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

[britbox]

Agree with that post entirely... and I also give Laver's second grand slam far greater importance than the first (with the pro/amateur tour split)... I'm thinking more of a grand slam by definition and it's historical significance. It is the holy grail... and personally, I don't like attempts at diluting it. On your theory that Djokovic winning four in a row as being a harder task than Laver winning the CYGS based on the depth in tennis, size of the field etc... - agreed. But a CYGS in this era would trump everything.

 

[Mary]

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.

Novak's four in a row is absolutely brilliant and he deserves all the acclaim. But a CYGS is statistically more difficult I think. ( someome perhaps could work this out.) It has to start with the Aus open. A four in a row could start anywhere in the year so there are 4 chances to get going on it,

 

[britbox]

Novak's four in a row is absolutely brilliant and he deserves all the acclaim. But a CYGS is statistically more difficult I think. ( someome perhaps could work this out.) It has to start with the Aus open. A four in a row could start anywhere in the year so there are 4 chances to get going on it,

Yep, I worked this out properly once on another forum... but off the top my head, let's say a player plays for 15 years... H gets 15 chances of achieving the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

To go for the 4 in a row he gets (14*4) = 56 + 1 (in the 15th year). So he'd get 15 chances at a Calendar Year Grand Slam and 57 chances at 4 in a row. It's statistically far tougher to achieve.

 

[Mary]

Yep, I worked this out properly once on another forum... but off the top my head, let's say a player plays for 15 years... H gets 15 chances of achieving the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

To go for the 4 in a row he gets (14*4) = 56 + 1 (in the 15th year). So he'd get 15 chances at a Calendar Year Grand Slam and 57 chances at 4 in a row. It's statistically far tougher to achieve.

Brilliant. Thats what I was groping for! Makes my hero Laver look pretty good!!!

 

[Federberg]

Yep, I worked this out properly once on another forum... but off the top my head, let's say a player plays for 15 years... H gets 15 chances of achieving the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

To go for the 4 in a row he gets (14*4) = 56 + 1 (in the 15th year). So he'd get 15 chances at a Calendar Year Grand Slam and 57 chances at 4 in a row. It's statistically far tougher to achieve.

your maths is correct, but the reality is 4 in a row of any type is extremely rare... period. In fact the data suggests (correct me if I'm wrong) that there have been more CYGS's than any other type of 4 in a row? That suggests to me that the chances of a player being hot for one season and winning it all is actually more difficult than a player being consistently dominant over a couple of seasons

 

[britbox]

your maths is correct, but the reality is 4 in a row of any type is extremely rare... period. In fact the data suggests (correct me if I'm wrong) that there have been more CYGS's than any other type of 4 in a row? That suggests to me that the chances of a player being hot for one season and winning it all is actually more difficult than a player being consistently dominant over a couple of seasons

True now... but I think in the 70s through to the mid 80s where Australia was a bit of a second class grand slam event in many respects, many of the top players just didn't bother going regularly. They would have gone if the CYGS was on, as indicated by Borg and Connors commentary.

 

[Federberg]

True now... but I think in the 70s through to the mid 80s where Australia was a bit of a second class grand slam event in many respects, many of the top players just didn't bother going regularly. They would have gone if the CYGS was on, as indicated by Borg and Connors commentary.

I think that sort of proves my point. They didn't end up going did they? Apart from Connors in the mid-70s I don't know anyone who was close to doing the CYGS

 

[britbox]

I think that sort of proves my point. They didn't end up going did they? Apart from Connors in the mid-70s I don't know anyone who was close to doing the CYGS

Kind of proves my point too chief... the Calendar Year Grand Slam is the grand slam and the holy grail... If 4 in a row had the same significance, they'd have all been there.

 

[Moxie]

Also, I think you can make a "simple" example of Serena, between the two options. Williams has completed the "Serena Slam" twice in her career, but, when she was within 2 matches of the CYGS, the pressure got to her. It was clear to anyone who saw the match. It was Vinci's only win over her, in 5 meetings. And Flavia, who eventually won, is 0-7 v. Serena. In a run-of-the-mill Open or otherwise tournament, Serena would have picked both of handily, most likely. Everyone agrees, I think, that what Novak did was impressive, by holding all 4 Majors at once. But it's not THE "Grand Slam," and there are a few reasons why that's exponentially harder.

 

[Billie]

I don't think that Serena's pressure to win that USO open was any greater than Nole's pressure to win his 4th in a row in Paris of all places, where he had never won before. I know people were not sold on the fact that he would ever win FO but he did it, despite all of that pressure and the pressure of going for 4 in a row. Even if it was not in the same calendar year, it is the 2nd best thing to happen in tennis, for me, so I am extremely happy about it.

