The two Grand Slams comparison : Laver 1969 vs Djokovic 2015/16

[Mastoor]

This is a comparison of the two most recent Grand Slams in men’s tennis, Laver’s in 1969 and Novak’s from 2015/16.


Many tennis fans are happy to point out that Laver’s one is achieved in one calendar year, while Novak’s is over two seasons as if that makes the Laver’s one better than Novak’s.

A South African friend of mine pointed out that while school years start in September in the Northern Hemisphere, she doesn’t feel herself spectacularly smarter just for starting all her school years in January and finishing them in November of the same year.


Also, Novak’s Grand Slam is better on many other levels and it is often overlooked. Here are the reasons and explanations why Novak’s achievement is much better than Laver’s.

1. Australian Open in 1969 was nothing like modern slams

In the 60s they played Australian Open over 8 days, with many international players not willing to participate, so it was largely field consisting of Australian players. In 1969, Laver started in round 2 and then after round 3, he was already in the quarterfinal, which means it was a 5 rounds competition for him. In addition to that, 3 of his 5 opponents were of his own nationality.


In short, Laver’s 1969 AO was 5 rounds against largely Australian players while Novak’s 2016 AO was 7 rounds against the best available players in the world. Consequently, Laver’s Grand Slam was in 26 matches, Novak’s all 28.


2. Number of Surfaces

In 1969 they played all the slams on grass except for Roland Garros that was on clay. Novak on the other hand played two New World slams on hard court and European ones on clay and grass.


3. Period of Time taken to win four consecutive slams

Laver won his 4 consecutive slams between the 20th of January and the 9th of September 1969, in not even 8 months.


Novak won his 4 slams between the 29th June 2015 and the 5th of June 2016 which is over 11 months.


Why is this significant? Because it is much easier to stay in a slam winning form for less than 8 months like Laver did than for more than 11 months like Nole did.


4. Opposition

In 1969, the field was very much Australian with only Gimeno, Okker, Drysdale, Franulovic along with several Americans outside of Australia capable of making some impact.


As opposed to that, competition in 2015 wasn’t just one nation and their selected friends from the rest of the world, but it was truly open to professional players from all over the world.

 

[britbox]

Sorry mate, Djoker never won a grand slam.

 

[monfed]

faker never won the calendar slam, sorry to tell you that mate

 

[britbox]

This is a comparison of the two most recent Grand Slams in men’s tennis, Laver’s in 1969 and Novak’s from 2015/16.


Many tennis fans are happy to point out that Laver’s one is achieved in one calendar year, while Novak’s is over two seasons as if that makes the Laver’s one better than Novak’s.

A South African friend of mine pointed out that while school years start in September in the Northern Hemisphere, she doesn’t feel herself spectacularly smarter just for starting all her school years in January and finishing them in November of the same year.


Also, Novak’s Grand Slam is better on many other levels and it is often overlooked. Here are the reasons and explanations why Novak’s achievement is much better than Laver’s.

1. Australian Open in 1969 was nothing like modern slams

In the 60s they played Australian Open over 8 days, with many international players not willing to participate, so it was largely field consisting of Australian players. In 1969, Laver started in round 2 and then after round 3, he was already in the quarterfinal, which means it was a 5 rounds competition for him. In addition to that, 3 of his 5 opponents were of his own nationality.


In short, Laver’s 1969 AO was 5 rounds against largely Australian players while Novak’s 2016 AO was 7 rounds against the best available players in the world. Consequently, Laver’s Grand Slam was in 26 matches, Novak’s all 28.


2. Number of Surfaces

In 1969 they played all the slams on grass except for Roland Garros that was on clay. Novak on the other hand played two New World slams on hard court and European ones on clay and grass.


3. Period of Time taken to win four consecutive slams

Laver won his 4 consecutive slams between the 20th of January and the 9th of September 1969, in not even 8 months.


Novak won his 4 slams between the 29th June 2015 and the 5th of June 2016 which is over 11 months.


Why is this significant? Because it is much easier to stay in a slam winning form for less than 8 months like Laver did than for more than 11 months like Nole did.


4. Opposition

In 1969, the field was very much Australian with only Gimeno, Okker, Drysdale, Franulovic along with several Americans outside of Australia capable of making some impact.


As opposed to that, competition in 2015 wasn’t just one nation and their selected friends from the rest of the world, but it was truly open to professional players from all over the world.

There are different ways to look at this. The first is that Novak has not won the Grand Slam. The Grand Slam is all four in a calendar year. It's the Holy Grail of Tennis... and it's so hard to do that nobody has done it in 50 years.

It's harder to complete statistically because you only get one shot per year to do the cycle. If you lose the AO then you have to wait a year to restart the cycle of opportunity. If you lose the French... you're waiting again until next years AO to start the cycle again... With the 4 in a row version, you get to start the cycle again at the very next major.

So, if you have a 10 year career and played each major, with a Calendar Grand Slam, you get 10 chances.

With a 4 in a row, you'll get 37 chances.

So the feat is not comparable.

What you can compare is the standard and depth of tennis... and still say Novak's feat is greater... like winning 4 in a row now is harder than winning a Calendar Grand Slam in 69.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... but the fact remains that the real Grand Slam hasn't been done for 50 years.

 

[GSMSampras]

16 seeds and 32 seeds are also why it was difficult to win slams earlier.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Both combined are not as impressive as La Undecima. B-)

 

[monfed]

Both combined are not as impressive as La Undecima. B-)

but la undecima was only on clay

 

[Nadalfan2013]

but la undecima was only on clay

That’s a compliment as it’s the best and most difficult surface in tennis

 

[Mastoor]

16 seeds and 32 seeds are also why it was difficult to win slams earlier.

It wasn't, there were players of largely two countries, namely Australia and USA nso doesn't matter they had twice less seeds. It was incomparably easier to win all 4 then. Read what i wrote.

 

[Mastoor]

There are different ways to look at this. The first is that Novak has not won the Grand Slam. The Grand Slam is all four in a calendar year. It's the Holy Grail of Tennis... and it's so hard to do that nobody has done it in 50 years.

It's harder to complete statistically because you only get one shot per year to do the cycle. If you lose the AO then you have to wait a year to restart the cycle of opportunity. If you lose the French... you're waiting again until next years AO to start the cycle again... With the 4 in a row version, you get to start the cycle again at the very next major.

So, if you have a 10 year career and played each major, with a Calendar Grand Slam, you get 10 chances.

With a 4 in a row, you'll get 37 chances.

So the feat is not comparable.

What you can compare is the standard and depth of tennis... and still say Novak's feat is greater... like winning 4 in a row now is harder than winning a Calendar Grand Slam in 69.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... but the fact remains that the real Grand Slam hasn't been done for 50 years.

First of all, you fail to mention, and I know that you know about this because we already talked about it in the past, that they changed the definition of the Grand Slam only when Stefi Graff won all 4 in a calendar year. Before that time, any 4 in a row were called the Grand Slam equally.

Secondly, even if it wasn't a Grand Slam, call it whatever you wont., Nole slam or Connect 4 if you like, no one has come very close to that achievement since 1969, which is the greatest achievement in tennis, which makes Novak the Greatest Tennis Player of all times.

 

[Moxie]

First of all, you fail to mention, and I know that you know about this because we already talked about it in the past, that they changed the definition of the Grand Slam only when Stefi Graff won all 4 in a calendar year. Before that time, any 4 in a row were called the Grand Slam equally.

Secondly, even if it wasn't a Grand Slam, call it whatever you wont., Nole slam or Connect 4 if you like, no one has come very close to that achievement since 1969, which is the greatest achievement in tennis, which makes Novak the Greatest Tennis Player of all times.

That is absolutely not true. The Grand Slam was winning all 4 in one year since basically forever. It was the Grand Slam when Laver won it in 1962, and when he won it again in 1969. (I think I have the years right...not googling.) The notion of winning 4 in the non-calendar year I believe began with Serena, and was called the "Serena Slam." This was the first iteration of making the non-CYGS a "thing." Steffi Graf won the actual Grand Slam in 1988, so it has been done since 1969. And to say that "no one has come close" is factually wrong: Roger came within one Slam twice, Rafa once and Novak another time. Novak and Roger were stopped each time by Rafa at the French Open. Rafa was stopped by injury, or Ferrer, however you want to couch it, at the AO.

 

[GSMSampras]

That is absolutely not true. The Grand Slam was winning all 4 in one year since basically forever. It was the Grand Slam when Laver won it in 1962, and when he won it again in 1969. (I think I have the years right...not googling.) The notion of winning 4 in the non-calendar year I believe began with Serena, and was called the "Serena Slam." This was the first iteration of making the non-CYGS a "thing." Steffi Graf won the actual Grand Slam in 1988, so it has been done since 1969. And to say that "no one has come close" is factually wrong: Roger came within one Slam twice, Rafa once and Novak another time. Novak and Roger were stopped each time by Rafa at the French Open. Rafa was stopped by injury, or Ferrer, however you want to couch it, at the AO.

