The Tennis Career Grand Slam, Future Normal?

Novak Djokovic created a lot of history last weekend on the tennis court.  By winning the French Open, Novak became the first man to hold all four grand slam titles simultaneously; this has not been done since Rod Laver won the calendar grand slam in 1969.  If that wasn’t enough, Novak also became the first man since Jim Courier in 1992 to win the Australian Open and French Open in the same season!  This now means that Novak has an opportunity to complete the calendar grand slam, which has not been on the cards since Jim Courier in 1992.

This is a most incredible achievement and puts Novak in a unique position in the history of modern tennis to hold all four titles.  However, at the same time, Novak is the third man since 2009 complete the career grand slam of winning all four major titles.  Prior to 2009, Andre Agassi completed his feat in 1999 when he won the French Open; and then we have to go back to Rod Laver in 1969.  In Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, we are talking about three very talented individuals; but it is worth looking at the factors which have created the conditions for three players to complete the career grand slam over such a short period of time. 

Tennis is one of those sports which seem to be in a constant state of change.  Since I have been watching tennis from the early 1990s onwards, the ATP Tour has been reorganised at least twice if not three times, graphite racquets completely replaced wood racquets by the mid 1980s; which has since been replaced by a variety of space age technologies such as titanium, kevlar and graphene.  Strings also made a big impact especially in the last 15 years with new sturdy synthetic strings adding ever more topspin to all shots.  The most famous (or infamous) string being the Big Banger which Gustavo Kuerten used to win his three French Open titles in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  We should also add the introduction of Hawkeye in 2006 which allowed players to challenge line calls. 

These are all significant when it comes to the progress of tennis in recent history.  However, for me, the biggest changes have been those initiated by the tennis authorities themselves, namely the ATP and the ITF plus the All England Club at Wimbledon.  It is worth looking at how these changes have impacted each of the major championships and how they have impacted the sport.

The beginning of significant changes started to be implemented towards the end of the 1990s.  Throughout the 1990s the consensus had been that the serve was too dominant on grass at Wimbledon, robbing the watching public of long rallies.  In 1995 a “softer” tennis ball was introduced for the championships, however this had minimal impact.  Around 2000, the decision was taken to change the composition of the grass to rye with a slightly higher cut and to make the Slazenger balls soften a bit further slowing play down.   By pure coincidence; this change coincided with a boycott by Spanish players headed by Alex Corretja in 2001 in protest at the seeding system used by Wimbledon.  Wimbledon compromised by increasing the seeds from 16 to 32, giving players more opportunity go further in the tournament, whereas previously, top players had the chance of meeting each other a lot earlier as those not deemed as grass court specialists were given a lower seeding or not seeded at all and thus no real incentive to give their best at Wimbledon.  Top five players like Thomas Muster regularly skipped Wimbledon, as had then world number 1 Gustavo Kuerten, who skipped Wimbledon to take a holiday after winning the French Open.

While this was happening at Wimbledon, the ATP were also making significant changes to the tour.  In 1996, the end of year championships in Hanover (World Tour finals) had the surface changed from indoor carpet to indoor hardcourt. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the tournament had always been played on indoor carpet, the tournament was held in Madison Square Garden New York up to 1989 on a surface called supreme, then from 1990 to 1995 in Frankfurt and Hanover in 1996 on taraflex.  The players voted on switching surface for 1997 onwards and there was an immediate impact from this decision.  In 1997 Kafelnikov played the final against Sampras and in 1998 the two finalists of the 1998 French Open battled it out over five sets for the title, with Alex Corretja gaining revenge over Carlos Moya who beat him at the French Open.  Up until 1998, clay court players got nowhere near winning the end of year championships.  The bounce of the ball was considerably higher especially off the 2nd serve and groundstrokes, aiding clay court players who prefer the higher bounce. 

In 2000 another clay court specialist Gustavo Kuerten won the championships in Lisbon Portugal, by this stage rebranded as the Masters Cup, defeating Pete Sampras in the semifinal and Andre Agassi in the final, the only player ever to defeat Sampras and Agassi back to back in a tournament.  Even by today’s standard, the surface in Lisbon was the slowest I have seen indoors and the balls used were heavy duty ones, playing right into Kuerten’s hands.  The change of surface and balls slowed indoor tennis down considerably, allowing for the baseliners to take over the winning of the tournament from the attacking players. 

This development is somewhat unresolved by the fact that the top attacking players were slowing down or retiring, Pat Rafter stopped playing after the Masters cup in Sydney in November 2001 and clearly no younger players were coached to come through and play attacking tennis, everyone was staying back.

Now let us take a look at the other three major championships.  In 2002, more changes followed with reports that the court surface of the US Open was slowed down with more sand added to the deco turf 2 surface.  Again, the changes were not immediately apparent as aggressive players continued to win the US Open throughout the 2000s although Roger Federer started going to net less and less to finish points from 2004 to 2008 when he won his titles. By 2009 it was reported the US Open surface was slowed down even further than previous years with longer rallies now the order of the day.