Anyway Nole hinted at being mentally off after that huge FO win so he had his 2 mishaps in the majors this year and can start fresh at attempting to win 4 in a row again (this time in the same year, starting in Australia in 2017). The timing is actually perfect. He just needs to stay injury free (yes, toes, fingers, elbows, shoulders all count here). He is always fresh, eager and relatively injury free in the first few months of ever season, then it gets complicated as he plays more matches and there is more possibility to get injured and tired mentally and physically. That is what makes it so difficult to always win and get to major finals. I said this last year and I stick to it, I really don't care about how many masters titles he wins, he has plenty of them already, but navigating through the whole season and trying to peak and play his best 4 times a year for the duration of majors, that is a big challenge for anybody. Should be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Mary]

I don't think that Serena's pressure to win that USO open was any greater than Nole's pressure to win his 4th in a row in Paris of all places, where he had never won before. I know people were not sold on the fact that he would ever win FO but he did it, despite all of that pressure and the pressure of going for 4 in a row. Even if it was not in the same calendar year, it is the 2nd best thing to happen in tennis, for me, so I am extremely happy about it.

Anyway Nole hinted at being mentally off after that huge FO win so he had his 2 mishaps in the majors this year and can start fresh at attempting to win 4 in a row again (this time in the same year, starting in Australia in 2017). The timing is actually perfect. He just needs to stay injury free (yes, toes, fingers, elbows, shoulders all count here). He is always fresh, eager and relatively injury free in the first few months of ever season, then it gets complicated as he plays more matches and there is more possibility to get injured and tired mentally and physically. That is what makes it so difficult to always win and get to major finals. I said this last year and I stick to it, I really don't care about how many masters titles he wins, he has plenty of them already, but navigating through the whole season and trying to peak and play his best 4 times a year for the duration of majors, that is a big challenge for anybody. Should be interesting to see what happens.

I would love him to do it. And the Roland Garros win was absolutely brilliant, a wonderful moment in tennis.

 

[Fiero425]

I would love him to do it. And the Roland Garros win was absolutely brilliant, a wonderful moment in tennis.

The weight of the world fell off his shoulders! He hasn't been the same since even with 2 Masters' wins and a USO finale! :whistle: - We can only hope he'll get his usual recharge by next month so he can own and finish strong for last few big titles; 2 Masters, Beijing, & YEC!

 

[Mary]

The weight of the world fell off his shoulders! He hasn't been the same since even with 2 Masters' wins and a USO finale! :whistle: - We can only hope he'll get his usual recharge by next month so he can own and finish strong for last few big titles; 2 Masters, Beijing, & YEC!

Hope so, he has a lot of points to defend. I am not surprised he has not been right since RG. That's a big goal to replace and he had had a rough few months in the run up. I really would like to see him finish well ahead in the points.

 

[Federberg]

Also, I think you can make a "simple" example of Serena, between the two options. Williams has completed the "Serena Slam" twice in her career, but, when she was within 2 matches of the CYGS, the pressure got to her. It was clear to anyone who saw the match. It was Vinci's only win over her, in 5 meetings. And Flavia, who eventually won, is 0-7 v. Serena. In a run-of-the-mill Open or otherwise tournament, Serena would have picked both of handily, most likely. Everyone agrees, I think, that what Novak did was impressive, by holding all 4 Majors at once. But it's not THE "Grand Slam," and there are a few reasons why that's exponentially harder.

People put pressure on themselves all the time. I think you're reaching to try to prove a point which really isn't that important anyway

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Also, I think you can make a "simple" example of Serena, between the two options. Williams has completed the "Serena Slam" twice in her career, but, when she was within 2 matches of the CYGS, the pressure got to her. It was clear to anyone who saw the match. It was Vinci's only win over her, in 5 meetings. And Flavia, who eventually won, is 0-7 v. Serena. In a run-of-the-mill Open or otherwise tournament, Serena would have picked both of handily, most likely. Everyone agrees, I think, that what Novak did was impressive, by holding all 4 Majors at once. But it's not THE "Grand Slam," and there are a few reasons why that's exponentially harder.

The extreme pressure Serena faced at the US Open last year was probably not just down to her going for the Calendar Grand Slam but in my opinion also doing it in her home country with the focus on her like never before and knowing it will normally be her only chance to achieve this contributed to it. And with her at that time being the three time defending champion basically nobody thought she could lose when only herself, Vinci and Pennetta were left in the tournament. But she already declined to answer questions regarding the Serena Slam and Grand Slam at Wimbledon, which shows she also felt a lot of pressure there.

