Rafa - Calendar Grand Slam - 2014?

[the AntiPusher]

Rafa isn't going to win AO unless he makes some adjustments to the recent changes Djoker has made again versus Rafa. His serve needs some major work because he cant afford to go out to grind it out every point for 5 plus hours against Novak as they did in AO 2012.

 

[Kieran]

Rafa isn't going to win AO unless he makes some adjustments to the recent changes Djoker has made again versus Rafa. His serve needs some major work because he cant afford to go out to grind it out every point for 5 plus hours against Novak as they did in AO 2012.

Totally agree about Rafa's serve, and also, his return has to carry much more freight, but I didn't notice Novak make huge changes in the last two matches. He did seem alert to Rafa's DTL forehand and swiped it back, but Oz is a better surface for dispatching that shot. I hope Rafa arrives fired up: I like his chances next year!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Rafa isn't going to win AO unless he makes some adjustments to the recent changes Djoker has made again versus Rafa. His serve needs some major work because he cant afford to go out to grind it out every point for 5 plus hours against Novak as they did in AO 2012.

Totally agree about Rafa's serve, and also, his return has to carry much more freight, but I didn't notice Novak make huge changes in the last two matches. He did seem alert to Rafa's DTL forehand and swiped it back, but Oz is a better surface for dispatching that shot. I hope Rafa arrives fired up: I like his chances next year!

I like his chances also, Rafa is gonna need someone like Stan the man to push Novak in the semis or qters

 

[Kieran]

Rafa isn't going to win AO unless he makes some adjustments to the recent changes Djoker has made again versus Rafa. His serve needs some major work because he cant afford to go out to grind it out every point for 5 plus hours against Novak as they did in AO 2012.

Totally agree about Rafa's serve, and also, his return has to carry much more freight, but I didn't notice Novak make huge changes in the last two matches. He did seem alert to Rafa's DTL forehand and swiped it back, but Oz is a better surface for dispatching that shot. I hope Rafa arrives fired up: I like his chances next year!

I like his chances also, Rafa is gonna need someone like Stan the man to push Novak in the semis or qters

Roger! Send for the GOAT-candidate to worry and wear down Nole. Frankly, if Rafa shows up like he did in the US hards, I don't mind who Novak faces. In a straightener at that level, I back my man!

 

[brokenshoelace]

A few errors there, buddy. I mean, you really think Novak is greater than Borg, Lendl and Sampras?

Fair question. But keep in mind, you're asking with the benefit of hindsight. In other words, Novak's career isn't over and he's got quite a few more years on tour. We don't know whether he'll be greater than those guys. To answer your question though, I don't think he's ever going to become greater than Sampras, but I do think he'll surpass Lendl soon enough (I already consider him almost on par with him, and I don't think that's a ridiculous suggestion). As far as Borg goes, it's a different issue because Borg was willingly skipping the AO, and if he had played there more he more than likely would have won 3 majors in a year. I know it's a hypothetical, but it's hardly far-fetched, and I'm sure you'll agree (and no I don't consider Novak to be greater than Borg).

However, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it in a way that says "Sampras is a greater player than Djokovic, and even HE was not able to win 3 slams in one year. So that must mean it's easier to achieve now." The reality is, while Djokovic overall is not on the level with Sampras, his level in 2011, when he did win 3 slams, is easily up there with Pete's best years, and perhaps even better (again, it's not a preposterous suggestion, just look at the first 6 months in which he went undefeated, despite playing Federer, Murray and Nadal a combined 10 times). So to simply shrug it off as "it's easier to do now" is a bit too convenient. With the exception of Roger's 2006, I have never, ever, seen someone's level as consistently high as Djokovic in 2011. He was superhuman. What he was producing was beyond unreal, and no I'm not exaggerating.

Based on what? I could name others too. Fact is, the top 3 players of the last decade have been able to chase this because it's more do-able now, not because they're necessarily so much better than everyone since Laver.

Not everyone, no. But they're better than the vast majority. And again, even if we don't consider Novak in the league of Federer and Nadal as far as resume goes (he isn't), his level when he did win 3 slams in one year was up there with anyone in history, and that's what really matters. If he had been able to sleep-walk through that achievement, then maybe the idea that it's much easier to accomplish now would have been more plausible. So his overall resume really doesn't matter as far as this conversation is concerned, unless I'm supposed to marvel at Mats Wilander's overall resume by comparison to everyone else, and he won 3 slams in one year.