Navratilova won 6 in a row but it still did not include a Grand Slam.
Grand Slam>Whatever Djokovic having 4 in a row is called.

 

[DarthFed]

That is absolutely not true. The Grand Slam was winning all 4 in one year since basically forever. It was the Grand Slam when Laver won it in 1962, and when he won it again in 1969. (I think I have the years right...not googling.) The notion of winning 4 in the non-calendar year I believe began with Serena, and was called the "Serena Slam." This was the first iteration of making the non-CYGS a "thing." Steffi Graf won the actual Grand Slam in 1988, so it has been done since 1969. And to say that "no one has come close" is factually wrong: Roger came within one Slam twice, Rafa once and Novak another time. Novak and Roger were stopped each time by Rafa at the French Open. Rafa was stopped by injury, or Ferrer, however you want to couch it, at the AO.

Novak came within one slam on two different occasions and was stopped by Roger and Stan. Nice try though...

EDIT: I see you're talking only non calendar year GS. Last I checked Djokovic won one and that's a pretty big deal. Roger and Novak both had multiple years winning 3 majors so they have been close to calendar year slams.

Anyways I'd say Rafa was stopped by Ferrer. You don't get extra points for your body breaking down due to playing like a peasant. Some would say he should be injured more often.

 

[Moxie]

I was going off the top of my head, but you get my point to Mastoor. Aging Roger is making you bitter and nasty, btw, regarding your last bit.

 

[DarthFed]

I was going off the top of my head, but you get my point to Mastoor. Aging Roger is making you bitter and nasty, btw, regarding your last bit.

Oh honey, I was bitter and nasty to begin with. An aging Roger just adds onto it, especially with Nad and Djoker tards smelling blood in the water. After all, Roger is clearly playing his best ever tennis in his 30's right?

 

[Fiero425]

Navratilova won 6 in a row but it still did not include a Grand Slam.
Grand Slam>Whatever Djokovic having 4 in a row is called.

I was wondering when someone would invoke Martina's name! She was the reason they started attributing a GS to players again because she won so many majors in a row; got a bonus of some sort, and IMO is the greatest player of all time! She has more of a resume than anyone in the OPEN era; just 5 majors behind Court who had little to no comp. when winning 11 AO's in the Am. Era! NO ONE else will come close to winning 59 Majors ever again since her prowess spanned all the disciplines and could win with any partner; male or female! I doubt Roger will be able to hang on; even in dubs until he's 50 like she did winning her last major @ the '06 USO w/ B. Bryan in MxD!

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I was wondering when someone would invoke Martina's name! She was the reason they started attributing a GS to players again because she won so many majors in a row; got a bonus of some sort, and IMO is the greatest player of all time! She has more of a resume than anyone in the OPEN era; just 5 majors behind Court who had little to no comp. when winning 11 AO's in the Am. Era! NO ONE else will come close to winning 59 Majors ever again since her prowess spanned all the disciplines and could win with any partner; male or female! I doubt Roger will be able to hang on; even in dubs until he's 50 like she did winning her last major @ the '06 USO w/ B. Bryan in MxD!

.
Navratilova won most of her doubles slams playing both singles and doubles which is impossible for mens who play best of 5.
She didn't start playing doubles and mixed after her career.All her doubles majors came before the age of 34.
Mixed doubles is 5 rounds with 3rd set super tiebreaker with a partner

 

[Fiero425]

.
Navratilova won most of her doubles slams playing both singles and doubles which is impossible for mens who play best of 5.
She didn't start playing doubles and mixed after her career.All her doubles majors came before the age of 34.
Mixed doubles is 5 rounds with 3rd set super tiebreaker with a partner

I have no fk'n idea WTF you're talking about! I refuse to get into a debate with someone who's clueless; esp. talking about Navratilova! :cuckoo:

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I have no fk'n idea WTF you're talking about! I refuse to get into a debate with someone who's clueless; esp. talking about Navratilova! :cuckoo:

Rich words from someone who claims to have watched tennis for 40+ years

 

[Fiero425]

Rich words from someone who claims to have watched tennis for 40+ years

Well if you're WRONG, you're WRONG! Martina wasn't playing STB in the 3rd set for all those years and she was routinely winning doubles before she even started making a name for herself in singles! That's what I can't comprehend from you! It was all nonsense and BS; check your facts! My memory at 61 is probably better than your present reading skills so you're confusing everyone! I guess it could be an error in translation; you from Siberia? :whistle: :cuckoo: