Would you consider Djokovic to be a greater player than Federer if...

[Mastoor]

That's an opinion, and the Nole Slam does give bonus points, but you kid yourself if you think it is the single game changer. The GOAT-thing will be debated forever. There are too many variables. Heck, Laver's still in it, for some people. I agree with @britbox who says that Obsi's posted article is a bit of "what have you done for me lately" re: Federer. Djokovic has the hot hand, but time has a way of evening out people's passions, and accounting for short-term memory.

That has been mentioned as an ultimate goal in tennis ever since Budge first made it, to win a Grand Slam.

It wasn't marketed so much recently because recent darlings of tennis, Sampras and Federer have never won it, but people still mentioned it whenever someone was close to win it.

When Novak was first time close to win the Grand Slam and it was after AO 2012 (6 hours match with Rafa), ITF changed their rule book regarding the Grand Slam, so from that point on it is called the Grand Slam only if it is within a calendar year. If it wasn't a big deal above total slam count, they wouldn't make any changes at the time.

But regardless of their spinning, there are people who remember that what I told you, when a player holds all 4 it is called the Grand Slam and it is valued more than a simple slam count. Novak's Grand Slam is also special to 3 before him because he won it in fully professional era and on 3 different surfaces and even Laver applauded that achievement as special.

 

[Mastoor]

Just so you are not in doubt, I was couple of months ago pointed out to copies of the ITF rule book from 2011 and the one from 2012. It did say all 4 at the same time are considered the Grand Slam, while it was changed in 2012 to be only if all 4 slams won in the same calendar year.

 

[Moxie]

That has been mentioned as an ultimate goal in tennis ever since Budge first made it, to win a Grand Slam.

It wasn't marketed so much recently because recent darlings of tennis, Sampras and Federer have never won it, but people still mentioned it whenever someone was close to win it.

When Novak was first time close to win the Grand Slam and it was after AO 2012 (6 hours match with Rafa), ITF changed their rule book regarding the Grand Slam, so from that point on it is called the Grand Slam only if it is within a calendar year. If it wasn't a big deal above total slam count, they wouldn't make any changes at the time.

But regardless of their spinning, there are people who remember that what I told you, when a player holds all 4 it is called the Grand Slam and it is valued more than a simple slam count. Novak's Grand Slam is also special to 3 before him because he won it in fully professional era and on 3 different surfaces and even Laver applauded that achievement as special.

You misunderstand the Grand Slam. The real one is the Calendar Year Grand Slam. Holding all 4 Majors in a single year. The (insert name here) Slam was invented by Serena, ("The Serena Slam,") i.e., holding all 4 Majors at once, but not in the calendar year. There is a difference. But that Novak did it is not without merit.

 

[Moxie]

Just so you are not in doubt, I was couple of months ago pointed out to copies of the ITF rule book from 2011 and the one from 2012. It did say all 4 at the same time are considered the Grand Slam, while it was changed in 2012 to be only if all 4 slams won in the same calendar year.

It doesn't matter what you read. The Holy Grail is the Calendar Year Grand Slam. I actually doubt that there is anything about it in the rule book. It's not a "rule." It's a sports convention and legend.

 

[Federberg]

Personally I don't see the calendar grand slam as necessarily a greater achievement than holding all 4. It's just a construct of timing. But I do agree with Moxie. Novak holding all 4 was an extraordinary achievement. Does that mean that he's surpassed Roger or Rafa? I'm not so sure. If he's level or one behind then you have a conversation. I mean if a player won the grand slam but then never won anything else again does that make him greater than Roger or Rafa or Borg? Puh-leeeeze... It's the body of work and both Rafa and Roger have done things that no one else before. Novak has done that too, which is why he has to be be in the conversation

 

[britbox]

Moxie is right with the Calendar Grand Slam. It is THE Grand Slam... always has been, always will. It's statistically harder to complete than a rolling slam and has history on it's side... it's always been the biggest prize of them all. Even when players didn't play all the slams... particularly Australia... Borg said he would go to Australia if the Grand Slam was on... and Connors said he would go to try and prevent Borg winning it. It's consistently been the Holy Grail throughout the history of the sport.

 

[Fiero425]

You misunderstand the Grand Slam. The real one is the Calendar Year Grand Slam. Holding all 4 Majors in a single year. The (insert name here) Slam was invented by Serena, ("The Serena Slam,") i.e., holding all 4 Majors at once, but not in the calendar year. There is a difference. But that Novak did it is not without merit.

I usually just overlook the misuse of the term "Slam," but since it's being discussed, here's my take! I go back further than most and I believe it began with Martina after she won 4 in a row on her way to 6 ('83-84), but I still referred to them as MAJORS! I can accept the wrap-"around Slam" with it being 4 in a row, but it drives me bonkers referring to each and every event of the "calendar 4" as "A SLAM!" That's ridiculous; esp. since it's being invoked concerning a player with one major and never even getting a sniff of a final again like Gomez, Teacher, Johansson, & Edmondson {who?}! It was initially a tool to bring news and more interest to the game and was created to elevate Agassi after wining FO in '99! A shame for him that his "CGS" would be undermined by 3 ATG's with their own and twice as many major; adding a GOLD medal to boot by 1 of them! I initially thought after Graf's GGS in '88 that would be the end such talk, but it's gotten progressively worse with the passing of time! I've since given up and just go with the flow!

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Moxie is right with the Calendar Grand Slam. It is THE Grand Slam... always has been, always will. It's statistically harder to complete than a rolling slam and has history on it's side... it's always been the biggest prize of them all. Even when players didn't play all the slams... particularly Australia... Borg said he would go to Australia if the Grand Slam was on... and Connors said he would go to try and prevent Borg winning it. It's consistently been the Holy Grail throughout the history of the sport.

Yes the Calendar Year Grand Slam certainly is a slightly greater achievement than winning 4 in a row over two season as it is the only sequence which leads to holding all 4 titles at the same time that clearly stands out to the other possibilities and has a historic significance. Interestingly Serena and Novak built their Slams in three different ways with only the Calendar Year Grand Slam missing.

What makes Novak's sequence special on a personal level is that he did it at a rather advanced age and especially that he finished with the major he didn't win before so the pressure he experienced at this year's French Open might have been even bigger than it would have been if he had a chance to complete the Calendar Year Grand Slam at the US Open last year. But the huge relief he felt because of that combined with him not really having a natural game for grass probably decreased his chances to follow it up with a win at Wimbledon just a few weeks later.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I usually just overlook the misuse of the term "Slam," but since it's being discussed, here's my take! I go back further than most and I believe it began with Martina after she won 4 in a row on her way to 6 ('83-84), but I still referred to them as MAJORS! I can accept the wrap-"around Slam" with it being 4 in a row, but it drives me bonkers referring to each and every event of the "calendar 4" as "A SLAM!" That's ridiculous; esp. since it's being invoked concerning a player with one major and never even getting a sniff of a final again like Gomez, Teacher, Johansson, & Edmondson {who?}! It was initially a tool to bring news and more interest to the game and was created to elevate Agassi after wining FO in '99! A shame for him that his "CGS" would be undermined by 3 ATG's with their own and twice as many major; adding a GOLD medal to boot by 1 of them! I initially thought after Graf's GGS in '88 that would be the end such talk, but it's gotten progressively worse with the passing of time! I've since given up and just go with the flow!

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

Great post. The bolded is what gets me as well. Records, accolades, etc. are created to elevate one player's feat above another's. It's all bull if you ask me and not something I give a lot of credence to. They keep moving the goalposts and I've long lost interest in what "they" say because they change their minds continually.

 

[Moxie]

Yes the Calendar Year Grand Slam certainly is a slightly greater achievement than winning 4 in a row over two season as it is the only sequence which leads to holding all 4 titles at the same time that clearly stands out to the other possibilities and has a historic significance. Interestingly Serena and Novak built their Slams in three different ways with only the Calendar Year Grand Slam missing.