Now, I'll give you Rafa and Roger as being of comparable calibre to the best of the last 40 years, but not Nole. :nono

Again, resume wise, he isn't. But his level that year was on caliber with anyone in history. And I don't see how his 3 slams that year are an indicator that it's easier to win multiple slams in a year considering the fact that he had to deal with 2 of the all time greatest players to ever play the game in pretty much every major. Imagine telling someone "it's easier to win 3 slams in a year when your rivals are Federer and Nadal." They'd probably think you've had too much Irish Scotch buddy!

Secondly, nobody said "everything was so much tougher back then", but the game has changed and made domination across the surfaces more accessible to the top players. You know this, right? Or do you disagree with this?

I agree. Except since all the top players are supposed to more or less be able to play on every surface now, that actually makes it quite difficult for someone to win on all surfaces, since everyone is good everywhere. It's not like you can be a grass court specialist and wait for the grass season to beat everyone else because most have no idea how to play on the stuff (not saying that's what happened before, to be clear).

So while the homogenization of the surfaces undoubtedly makes it easier to transition from one surface to another, it doesn't really make it easier for say, Djokovic to win 3 slams per year, since that means his rivals (including two all-time greats) have also benefited from this homogenization to where they will threaten him on every surface. Makes sense, no?

And by the same token, it gets tiresome hearing people constantly hype up this era, when they haven't lived through tennis in the 70's-90's. I'm not saying you here, but so many fans act as if they only discovered tennis through Fedal and haven't a clue about tennis history at all.

Well this era deserves hype because it's been a great era. I don't see what's your issue there. Now, hyping it as incontestably the greatest era to date? That's a different issue, since it's highly debatable.

Thirdly, nobody said grass and clay "are the same surface now." Or if they did, I must have missed it.

I said "almost" the same, and yes, many people have said that on these boards, so you did miss it.

 

[shawnbm]

Remember when Connors famously said circa 2004-2005: "In today's game, you are either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, a hard court specialist, or you're Roger Federer." His point was well taken, as most of the past greats had one surface (and therefore at least one slam) that was problematic because others "specialized" in playing on that surface, for whatever reason(s). Sampras was mediocre on clay, so was McEnroe (except for 1984 when he was superhuman), Borg was great but less great on hard courts, Lendl had issues with grass, etc.

Along came Roger who won on everything (still the only guy in the Open Era with 10 titles on each surface in his career--and in his case those numbers consist mostly of majors and Masters events) and the replacing the grass at SW19 in the early part of this century, together with string changes, and voila! The modern, good-on-all-surfaces elite was born. Roger did it around 22 years of age (winning major events on all surfaces) and dominated for four straight years. Nole started off more of a hard court genius who morphed into a top player on all surfaces. Andy is working his way in slowly but surely on the clay but is still the undisputed fourth best on that surface. Nadal famously worked his way into the other surfaces, the hard courts being the last ones for him to "feel the calm" on in any consistent manner.

I think this is an excellent era, but it is trapped within the "string age" and who knows how that will be viewed later? Certainly these guys defensive skills, speed and endurance could stand up to any other epoch. Roger's service for a number of years was the closest to "money" since Pistol Pete (still the best I ever saw serve a tennis ball). Nole's return is like Connors' on steroids (no offense or implication) and Nadal has the speed, stamina and grind that we have not seen since Borg. This is a helluva an era.

 

[Kieran]

Ah, you missed a trick there, my friend! You might have asked me, "do you think Mats and Jimmy are better than Bjorn, Lendl and Pete?"

Well, I'd say Jimbo and Lendl are of a match, but obviously Mats and Jimmy weren't greater than Bjorn or Pete. But they won 3 slams in a year, and Pete didn't. And the effort of achieving it broke Mats, and the following season Connors won no slams. It was huge back then, and this is why I say it's more routine now: a player hits his greatest form and he can dominate the whole year, not just a stretch along his favourite surface - and then hope to catch a fair wind on his dodgier surfaces.

