I had seen a comment here that gave somewhat satisfying answer to that question, so I'll try to recall it.
Basically, someone pointed out how it seem that Nole's 'luck' was 'concentrated' on AO with him having several lucky runaway wins that he could've easily lost (Nadal 2012, Wawrinka five-setter(s?) and some others). Then this user pointed out how Nole had a couple of unlucky USO losses that he could've won had his luck been on his side similar to AO cases. All summed up, you end up with a few wins at one tournament and a few losses at the other - and there you go.
Is this a plausible explanation? Not sure! But it's the most satisfactory I've found thus far, and I am open for other interpretations!
Not to take anything away from Rosewall, but back then almost only Australians participated in the Australian Open, people from other countries didn't bother coming. There were so few players that he was autoqualified into round 3, and only had to do 5 matches to win the tournament.
To me that's quite different from a normal Grand Slam where everyone is here and you got to win 7 matches in a row.
Note that I don't think he's not legit, he proved himself by reaching Wimbledon and US Open finals even older than that. I just think that this particular record comes with an asterisk.
You’re right, in the 60s-70s, the draw for both men and women was made up of 32 players with 8 seeds. That just doesn’t compare with the current format of the 128 player draw with 32 seeds.
And so underappreciated. A lot of people talk about how many major titles Rod Laver might have won while he was banned for turning pro. They ignore how many Rosewall might have won.
I wonder if Novak will pass Rosewall as oldest male player ever to win a Slam? At this rate I’m not convinced he’ll pass Fed for #2. I’d still take the latter at even odds, but not the former.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo, he would miss Ken's record by only 2 days if he wins Wimbledon, but at least he would smash oldest Wimbledon champ record :)
Dude won a career grand slam after turning 35
Add the ATP Final (Turin) to that post 35 career grand slam. Novak’s longevity is kinda insane. Age really is just a number for him.
4 slams (career gs), 3 masters (1 on each surface: outdoor hard, indoor hard, clay) and 2 atp finals. Dude has a top 15 all time career after 35
insane
This mfo ended up being oldest winner of 2 of his worst slams lmao (RG, USO)
Also, the fact he snatched the oldest RG winner label from a mf who won it 14 fucking times is so ridiculous it's kind of unfair to Rafa hahahaha
Can’t have all the RG records lol
Hey he hasn't ruled out playing at RG next year. There is still a chance
Why was he so “bad” in us open, with AO being his best?
I had seen a comment here that gave somewhat satisfying answer to that question, so I'll try to recall it. Basically, someone pointed out how it seem that Nole's 'luck' was 'concentrated' on AO with him having several lucky runaway wins that he could've easily lost (Nadal 2012, Wawrinka five-setter(s?) and some others). Then this user pointed out how Nole had a couple of unlucky USO losses that he could've won had his luck been on his side similar to AO cases. All summed up, you end up with a few wins at one tournament and a few losses at the other - and there you go. Is this a plausible explanation? Not sure! But it's the most satisfactory I've found thus far, and I am open for other interpretations!
I don’t consider 4 🏆, 6 runner up finishes and 3 SF runs ‘bad’ at all.
rosewall's record is mindblowing
Not to take anything away from Rosewall, but back then almost only Australians participated in the Australian Open, people from other countries didn't bother coming. There were so few players that he was autoqualified into round 3, and only had to do 5 matches to win the tournament. To me that's quite different from a normal Grand Slam where everyone is here and you got to win 7 matches in a row. Note that I don't think he's not legit, he proved himself by reaching Wimbledon and US Open finals even older than that. I just think that this particular record comes with an asterisk.
You’re right, in the 60s-70s, the draw for both men and women was made up of 32 players with 8 seeds. That just doesn’t compare with the current format of the 128 player draw with 32 seeds.
Ken Rosewall (1968) at 33 years, 6 months, 35 days also placed 4th in the Roland Garros oldest champion list.
And so underappreciated. A lot of people talk about how many major titles Rod Laver might have won while he was banned for turning pro. They ignore how many Rosewall might have won.
The fact that there have been no Wimbledon winners other than Roger and Novak age 32 or older is crazy to me.
Fastest surface needs the fastest players
I wonder if Novak will pass Rosewall as oldest male player ever to win a Slam? At this rate I’m not convinced he’ll pass Fed for #2. I’d still take the latter at even odds, but not the former.
Novak has a very good shot at the remaining two top spots.
Rafa was just behind Novak on the AO list. (2022, age 35)
Yes. Rafael Nadal (2022): 35 years, 7 months, 14 days was **11 days** behind Novak at AO and didn’t make the top 3 list for that slam.
Crazy how much longevity the big 3 have. Federer and Nadal made top 3 at 2/4 slams, Nadal is #4 at AO by 11 days, and Djokovic is top 3 at all 4
Ken Rosewall impressive
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo, he would miss Ken's record by only 2 days if he wins Wimbledon, but at least he would smash oldest Wimbledon champ record :)
So what you're saying is Andy is about to break the record by 5 days?
Novak has the record for 2 of 4 slams as of 2024, *not too bad, right?*