What makes Novak's sequence special on a personal level is that he did it at a rather advanced age and especially that he finished with the major he didn't win before so the pressure he experienced at this year's French Open might have been even bigger than it would have been if he had a chance to complete the Calendar Year Grand Slam at the US Open last year. But the huge relief he felt because of that combined with him not really having a natural game for grass probably decreased his chances to follow it up with a win at Wimbledon just a few weeks later.

I don't agree that the CYGS is only a "slightly" greater achievement, and I see that opinions vary on that. One way of proving that is rather greater is that it hasn't been done in the men's game since 1969 (47 years,) in the women's since 1988 (26 years.) And I think Serena is a great example of why it's so hard. She is an incredibly dominant player, and as mentally tough as they come. She started prohibiting talk about the CYGS during Wimbledon, last year, and, while I think Vinci was suited to give her a hard time, it was more the pressure of the CYGS that undid her when she was within 2 matches. I think the last man to be within 2 matches was Roger in '05. He didn't do it, either, and I don't remember the rolling Slam being talked about, but Fed fans may remember differently.

Also note that 3 players have come close to the rolling Slam in the last dozen years: Federer lost his chance in 2005 in the AO SF to Safin, and in 07 to Nadal at RG; Rafa lost his chance in the 2011 AO to Ferrer (and injury,); Novak lost his first chance in 2012 to Nadal at RG. It may seem personally special to you that Nole finally won it at the FO this year, at a "rather advanced age," but that is, in part, because he got through past-prime Roger at Wimbledon and past-prime Rafa at RG. And, while the pressure was heavy on him to win it at the French, which he had never won, I don't think it's comparable in anyone's mind to the pressure that was on Serena when the actual CYGS was in play. I would argue that the pressure for Djokovic was more to win the French at all, and therefore the Career Slam. The "Nole Slam" was a bonus, if you like, but I don't think it was a greater pressure than just finally winning at RG.

 

[britbox]

I usually just overlook the misuse of the term "Slam," but since it's being discussed, here's my take! I go back further than most and I believe it began with Martina after she won 4 in a row on her way to 6 ('83-84), but I still referred to them as MAJORS! I can accept the wrap-"around Slam" with it being 4 in a row, but it drives me bonkers referring to each and every event of the "calendar 4" as "A SLAM!" That's ridiculous; esp. since it's being invoked concerning a player with one major and never even getting a sniff of a final again like Gomez, Teacher, Johansson, & Edmondson {who?}! It was initially a tool to bring news and more interest to the game and was created to elevate Agassi after wining FO in '99! A shame for him that his "CGS" would be undermined by 3 ATG's with their own and twice as many major; adding a GOLD medal to boot by 1 of them! I initially thought after Graf's GGS in '88 that would be the end such talk, but it's gotten progressively worse with the passing of time! I've since given up and just go with the flow!

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

I used to get mildly irritated by people calling a major a slam also.... I guess I now think of it in the terms of a shortcut for "Grand Slam Event"

 

[Moxie]

I used to get mildly irritated by people calling a major a slam also.... I guess I now think of it in the terms of a shortcut for "Grand Slam Event"

I remember that from you. Consequently, I try to say "Major," when I can, but it is true that it has become a convention, and everyone does call them "slams" and you can't avoid it.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I don't agree that the CYGS is only a "slightly" greater achievement, and I see that opinions vary on that. One way of proving that is rather greater is that it hasn't been done in the men's game since 1969 (47 years,) in the women's since 1988 (26 years.) And I think Serena is a great example of why it's so hard. She is an incredibly dominant player, and as mentally tough as they come. She started prohibiting talk about the CYGS during Wimbledon, last year, and, while I think Vinci was suited to give her a hard time, it was more the pressure of the CYGS that undid her when she was within 2 matches. I think the last man to be within 2 matches was Roger in '05. He didn't do it, either, and I don't remember the rolling Slam being talked about, but Fed fans may remember differently.