I'm supposed to marvel at Mats Wilander's overall resume by comparison to everyone else, and he won 3 slams in one year.

In fairness to Mats, he won 7 slams by the age of 23, beat Mac on grass in Oz in 1983 and had he jacked it in after 1988 (which he essentially did, without stopping, however), we'd be praising him through the roof. Plus, he was so much tougher than Nole, until he lost his appetite.

By the way, I think there's an interesting semi-topic in the way grass was different from scene to scene in the slams. We often hear how Oz and Flushing Meadows are both hards, but differently paced. Likewise the grass, and this is why Mats had the opportunity to beat Mac that year. At Wimbledon, grass was like glass and Wilander struggled.

With the exception of Roger's 2006, I have never, ever, seen someone's level as consistently high as Djokovic in 2011. He was superhuman. What he was producing was beyond unreal, and no I'm not exaggerating.

You didn't see McEnroe in 1984.

I agree. Except since all the top players are supposed to more or less be able to play on every surface now, that actually makes it quite difficult for someone to win on all surfaces, since everyone is good everywhere.

So while the homogenization of the surfaces undoubtedly makes it easier to transition from one surface to another, it doesn't really make it easier for say, Djokovic to win 3 slams per year, since that means his rivals (including two all-time greats) have also benefited from this homogenization to where they will threaten him on every surface. Makes sense, no?

It's a good point, but it doesn't fully convince, because all three haven't been at their very best at the same times.

A benefit of homogenisation is that it's burned off the lower orders: when a guy hits a hot run - like Nole in 2011 - he has few potholes in front of him, the surface differentials don't cause him to pause and re-learn to play the game in a totally different way, and if they're not up to it, he can even take care of his main rivals. At that level, the margins are thin, and if you're on the top end of these margins, you win. This is why Roger and Rafa are greater than Nole: they manage the margins so much more frequently and gain that extra that gives the win. It only takes a guy to be off his game a fraction and his opponent grabs the upper hand.

As for this era versus other eras, this is indeed a debateable one. My problem is when people instantly pronounce everything of today to the Greatest, the GOATest, far better than anything could have been - like, EVER! It seems like an American attitude, if my American chums can forgive that. It's strictly from the realm of hype and doesn't necessarily stack up to reality. Each era poses different problems and the best players are the ones who manage these, in the best way possible...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's why holding Slams on 3 surfaces is a "thing." I'm pretty sure that it's only Connors, Agassi, Nadal and Federer that have done that on the men's side, (which Nadal and Federer both accomplished in 09.) NB: I noticed that Jimmy Connors won the USO on 3 surfaces: grass, clay and HC.

Only one male player has simultaneously held GS Trophies from three different surfaces.
That is Nadal. I hate to write this post being a Federer Fan, but facts are facts.

Federer, Connors, Agassi, and Wilander have won grand slams on three different surfaces, but
have not held them simultaneously.

Your NB is irrelevant as obviously you are talking about his winnings from different years.

See article below.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1536384-forget-calendar-slam-surface-slam-almost-as-rare

Roger has held majors on all 3 surfaces at 2 different times in 2009 and 2010. Rafa is the only one to do it in a calendar year.

I am talking about holding them simultaneously. The only time he won FO was 2009.
In 2009, he lost AO to Nadal and USO to JMDP. So, there was never a time when he held
three most recent GS Trophies from different surfaces simultaneously.

It looks like you are not particular about the Hard Court GS Trophy being the most
recent Hard Court GS.

Since 1988, If you want to hold three most recent GS Trophies from three
different surfaces, there is no way to do it spread across two years (without
really also achieving a non-calendar grand slam). The only way to hold them
simultaneously is to do it in the same year. You got to win either the first three
or the last three.

As the article that I cited says, there was a way to achieve this spread
over two years (without really also achieving a non-calendar grand slam)
during the years 1978-1987.

In 1978, USO changed to hard courts. In 1988, AO changed to hard courts.

Roger held the USO from 08, RG 09 and Wimbledon 09. And even doing the "most recent HC slam" criteria (which I don't get by the way) Roger would have had RG 09, Wimbledon 09, and AO '10.