The Australian Open also made significant changes in the 2000s.  Like the French Open in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Australian Open had a habit of throwing up surprise finalists and champions.  Many players also skipped the Australian Open including Agassi who made his debut in 1995 despite turning pro in 1986.  In fact, Agassi would win the title in his first appearance defeating Sampras in the final.  Meanwhile, Sampras skipped the tournament in 1991 and 1992 and in 1999 missed the tournament to have a break from tennis after breaking the record for most years at number 1 at the end of 1988.  Petr Korda won the title in 1998 defeating Marcelo Rios in the final.  In 1999, Yevgeny Kafelnikov defeated Thomas Enqvist and in 2002 Thomas Johansson caused the biggest surprise yet by defeating Marat Safin in the final. 

Other surprise finalists included Arnaud Clement in 2001, Rainer Schuettler in 2003, Marcos Baghdatis in 2006 and Fernando Gonzalez in 2007.  Surprise finalists were one factor but there were also continual complaints from the players of the surface being too sticky, with many players turning their ankle when their shoes got stuck in the surface, particularly under the very hot sun in Melbourne.  In 2008 the Australian Open pulled up the rebound ace and replaced it with plexicushion, a surface found on most indoor hardcourts with very solid bounce and no surprises which rebound ace regularly threw up.   Rebound ace itself had only been around since 1998 when the Australian Open moved from Kooyong on grass to Melbourne to attract the best players who were regularly avoiding the event which at the time was played in December and not January.  Since 2008 when Novak Djokovic defeated Jo Wilfried Tsonga, we have seen the best players in the world get to the finals and win the Australian Open on a yearly basis.  Stan Wawrinka was a surprise winner in 2014, but unlike other past surprise winners, Wawrinka has backed it up with a French Open title in 2015 and good results in other big tournaments around the world. 

Other changes at the Australian Open included the introduction of the heat rule with more matches played under the roof; and many more night matches for the top players, including all semifinals and finals, ensuring the top players stay a lot fresher throughout the fortnight of the tournament than in previous years when played on rebound ace.

At the French Open, with clay being clay, there have been no changes to the surface.  However, the changes in racquet and string technology and the introduction of the lighter Babolat tennis ball has made the French Open a vastly different tournament to the one played in previous decades.  Tennis on clay is now much more similar to tennis played on hardcourts and no doubt would have been to the liking of many aggressive / attacking players who played in the 1990s with stiffer graphite racquets, natural gut strings and heavier duty tennis balls.

Back to the ATP tour.  The points system has also changed dramatically over the last 15 years since 2000.  In 1994 Sampras scored 350 points for winning the Miami (Masters) tournament.  In 2000 that increased to 500 points when Sampras won his third title there.  Now, 1000 points is awarded for winning Miami and all other Masters 1000 tournaments.  In fact, whereas in the past number 1 players would be seen playing smaller tournaments whether that be Los Angeles or Lyon, Djokovic is so far ahead he only plays the nine Masters events, the grand slams plus China Open and Dubai every year, meaning he is always fresh and stays well ahead of the pack.  Even within the Masters events, the cards have fallen quite nicely for Djokovic.  In 2007 Indian Wells, Miami (they alternated every year), Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Paris Bercy and the end of year world tour finals were best of five set finals.  Players often had to pick and choose which Masters events to play to save energy levels, Masters events were not always mandatory as they are now. However,  all finals switched to best of three in 2009, choosing events is no longer an issue and with the events being made mandatory, there are no reasons not to play them.  Many non-Masters events such as Barcelona and Vienna also played best of five set finals for many years prior to 2009.

What we have here is a perfect storm of factors coming together to allow the best players to get to the latter stages of tournaments at all times regardless of surface.  And now, all four grand slam surfaces actually play at a similar pace, meaning players no longer have to make big adjustments depending on the tournament. In the 1980s, Ivan Lendl served and volleyed on both serves in his attempt to win Wimbledon.  At the French Open, Boris Becker played an almost exclusive baseline game.  Those sorts of big changes are no longer necessary which potentially in the past threw off players’ rhythm, timing and confidence from one tournament to the next. 

In summary, the changes that have seen tennis become the more physical sport where players peak at a later age than ever before:

• the decision to replace the surface of all indoor tournaments from carpet to higher bouncing plexicushion in the late 1990s

• the change in the grass at Wimbledon designed to slow down play, plus softening the Slazenger ball

• increase of seeds from 16 to 32 at Wimbledon, meaning top players would avoid each other until the latter stages and encouraging clay court players to play the event without having to change their tactics.

• the slowing down of the deco turf surface at the US Open, adding more sand

• the change from rebound ace to the much more reliable and medium paced plexicushion surface in Australia

• advancements in racquet and string technology which allowed players to counteract attacking players with more success on grass and indoor hardcourts

• the decision by the ATP to reduce all Masters tournaments to best of three set finals and vastly increase the points system, allowing for those at the top to stay at the top for much longer periods.

• players no longer having to dramatically change their style of play depending on surface.

I believe the culmination of these changes to the game of professional tennis has been the reason why we have seen Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic continually reach the finals of all four grand slam tournaments on a regular basis.  Andy Murray has joined the club by getting to the final of the French Open.  Whilst Novak made an incredibly historic achievement last Sunday, I believe that over the next two decades, top players will continue to reach the finals of all four majors and the opportunities to win all four will become the norm as opposed to the exception which was the case in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.  It shows what an achievement it was for Agassi to win all four majors in such diverse conditions.  The other players to make the finals of the four grand slam tournaments pre 2000 were Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg and Jim Courier.