Also note that 3 players have come close to the rolling Slam in the last dozen years: Federer lost his chance in 2005 in the AO SF to Safin, and in 07 to Nadal at RG; Rafa lost his chance in the 2011 AO to Ferrer (and injury,); Novak lost his first chance in 2012 to Nadal at RG. It may seem personally special to you that Nole finally won it at the FO this year, at a "rather advanced age," but that is, in part, because he got through past-prime Roger at Wimbledon and past-prime Rafa at RG. And, while the pressure was heavy on him to win it at the French, which he had never won, I don't think it's comparable in anyone's mind to the pressure that was on Serena when the actual CYGS was in play. I would argue that the pressure for Djokovic was more to win the French at all, and therefore the Career Slam. The "Nole Slam" was a bonus, if you like, but I don't think it was a greater pressure than just finally winning at RG.

But on the men's side any combination of 4 in a row hasn't been done since 1969 (when the Australian Open and US Open were still played on grass), so that doesn't really support the theory that the calendar Slam is that much more difficult to achieve and multiple players being close to it recently only emphasizes that taking the last step is still quite hard, although probably nobody would deny that beating Andy in the final of the French Open this year was a significantly easier task than beating a prime Rafa which would have been necessary for Roger in 2006 and 2007 and Novak in 2012.

The reason I think there's only a slight margin is that there's more or less just the historic significance as a difference. For the most part winning 4 in a row is equallly impressive regardless of where it started but starting with Wimbledon and finishing with Roland Garros doesn't have a name that distinguishes the achievement while starting at the Australian Open and finishing with the US Open does. Also winning 4 in a row on the way to a possible calendar Slam hurts the chances to complete it as even dominant players are bound to lose an important match (because of having a bad day, an opponent playing great, physical problems or the pressure getting to them) sooner or later.

I agree that Serena's loss last year was much more down to the circumstances than to Vinci but winning 4 in a row for a second time was already significant to her and completing that by "just" winning another Wimbledon was probably easier for her from a mental perspective than finishing with a first Roland Garros was for Novak. That this would most probably have been his last chance to complete four in a row and possibly even his last chance to win a French Open at all must have been enormous pressure for Novak and that was definitely visible in the first set and in the last three games of the match.

On the men's side nobody was close to achieving the Calendar Slam in ages. Novak actually was the first player to win the Australian Open and French Open in the same year since Jim Courier in the early 90s. But that's more down to Sampras limitation of being rather average on clay and Rafa being much better at Roland Garros than in Australia (so he himself was unable to put himself in position each but one time but posed the roadblock for Roger and Novak, who might have had chances to win Wimbledon and the US Open afterwards, already before being halfway there) than getting close to a Calendar Slam being extremely difficult on it's own.

 

[Billie]

But on the men's side any combination of 4 in a row hasn't been done since 1969 (when the Australian Open and US Open were still played on grass), so that doesn't really support the theory that the calendar Slam is that much more difficult to achieve and multiple players being close to it recently only emphasizes that taking the last step is still quite hard, although probably nobody would deny that beating Andy in the final of the French Open this year was a significantly easier task than beating a prime Rafa which would have been necessary for Roger in 2006 and 2007 and Novak in 2012.

The reason I think there's only a slight margin is that there's more or less just the historic significance as a difference. For the most part winning 4 in a row is equallly impressive regardless of where it started but starting with Wimbledon and finishing with Roland Garros doesn't have a name that distinguishes the achievement while starting at the Australian Open and finishing with the US Open does. Also winning 4 in a row on the way to a possible calendar Slam hurts the chances to complete it as even dominant players are bound to lose an important match (because of having a bad day, an opponent playing great, physical problems or the pressure getting to them) sooner or later.

I agree that Serena's loss last year was much more down to the circumstances than to Vinci but winning 4 in a row for a second time was already significant to her and completing that by "just" winning another Wimbledon was probably easier for her from a mental perspective than finishing with a first Roland Garros was for Novak. That this would most probably have been his last chance to complete four in a row and possibly even his last chance to win a French Open at all must have been enormous pressure for Novak and that was definitely visible in the first set and in the last three games of the match.