I see your confusion with the "most recent". That is bad phrasing on my part.
Anyway, people are definiing SURFACE SLAM to be three CONSECUTIVE grand slams from
three different surfaces (does not have to be in the same year). However, since
1988, the only way to get a surface slam is to win either the first three or last three
Grandslams of the same year. During the period from 1978 to 1987, it was possible to
achieve non-calendar surface slam by winning USO in one year and AO and FO in
next year (as AO was played on grass and USO was played on hard during this
time frame). However, nobody achieved that. The consecutiveness is a key
aspect of regular grand slam definitions, unless we are talking about career achievements.
To summarize, I am giving the definitions below.

CALENDAR GS: Win all 4 in an year
Tiger/Serena GS: Win 4 in a row, not necessarily in the same year.
SURFACE SLAM: Win 3 consecutive majors on 3 different surfaces.
CHANNEL SLAM: Win FO and Wimbledon in the same year.

CAREER GS: Win all 4 some time in career.
CAREER SURFACE SLAM: Win slams on 3 different surfaces sometime in career.
CAREER CHANNEL SLAM: Win Wimby and FO sometime in career.

Under the above definition (which seems natural) Roger does not have Surface Slam,
but has Carreer Surface Slam. Borg and Sampras do not even have career surface slam.
Hope, it clarifies.

 

[BalaryKar]

Now, I'll give you Rafa and Roger as being of comparable calibre to the best of the last 40 years, but not Nole. :nono

There is something missing about Nole. At the beginning of 11 who would have given Nole to be that great player that he is viewed today? Potentially yes, but achievement-wise? To be fair to Nole, I am sure he had no business winning just 1 out of the 5 USO finals that he contested. Loosing only one of 4 against Fed, 2 Nadal, Murray is justified. If he had sneaked in two of these 4, we would be looking at an entirely different beast. Looks to rebound, and it looks great:clap

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, he faced Roger first in the final in 2007. I was at that match, believe me, he was a calf. he had breaks in each set but was clueless in how to finish. And the two times Rafa beat him, Rafa was not gonna be denied.

But yeah, his loss to Murray seems tame. I mean, he came back from two sets down - and fizzled out. There's often this thing with Nole, he can be a chest-punching hard man, but really deep down he's not a warrior in the class of the truly great players. 2011 was an anomaly, not the norm. But I fancy him to win more slams and be remembered as a great player...

 

[huntingyou]

oh the myths keep perpetuating themselves by the same priests of "golden" eras.

Roger it's basically done, Rafa will follow by 2015 and Novak soon after by 2017. Once that happens, we'll see how easy it's to win 3 slams in a year, channel slams and the transition between "homogenized" surfaces.

Why follow the sport then? Laver won 4 slams in two surfaces against his country club pals and we are suppose to vow but Roger dominates tennis in a span of 4 years like nobody before him and the "weak" competition mantra has to be preach. Rafa wins the channel slams and three consecutive slams in three surfaces and again; the sermon on surface "homogenization" can't be kept on the shelves. The level of tennis Novak displayed in 2011 between January and September was the HIGHEST CONSISTENT level of play documented in the books; and he did it against the two previous world #1 and a great player in Murray as well but somehow it's easier today because IT has to be easier; otherwise Sampras would have done it....never mind his inability to play on clay.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^Hunting, I agree with you in that we are extremely spoiled by the quality of the guys we have been witnessing in the last 10 years, so much so that we are looking for reasons to diminish their achievements.

Maybe we should just enjoy it because it will not last forever.

 

[Kieran]

Just for the record, I don't diminish anyone's achievements. That includes country club Rod...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Just for the record, I don't diminish anyone's achievements. That includes country club Rod...

I am country club Rob ::blush:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Continuing with my previous post, I am listing below the winners of different categories.
I am doing this off the top of my head without looking up. So, it is bound to be erroneous
and/or incomplete. Hopefully, some of you will help me to fix it.

Note that I am interested only in ATP and only in singles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Golden Slam: None

Bryan Golden Slam: None

Calendar Grand Slam: Don Budge and Rod Laver.

Tiger/Serena Slam: None other than those who achieved Calendar GS.

