look up what the records are for consecutive slam semi-finals. Murray is currently on four, of course, but the all-time list is:

Roger Federer - 23
Ivan Lendl - 10
Novak Djokovic - 6*
Rafael Nadal - 5
Boris Becker - 5
Rod Laver - 4
Andre Agassi - 4
Jim Courier - 4
John McEnroe - 4
Tony Rocher - 4
Andy Murray - 4*

*Active Streak

It just goes to show you how consistent Murray has actually been over the past year or so. If (god forbid) he lost tomorrow the press would probably treat it as a massive failure, but when you look at stuff like the list above it shows you just how difficult what he's trying to do actually is. Greats like Agassi, McEnroe, etc. never made 5 semi-finals in a row.

It also has to be said that, much as I'm not a fan, Federer's consistency is completely ridiculous when you look at it. There was a stretch where he actually made 10 finals in a row (far less semi-finals) and 18 out of 19 finals overall.
IP Logged
Quote

Borg/Mcenroe/Connors/Agassi missed Slams by choice, so there streaks aren't as long as they could/should/would be in this era.
IP Logged
Quote

Something noticable about that list, they all have won grand slams!
IP Logged
Quote

So Murray will be joint fourth in the all-time consecutive slam semi-finals list come tomorrow!  Shows how far he has come.

No more losses like Verdasco, Wawrinka, Cilic and so on in slams he should have done better in.  Of last he has only been beaten by the best, and it will be the same this year.
IP Logged
Quote

Interesting stat, there are increasing amounts of stats showing Andy's place in the upper echelons of the game. He is making history without being noticed, and a lot of people do not realise what a great player he is. Here's hoping people will start taking notice as of Sunday.
IP Logged
Quote

The signs are there that he is a great player in the waiting, the stats support it. I would even say its inevitable that he will be a multiple slam winner. But nothing's really for certain in life. Still it would be strange if he did not become one.
IP Logged
Quote

Those are really interesting stats - as with the Masters series tallies, Andy's right up there with the greats of the game. The differences is in slam wins and hopefully that will start to change soon.

Federer's stats are amazing - so consistent, and to still be regularly making slam semis at 30 years old is impressive. I hope Andy has just a long career at the top of the game.
IP Logged
Quote

Those are really interesting stats - as with the Masters series tallies, Andy's right up there with the greats of the game. The differences is in slam wins and hopefully that will start to change soon.

Federer's stats are amazing - so consistent, and to still be regularly making slam semis at 30 years old is impressive. I hope Andy has just a long career at the top of the game.
I must admit that is so true. Federer is in a class on his own, whether we like it (him) or not.  Rolling Eyes

Andy is playing with the big boys now.  w00t cmon yeah
IP Logged
Quote

Federer. shocking clap
IP Logged
Quote

I must admit that is so true. Federer is in a class on his own, whether we like it (him) or not.  Rolling Eyes

Andy is playing with the big boys now.  w00t cmon yeah

correction: WAS in a class on his own, he is now no better than any other player in the top four
IP Logged
Quote

Borg/Mcenroe/Connors/Agassi missed Slams by choice, so there streaks aren't as long as they could/should/would be in this era.

It's a fair point, although you could also say that's another reason why this era has been so difficult for a player like Murray to win a slam. In the past sometimes the top players didn't play in slams, whereas in the modern era you pretty much have Nadal, Federer and Djokovic at every slam barring very occasional injuries like the one Nadal had in 2009.
IP Logged
Quote

It's a fair point, although you could also say that's another reason why this era has been so difficult for a player like Murray to win a slam. In the past sometimes the top players didn't play in slams, whereas in the modern era you pretty much have Nadal, Federer and Djokovic at every slam barring very occasional injuries like the one Nadal had in 2009.

Yep, back in the 70s, top players didn't go down to Oz unless they'd won the other three. McEnroe was lamenting how many slams he could have won if he'd played in Australia. You have to say, when the Australian Open features winners like Brian Teacher and Johan Kriek, it loses a little cred. It's a little skewed that Johan Kriek has 2 slams to his name and Andy has none.
IP Logged
Quote

^Was money the reason?
IP Logged
Quote

No, distance. It was a brutal trip (still is). Also, the tourney needed modernising. It was played on poor-quality grass at Kooyong Stadium, which was looking pretty grotty.

Also, a major factor was that it came at the end of the season (December). Like I say, top players would only go there if they'd won the other three that year. With it moving to January in 1987, if they wanted a calendar-year slam, they had to start it in Oz in January. Smart move.

The move to the New Year was followed by the shift to Melbourne Park in 1988 and it's had a fair bit of cred since then.
IP Logged
Quote

Wasn't the Aussie Open the only time John Lloyd got to a final?  I always thought that was a fantastic result for him but if most of the big names weren't there it would explain it.
IP Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Reply