On the men's side nobody was close to achieving the Calendar Slam in ages. Novak actually was the first player to win the Australian Open and French Open in the same year since Jim Courier in the early 90s. But that's more down to Sampras limitation of being rather average on clay and Rafa being much better at Roland Garros than in Australia (so he himself was unable to put himself in position each but one time but posed the roadblock for Roger and Novak, who might have had chances to win Wimbledon and the US Open afterwards, already before being halfway there) than getting close to a Calendar Slam being extremely difficult on it's own.

Very nicely said. Welcome to the forum @Backhand_DTL

 

[Mastoor]

Yes the Calendar Year Grand Slam certainly is a slightly greater achievement than winning 4 in a row over two season as it is the only sequence which leads to holding all 4 titles at the same time that clearly stands out to the other possibilities and has a historic significance. Interestingly Serena and Novak built their Slams in three different ways with only the Calendar Year Grand Slam missing.

What makes Novak's sequence special on a personal level is that he did it at a rather advanced age and especially that he finished with the major he didn't win before so the pressure he experienced at this year's French Open might have been even bigger than it would have been if he had a chance to complete the Calendar Year Grand Slam at the US Open last year. But the huge relief he felt because of that combined with him not really having a natural game for grass probably decreased his chances to follow it up with a win at Wimbledon just a few weeks later.

This is only because all 3 Grand Slams won before Novak's one, Budge's and 2 Laver's were all calendar ones. No one in men's tennis ever won 4 in a row the way Novak did, but possibility of such achievement was indeed called The Grand Slam by ITF until they changed it in early 2012 before FO that year when Novak was holding 3 of 4 slams.

 

[Tennis Fan]

But on the men's side any combination of 4 in a row hasn't been done since 1969 (when the Australian Open and US Open were still played on grass), so that doesn't really support the theory that the calendar Slam is that much more difficult to achieve and multiple players being close to it recently only emphasizes that taking the last step is still quite hard, although probably nobody would deny that beating Andy in the final of the French Open this year was a significantly easier task than beating a prime Rafa which would have been necessary for Roger in 2006 and 2007 and Novak in 2012.

The reason I think there's only a slight margin is that there's more or less just the historic significance as a difference. For the most part winning 4 in a row is equallly impressive regardless of where it started but starting with Wimbledon and finishing with Roland Garros doesn't have a name that distinguishes the achievement while starting at the Australian Open and finishing with the US Open does. Also winning 4 in a row on the way to a possible calendar Slam hurts the chances to complete it as even dominant players are bound to lose an important match (because of having a bad day, an opponent playing great, physical problems or the pressure getting to them) sooner or later.

I agree that Serena's loss last year was much more down to the circumstances than to Vinci but winning 4 in a row for a second time was already significant to her and completing that by "just" winning another Wimbledon was probably easier for her from a mental perspective than finishing with a first Roland Garros was for Novak. That this would most probably have been his last chance to complete four in a row and possibly even his last chance to win a French Open at all must have been enormous pressure for Novak and that was definitely visible in the first set and in the last three games of the match.

On the men's side nobody was close to achieving the Calendar Slam in ages. Novak actually was the first player to win the Australian Open and French Open in the same year since Jim Courier in the early 90s. But that's more down to Sampras limitation of being rather average on clay and Rafa being much better at Roland Garros than in Australia (so he himself was unable to put himself in position each but one time but posed the roadblock for Roger and Novak, who might have had chances to win Wimbledon and the US Open afterwards, already before being halfway there) than getting close to a Calendar Slam being extremely difficult on it's own.

Awesome post.

 

[britbox]

This is only because all 3 Grand Slams won before Novak's one, Budge's and 2 Laver's were all calendar ones. No one in men's tennis ever won 4 in a row the way Novak did, but possibility of such achievement was indeed called The Grand Slam by ITF until they changed it in early 2012 before FO that year when Novak was holding 3 of 4 slams.

No it wasn't. The ITF changed the definition of a grand slam from a calendar year to any four consecutive slams in 1982 and then changed it back again in 1984.