Also in both tournaments she completed her Serena Slams she was quite lucky at a certain point. If I remember correctly the Australian Open 2003 was the tournament where she was 1:5 and match points down in the third set against Kim Clijsters in the semi finals but turned that around and last year at Wimbledon she was very close to losing to Watson in the third round. So the sample size is simply too small to definitely conclude that the pressure when going for a Calendar Grand Slam is really that much greater than when going for four in a row at a different major than the US Open or if she was just missing a bit of the needed good fortune to manage an escape against an opponent that her on the ropes like she did in the two matches I mentioned.

Overall I think that winning five (or even more so six or seven) majors in a row is significantly more difficult than winning four in a row regardless of the circumstances at the fourth, so that's what makes it really tough to complete a Calendar Grand Slam when you already won 4 in a row on the way. And on the men's side it was also close to impossible to even get close to a Calendar Grand Slam since 2005 as the greatest player of all time on clay and arguably the two greatest players on hard courts competing in the same era meant they usually denied each others chances already by the French Open, while winning Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open to set up an opportunity to complete four in a row at Roland Garros was simply much more likely to happen.

 

[Moxie]

The extreme pressure Serena faced at the US Open last year was probably not just down to her going for the Calendar Grand Slam but in my opinion also doing it in her home country with the focus on her like never before and knowing it will normally be her only chance to achieve this contributed to it. And with her at that time being the three time defending champion basically nobody thought she could lose when only herself, Vinci and Pennetta were left in the tournament. But she already declined to answer questions regarding the Serena Slam and Grand Slam at Wimbledon, which shows she also felt a lot of pressure there.

I don't think winning the CYGS in the US (home country) added any more pressure. Sure she was already getting pressure at Wimbledon, but she'd won there, and she'd done a "Serena Slam" before. And she met the pressure, at Wimbledon. The pressure was off-the-charts by the last Major, and she wilted. And she's really not one to wilt. To me, this proves the difficulty of the CYGS. It's also worth noting how mentally discouraged she was to not pull it off, and how long it took her to get over it. That says something about the difference. If, to others, it seems equally difficult to achieve the "Rolling Slam," we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Serena is the perfect example, and @Federberg, I don't think I'm "reaching" to prove that point. We simply disagree.

 

[brokenshoelace]

He's already the GOAT considering that he had 4 slams at the same time, his rivals didn't.

So why isn't Rod Laver the GOAT then?

Or, how about this, Roger Federer is the GOAT because he has 17 slams...his rivals don't.

 

[Fiero425]

So why isn't Rod Laver the GOAT then?

Or, how about this, Roger Federer is the GOAT because he has 16 slams...his rivals don't.

Oh good; Roger's FO was taken away since he didn't have to beat Rafa!

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

 

[Mary]

So why isn't Rod Laver the GOAT then?

Or, how about this, Roger Federer is the GOAT because he has 16 slams...his rivals don't.

To many of us Laver is! Of course Federer is superb, Nadal, Nole and Sampras too. But to older people Laver reigns supreme. I am lucky enough to have seen them all and for me Laver had the perfect game. But of course most tennis fans now would not have seen him and the film available doesn't really give a good full picture. But much of his play was totally breathtaking, esp. his backhand and the way he used lobs which are now so often just used when the player has little alternative. It's worth remembering too that he had some years when he could not play the majors when he would undoubtedly have won more. For me it also is important that he played doubles with great success.

We can never truly answer the GOAT question, too many variables and it's so subjective. Fun to discuss but we will never all agree. For now I am hoping Nole can have a brilliant 2017 and change my mind!

 

[Federberg]

I don't think winning the CYGS in the US (home country) added any more pressure. Sure she was already getting pressure at Wimbledon, but she'd won there, and she'd done a "Serena Slam" before. And she met the pressure, at Wimbledon. The pressure was off-the-charts by the last Major, and she wilted. And she's really not one to wilt. To me, this proves the difficulty of the CYGS. It's also worth noting how mentally discouraged she was to not pull it off, and how long it took her to get over it. That says something about the difference. If, to others, it seems equally difficult to achieve the "Rolling Slam," we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Serena is the perfect example, and @Federberg, I don't think I'm "reaching" to prove that point. We simply disagree.

We certainly disagree I just think that you're constructing a narrative to explain why Serena choked. She's been known to put excessive pressure on herself before (you only have to look at how long it took her to equal Graf). It's not clear to me that the reason for her collapse can be attributed to the CYGS. That's why I think you're constructing a narrative to fit your point of view