#### Flash O'Groove

##### Hall of Fame

In the "Why did Sampras give up on clay" Carpedm said in a very good post " Back in the 90’s, you literally had ten to twelve guys that had it within their grasp to win a Grand Slam tournament at any given time. Today, you have four guys and then the field all with an equal chance,

This is a very common view on the 90's, and I wanted to check with datas its veracity. For each years since 91, I wrote down the winner of each slam, the runner-up and both semi-finalist. I quickly saw that the first half of the 90's was heavily dominated by a small number of players who monopolized most of the SF places, while the second half was a lot more open, with many outsiders reaching SF or better.

I then decided to count how many different players won a slam in the first half of the 90's, how many different players (who didn't won a slam) were runner-up, and how many different players (who didn't reach a final) reached the SF. I then did the same for the second half on the 90's, and every next five years span until 2015 (obviously not complete).

Here is a description of what I found:

1991-1995: the 20 slams were divided between 8 difference winners (Becker, Courier, Stich, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Sampras, Muster. These same players were the runner-up most of the time. Only 6 other players reached a final (Lendl, Korda, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin, Beratasegui, Chang). 14 others players only reached the SF, among them Connors, McEnroe, Krajicek.

All in all, these 5 years saw 14 different finalists and 28 different semi-finalists.

1996-2000: The 20 slams were divided between 10 winners ( Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Sampras, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Agassi, Moya, Safin). 14 others players reached the finals, and 19 difference players reached only the SF.

That's 24 finalists, and 43 different players reaching the final four. These datas show that the idea that a dozen players could make noise at each slam is a lot more true during the second part of the 90's than during the first one.

Now between 2001-2005, we had even more different slam winners, with 12 different winners, but a fewer different finalist (8) and fewer different semi-finalist (11). That's 20 different finalists, and 33 different players reaching the final four.

Then from 2005-2010, the "concentration of power" is quiet similar to what we saw in 91-95: Only 4 different slam winners, 7 others finalists, and 15 different semifinalist. That's 11 different finalists (14 in 91-95), 26 different players reaching the final fours (28 in 91-95).

And if we want to discuss true "concentration of power", then the 2010's is the decade to discuss: 6 different winners (thanks to Stan and Marin), only 2 others players who failed in finals (Ferrer and Pishikori), and only 6 different semi-finalists. In all, only 14 different players monopolized all the semi-finalist places from 2011 to AO 2015.

SO what do you think of these datas? Could we say more things with them if I counted differently (than arbritary 5 years spans for example)? Would it be interesting to ad the 80's? Do you think the datas for the 91-95 invalidate the idea that "anyone" could win at that time, while the datas for 96-2005(3) confirm it? How is it that the"concentration of power" is every stronger in the 2010's than in the 2005's? Further homogenization of surfaces, techniques, rackets?

I look forward for your feedback.

Note: Remind the bolded part in Carpedm quotation: this is not a discussion on the "strength" or "depth" of the Sampras era vs the Federer era.

**which is not a commentary on the field. It’s just the way the game shapes up today.**"This is a very common view on the 90's, and I wanted to check with datas its veracity. For each years since 91, I wrote down the winner of each slam, the runner-up and both semi-finalist. I quickly saw that the first half of the 90's was heavily dominated by a small number of players who monopolized most of the SF places, while the second half was a lot more open, with many outsiders reaching SF or better.

I then decided to count how many different players won a slam in the first half of the 90's, how many different players (who didn't won a slam) were runner-up, and how many different players (who didn't reach a final) reached the SF. I then did the same for the second half on the 90's, and every next five years span until 2015 (obviously not complete).

Here is a description of what I found:

1991-1995: the 20 slams were divided between 8 difference winners (Becker, Courier, Stich, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Sampras, Muster. These same players were the runner-up most of the time. Only 6 other players reached a final (Lendl, Korda, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin, Beratasegui, Chang). 14 others players only reached the SF, among them Connors, McEnroe, Krajicek.

All in all, these 5 years saw 14 different finalists and 28 different semi-finalists.

1996-2000: The 20 slams were divided between 10 winners ( Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Sampras, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Agassi, Moya, Safin). 14 others players reached the finals, and 19 difference players reached only the SF.

That's 24 finalists, and 43 different players reaching the final four. These datas show that the idea that a dozen players could make noise at each slam is a lot more true during the second part of the 90's than during the first one.

Now between 2001-2005, we had even more different slam winners, with 12 different winners, but a fewer different finalist (8) and fewer different semi-finalist (11). That's 20 different finalists, and 33 different players reaching the final four.

Then from 2005-2010, the "concentration of power" is quiet similar to what we saw in 91-95: Only 4 different slam winners, 7 others finalists, and 15 different semifinalist. That's 11 different finalists (14 in 91-95), 26 different players reaching the final fours (28 in 91-95).

And if we want to discuss true "concentration of power", then the 2010's is the decade to discuss: 6 different winners (thanks to Stan and Marin), only 2 others players who failed in finals (Ferrer and Pishikori), and only 6 different semi-finalists. In all, only 14 different players monopolized all the semi-finalist places from 2011 to AO 2015.

SO what do you think of these datas? Could we say more things with them if I counted differently (than arbritary 5 years spans for example)? Would it be interesting to ad the 80's? Do you think the datas for the 91-95 invalidate the idea that "anyone" could win at that time, while the datas for 96-2005(3) confirm it? How is it that the"concentration of power" is every stronger in the 2010's than in the 2005's? Further homogenization of surfaces, techniques, rackets?

I look forward for your feedback.

Note: Remind the bolded part in Carpedm quotation: this is not a discussion on the "strength" or "depth" of the Sampras era vs the Federer era.

Last edited: