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

[The_Grand_Slam]

Well if you're WRONG, you're WRONG! Martina wasn't playing STB in the 3rd set and she was routinely winning doubles before she even started making a name for herself playing singles! That's what I can't comprehend from you! It was all nonsense and BS; check your facts!

Mixed doubles has super tb in 3rd set -doubles doesn't.

.
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

She won her last doubles major at 34 .

It's only because ATP plays best of 5 and WTA plays best of 3 that she could snag so many doubles majors

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?

Nice throw in some more Xenophobia

:whistle: :cuckoo:

Even my younger cousins don't use this many emojis
Are you sure you're 61?

 

[Fiero425]

Mixed doubles has super tb in 3rd set -doubles doesn't.


She won her last doubles major at 34 .

It's only because ATP plays best of 5 and WTA plays best of 3 that she could snag so many doubles majors



Nice throw in some more Xenophobia


Even my younger cousins don't use this many emojis
Are you sure you're 61?

Just young in the face, body, and in the heart! :whistle:

 

[Denis]

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.

Nice post Mastoor, let the ladies get all up in arms over defending the indefensible: Laver’s challenger tour’s slam is more impressive because it started in June.

 

[Moxie]

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.

I've been meaning to go back and see what you were on about as to the bolded above, though suspecting, as you were indeed, talking about Djoker losing the French twice in a year when he won the others. This is only close to the CYGS "in retrospect." It doesn't really weigh the same, now, does it? Plus, if you're talking about Roger stopping Novak in 2011, that was a SF. Getting close to the CYGS is winning them all in order. Serena was actually close in 2015, when she lost in the SF of the USO. Some Novak fans tried to argue that Djokovic was closer, since he'd made the final at the French and won the other 3, but that does not at all take into account the pressure. That's much more of a "close, but no cigar."

 

[Fiero425]

I've been meaning to go back and see what you were on about as to the bolded above, though suspecting, as you were indeed, talking about Djoker losing the French twice in a year when he won the others. This is only close to the CYGS "in retrospect." It doesn't really weigh the same, now, does it? Plus, if you're talking about Roger stopping Novak in 2011, that was a SF. Getting close to the CYGS is winning them all in order. Serena was actually close in 2015, when she lost in the SF of the USO. Some Novak fans tried to argue that Djokovic was closer, since he'd made the final at the French and won the other 3, but that does not at all take into account the pressure. That's much more of a "close, but no cigar."

Only a truly delusional person would try to undermine the accomplishment of winning 3 majors in a season twice! Seek serious fk'n babe! My mouth just went agape with that kind of hatin' going on with serious tennis historians! :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

Only a truly delusional person would try to undermine the accomplishment of winning 3 majors in a season twice! Seek serious fk'n babe! My mouth just went agape with that kind of hatin' going on with serious tennis historians! :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

I'm not down-playing it. I'm just saying that being "close" to the CYGS because you missed on earlier in the year is NOT the same as getting 3 in a row and losing in the F or the SF of the 4th. If you could untwist your knickers, Miss Pittypat, you actually do know that.

 

[Ricardo]

One would also see that winning on WTA tour is infinitely easier than winning on ATP.

 

[Ricardo]

I've been meaning to go back and see what you were on about as to the bolded above, though suspecting, as you were indeed, talking about Djoker losing the French twice in a year when he won the others. This is only close to the CYGS "in retrospect." It doesn't really weigh the same, now, does it? Plus, if you're talking about Roger stopping Novak in 2011, that was a SF. Getting close to the CYGS is winning them all in order. Serena was actually close in 2015, when she lost in the SF of the USO. Some Novak fans tried to argue that Djokovic was closer, since he'd made the final at the French and won the other 3, but that does not at all take into account the pressure. That's much more of a "close, but no cigar."

Edberg actually won the Junior Grand Slam, where the players were not as good as ATP players but certainly better than the WTA counterpart, any cigar?