Surface Slam: Rafa Nadal

Channel Slam: Borg (3), Nadal (2) and Federer (1).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Career Golden Slam: Andre Agassi and Rafa Nadal

Career Grand Slam: Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal

Career Surface Slam: Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal

Career Channel Slam: Career GS List + Borg + ??? (anybody else)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[brokenshoelace]

Continuing with my previous post, I am listing below the winners of different categories.
I am doing this off the top of my head without looking up. So, it is bound to be erroneous
and/or incomplete. Hopefully, some of you will help me to fix it.

Note that I am interested only in ATP and only in singles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Golden Slam: None

Bryan Golden Slam: None

Calendar Grand Slam: Don Budge and Rod Laver.

Tiger/Serena Slam: None other than those who achieved CGS.

Surface Slam: Rafa Nadal

Channel Slam: Borg (3), Nadal (2) and Federer (1).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Career Golden Slam: Andre Agassi and Rafa Nadal

Career Grand Slam: Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal

Career Surface Slam: Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal

Career Channel Slam: CGS List + Borg + Wilander + ??? (anybody else)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's very interesting GSM, though what's a career channel slam?

 

[tented]

Continuing with my previous post, I am listing below the winners of different categories.
I am doing this off the top of my head without looking up. So, it is bound to be erroneous
and/or incomplete. Hopefully, some of you will help me to fix it.

Note that I am interested only in ATP and only in singles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Golden Slam: None

Bryan Golden Slam: None

Calendar Grand Slam: Don Budge and Rod Laver.

Tiger/Serena Slam: None other than those who achieved CGS.

Surface Slam: Rafa Nadal

Channel Slam: Borg (3), Nadal (2) and Federer (1).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Career Golden Slam: Andre Agassi and Rafa Nadal

Career Grand Slam: Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal

Career Surface Slam: Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal

Career Channel Slam: CGS List + Borg + Wilander + ??? (anybody else)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's very interesting GSM, though what's a career channel slam?

I'm assuming he means having won both RG and Wimbledon over the course of a player's career, but Wilander never won Wimbledon.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Continuing with my previous post, I am listing below the winners of different categories.
I am doing this off the top of my head without looking up. So, it is bound to be erroneous
and/or incomplete. Hopefully, some of you will help me to fix it.

Note that I am interested only in ATP and only in singles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Golden Slam: None

Bryan Golden Slam: None

Calendar Grand Slam: Don Budge and Rod Laver.

Tiger/Serena Slam: None other than those who achieved CGS.

Surface Slam: Rafa Nadal

Channel Slam: Borg (3), Nadal (2) and Federer (1).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Career Golden Slam: Andre Agassi and Rafa Nadal

Career Grand Slam: Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal

Career Surface Slam: Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal

Career Channel Slam: CGS List + Borg + Wilander + ??? (anybody else)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's very interesting GSM, though what's a career channel slam?

I'm assuming he means having won both RG and Wimbledon over the course of a player's career, but Wilander never won Wimbledon.

Yes, you got my meaning correct. You caught my error too. I am fixing it in the previous post.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For observant people, there are lot of counterintuitive things in my post containing list
of achievers.

1. One would tend to think that if some one has achieved Career Grand Slam,
they would have automatically achieved Career Surface Slam. That is not
the case; as you can see the names of Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson
and Rod Laver appear in the Career Grand Slam list, but do not
appear in Career Surface Slam list. The reason is that they won their
Career Grand Slam in old times when 3 were played on grass and
1 was played on clay. As a result, they have never won a hard court
slam.

2. One would tend to think that if some one has achieved Career Surface Slam
(winning GS on three different surfaces sometime in the career), they would
have automatically achieved Career Channel Slam (winning FO and W sometime
in the career). That is not true either; as you can see the names of Mats Wilander
and Jimmy Connors appears in the Career Surface Slam List, but not in the
Career Channel Slam List.

a. Jimmy Connors never won French Open. However, he has won a Clay Slam
as he won USO one year when it was played on clay.

b. Mats Wilander never won Wimbledon. However, he has won a Grass Slam
viz., AO when it was played on grass.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Let's not forget Agassi's "super career slam", since he is the only guy that has achieved it. Career "golden slam" plus WTF.