 

[Federberg]

But on the men's side any combination of 4 in a row hasn't been done since 1969 (when the Australian Open and US Open were still played on grass), so that doesn't really support the theory that the calendar Slam is that much more difficult to achieve and multiple players being close to it recently only emphasizes that taking the last step is still quite hard, although probably nobody would deny that beating Andy in the final of the French Open this year was a significantly easier task than beating a prime Rafa which would have been necessary for Roger in 2006 and 2007 and Novak in 2012.

The reason I think there's only a slight margin is that there's more or less just the historic significance as a difference. For the most part winning 4 in a row is equallly impressive regardless of where it started but starting with Wimbledon and finishing with Roland Garros doesn't have a name that distinguishes the achievement while starting at the Australian Open and finishing with the US Open does. Also winning 4 in a row on the way to a possible calendar Slam hurts the chances to complete it as even dominant players are bound to lose an important match (because of having a bad day, an opponent playing great, physical problems or the pressure getting to them) sooner or later.

I agree that Serena's loss last year was much more down to the circumstances than to Vinci but winning 4 in a row for a second time was already significant to her and completing that by "just" winning another Wimbledon was probably easier for her from a mental perspective than finishing with a first Roland Garros was for Novak. That this would most probably have been his last chance to complete four in a row and possibly even his last chance to win a French Open at all must have been enormous pressure for Novak and that was definitely visible in the first set and in the last three games of the match.

On the men's side nobody was close to achieving the Calendar Slam in ages. Novak actually was the first player to win the Australian Open and French Open in the same year since Jim Courier in the early 90s. But that's more down to Sampras limitation of being rather average on clay and Rafa being much better at Roland Garros than in Australia (so he himself was unable to put himself in position each but one time but posed the roadblock for Roger and Novak, who might have had chances to win Wimbledon and the US Open afterwards, already before being halfway there) than getting close to a Calendar Slam being extremely difficult on it's own.

I completely agree. I really see no difference other than timing between a CGS and a GS. In fact you could argue that winning the non calendar GS demonstrates dominance straddling two tennis years. They are both incredibly difficult to achieve

 

[britbox]

I completely agree. I really see no difference other than timing between a CGS and a GS. In fact you could argue that winning the non calendar GS demonstrates dominance straddling two tennis years. They are both incredibly difficult to achieve

It doesn't matter whether anybody agrees if it's easier, harder or the same... it's about definition. The Grand Slam is winning all four in one calendar year.... you wouldn't call it a grand slam if a six nations rugby team won five in a row straddling two seasons.

And yes, it is significant, because if it was four in a row and had the same historical significance, then players like Borg, Connors etc... would probably have played the AO far more often (it was the last slam of the year in those days).... Borg always said he would go to Australia if the Grand Slam was on... and Connors even said he would go to Australia to prevent Borg winning one if he had to.

real Grand Slam for Novak, even if people think the feat was equal....

 

[Federberg]

It doesn't matter whether anybody agrees if it's easier, harder or the same... it's about definition. The Grand Slam is winning all four in one calendar year.... you wouldn't call it a grand slam if a six nations rugby team won five in a row straddling two seasons.

And yes, it is significant, because if it was four in a row and had the same historical significance, then players like Borg, Connors etc... would probably have played the AO far more often (it was the last slam of the year in those days).... Borg always said he would go to Australia if the Grand Slam was on... and Connors even said he would go to Australia to prevent Borg winning one if he had to.

real Grand Slam for Novak, even if people think the feat was equal....

If the point you're making is that the term "Grand Slam" should only be used for all 4 slams in one season, I have no issue with it. The point I'm making, and I suspect others (although I hesitate to speak on their behalf) is that winning 4 in a row regardless of whether it's all done in the same tennis season or not is an equally difficult achievement. I get that you think that starting with the AO is more rare and thus more impressive, but I would counter that by saying, starting with RG, or Wimbledon or the US is equally rare. I don't see it as a greater achievement. 4 in a row is 4 in a row, and frankly Novak's achievement with more varied surfaces and a much much deeper pool of players to compete against is more impressive to me than what Laver did. Just my own personal opinion