Double Career Grand Slam

[Obsi]

There has been a lot of talk about calendar Grand Slam, non-calelendar year Grand Slam, career Grand Slam but not so much about double career Grand Slam.

It's a monumental achievement. In the Open Era nobody has done it. Of the current players, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer can do it by winning one more slam (i.e. Novak FO, Rafa AO and Roger FO).

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Only Djokovic has chance of achieving this. One man will tend to stop him - Dominic Thiem.

 

[nehmeth]

Only Djokovic has chance of achieving this. One man will tend to stop him - Dominic Thiem.

I don't know that young Dom is ready to stop Novak on his own, but a hellacious draw that has him playing Rafa in the quarters, Dom in the semis and Murray in the final could do it.

 

[El Dude]

It's a cool accomplishment, but I wouldn't make too much of it because it is one of those things that is so dependent on the context of play, in this case homogeneity of courts, competition, etc.

Andre Agassi won all four Slams, but Pete Sampras was still a significantly greater player than he was.

 

[Obsi]

It's a cool accomplishment, but I wouldn't make too much of it because it is one of those things that is so dependent on the context of play, in this case homogeneity of courts, competition, etc.

What about calendar Grand Slam? Is it just a "cool" accomplishment or more than that?

Andre Agassi won all four Slams, but Pete Sampras was still a significantly greater player than he was.

Agassi didn't win a double career Grand Slam and he has 6 slams less than Sampras as well as 5 less Year-end No. 1...

 

[El Dude]

I'd definitely put a calendar Grand Slam on a higher level - that is just an amazing level of dominance for a whole year. A "Novak Slam" should be as impressive, but it doesn't have quite the cache.

 

[Obsi]

I'd definitely put a calendar Grand Slam on a higher level - that is just an amazing level of dominance for a whole year. A "Novak Slam" should be as impressive, but it doesn't have quite the cache.

But your argument for the claim that a double career Grand Slam is just a "cool" accomplishment was "because it is one of those things that is so dependent on the context of play, in this case homogeneity of courts, competition, etc."

I say to you that a calendar Grand Slam is also dependent on the context of play, in this case homogeneity of courts, competition, etc.

 

[El Dude]

A double career Slam is impressive, I just wouldn't overstate its magnitude because it is something that is more likely in today's context, given the homogeneity of courts. There's a reason it hasn't been done before (in the Open Era, at least - Laver did it over the amateur and Open Era).

To put it another way, it is a record that would have a very different meaning today, over the last 10-15 years, than at other points in tennis history. If we're talking the Open Era, we can pretty much write off the 70s and half of the 80s as the top players generally didn't play at the Australian Open, which wasn't equivalent to the other Slams until we get to 1987. In the 70s through 90s, courts were far less homogenized than today - Wimbledon and Roland Garros were far different, and top players had a harder time adjusting between the two.

Even Laver's accomplishment of the feat has a contextual difference as three of the four Slams in 1969 (and 1962) were grass and it wasn't until 1978 that the USO switched to acrylic hard courts.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A double career Slam is impressive, I just wouldn't overstate its magnitude because it is something that is more likely in today's context, given the homogeneity of courts. There's a reason it hasn't been done before (in the Open Era, at least - Laver did it over the amateur and Open Era).

To put it another way, it is a record that would have a very different meaning today, over the last 10-15 years, than at other points in tennis history. If we're talking the Open Era, we can pretty much write off the 70s and half of the 80s as the top players generally didn't play at the Australian Open, which wasn't equivalent to the other Slams until we get to 1987. In the 70s through 90s, courts were far less homogenized than today - Wimbledon and Roland Garros were far different, and top players had a harder time adjusting between the two.

Even Laver's accomplishment of the feat has a contextual difference as three of the four Slams in 1969 (and 1962) were grass and it wasn't until 1978 that the USO switched to acrylic hard courts.

I guess Obsi's argument is that the same reasoning given above by you applies Calendar Grand Slam also, but it appears you are not willing to belittle it.

 

[El Dude]

They are different in a rather fundamental way: a calendar Slam must be won four in a row, and with the added challenge of the psychological pressure. A career (or double career) Slam can be accomplished over an entire career.

They're all impressive accomplishments, it is just that the career Slam--and more so, double career Slam--is an accomplishment that is much more possible in the 21st century. I'd actually argue that Agassi's career Slam is far more impressive than Roger's, Rafa's, and Novak's because court conditions were my diverse in the 90s.

But don't worry: if and when Novak accomplishes it, we'll all be duly impressed

 

[Riotbeard]

They are different in a rather fundamental way: a calendar Slam must be won four in a row, and with the added challenge of the psychological pressure. A career (or double career) Slam can be accomplished over an entire career.

They're all impressive accomplishments, it is just that the career Slam--and more so, double career Slam--is an accomplishment that is much more possible in the 21st century. I'd actually argue that Agassi's career Slam is far more impressive than Roger's, Rafa's, and Novak's because court conditions were my diverse in the 90s.

But don't worry: if and when Novak accomplishes it, we'll all be duly impressed

I said it wasn't that big of a deal when Rafa fans started talking about it, I would be a hypocrite to change my opinion now.

 

[Obsi]

A double career Slam is impressive

There is a fundamental difference between "cool" and "impressive".

I just wouldn't overstate its magnitude because it is something that is more likely in today's context, given the homogeneity of courts. There's a reason it hasn't been done before (in the Open Era, at least - Laver did it over the amateur and Open Era).

To put it another way, it is a record that would have a very different meaning today, over the last 10-15 years, than at other points in tennis history. If we're talking the Open Era, we can pretty much write off the 70s and half of the 80s as the top players generally didn't play at the Australian Open, which wasn't equivalent to the other Slams until we get to 1987. In the 70s through 90s, courts were far less homogenized than today - Wimbledon and Roland Garros were far different, and top players had a harder time adjusting between the two.

Even Laver's accomplishment of the feat has a contextual difference as three of the four Slams in 1969 (and 1962) were grass and it wasn't until 1978 that the USO switched to acrylic hard courts.

Which player would've completed a DCGS between 1970-2000 had the conditions were the same like in the last 15 years?

Borg? He never won a U.S. Open and he blamed it on his difficulty seeing the ball at night in New York http://www.dallasobserver.com/blogs...amilton-are-fighting-the-summer-blues-7097545. It's practically certain that he would not.

Connors and McEnroe? I think they would find it extremely difficult to win 1 French Open let alone 2.

Lendl? Maybe.

Sampras? It's very unlikely that he would've won FO.

Agassi? He was very inconsistent. Probably not.

 

[El Dude]

LOL. I don't know why you're so fixated on semantics, Obsi. Cool, impressive, neat-o...whatever you prefer is fine with me.

 

[Obsi]

LOL. I don't know why you're so fixated on semantics, Obsi. Cool, impressive, neat-o...whatever you prefer is fine with me.

I'm not obsessed with semantics. Just wanted to say there is a fundamental difference between "cool" and "impressive".

 

[Front242]

If you insert the word very in front of cool it's then similar to impressive. But again, that's just semantics

 

[Obsi]

If you insert the word very in front of cool it's then similar to impressive. But again, that's just semantics

Anyway, El Dude predicted that Djokovic will end his career with 18 slams http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4814&pid=232577#pid232577

Do you agree with him?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Forget double career slam. There is something more important and more immediate here. No one in the open era has won five slams in a row. If Novak wins Wimbledon, he would achieve that.

If you include "closed era" also, the longest GS Streak is 6 by Don Budge in 1938. If Novak wins USO after winning Wimby, he would not only complete CYGS, he would also match Don Budge for the longest streak of winning Grand Slams continuously.

 

[Front242]

If you insert the word very in front of cool it's then similar to impressive. But again, that's just semantics

Anyway, El Dude predicted that Djokovic will end his career with 18 slams http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4814&pid=232577#pid232577

Do you agree with him?

Anything is possible in this weak era.

 

[Obsi]

If you insert the word very in front of cool it's then similar to impressive. But again, that's just semantics

Anyway, El Dude predicted that Djokovic will end his career with 18 slams http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4814&pid=232577#pid232577

Do you agree with him?

Anything is possible in this weak era.

Why do you avoid to answer my question? If you say it's "possible" it doesn't mean you agree with El Dude as there are people who believe it's possible but unlikely to happen.

So, do you agree with El Dude that Djokovic will win 18 slams? Yes or no?

 

[El Dude]

It is so hard to predict these things because A) We don't know when Novak will start slipping, and B) we don't know who and when someone will emerge to challenge him.

My prediction of 18 Slams--6 more than he has now--is based upon several factors: that Novak has shown no signs of decline yet, that the tour is particularly weak right now and will continue to be weak through at least 2017, and that some decline is inevitable, although whether in 2017, 2018, or even 2019 we don't know.

Novak has three Slams left before turning 30. If he wins all three, he will be at 15, have won seven Slams in a row, and I think not only be well situated to pass Roger and finish with 18+, but have a real chance to finish as the nearly-undisputed GOAT, at least of the Open Era.

If he wins two of those three Slams, he will be at 14 and still have a solid chance of passing Roger, but maybe more like 50-50, and will probably finish in the 16-18 range, depending upon where he and the rest of the tour are at a year from now.

If he wins only one of those three Slams, he will be at 13 on his 30th birthday and will not pass Roger; I think he would finish more in the 14-16 range.

So the point is, those next three Slams are huge--they are his window of opportunity. It is not that when he turns 30, all of a sudden he will rapidly decline, but I do think how many Slams on his 30th birthday will give us a much better baseline than we have now.