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

[Backhand_DTL]

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.

I think completing the Calendar Grand Slam is more difficult but not exponentially more difficult. The fundamental point for me is that even the greatest players have at best two, maybe three chances to win four in a row or even a Calendar Grand Slam and even getting in the position to possibly complete that is a great and already quite rare achievement. So drawing reasonable general conclusions from the few times it happened is hardly possible.

The facts are Serena won two Serena Slams after getting through key matches she could/should have lost at the fourth major both times but didn't survive her off day when she went for the Calendar Grand Slam. So at best you can conclude that for her the pressure and difficulty was significantly bigger when she went for the Calendar Grand Slam, which already could be debatable but even then that's not enough to generally declare it a much greater and tougher achievement than winning a different version of four in a row.

 

[Moxie]

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

I didn't invent that narrative, as most commentators seem to be of that opinion, so please don't say I've constructed it to fit my POV. But it's fine if you don't buy it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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 - -

Haha. OK at first I was wondering what on earth you were on then I realized Roger has 17 slams.

 

[britbox]

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!

When you're number one for long enough with a big target on your back, it's got to be hard to get up for every tournament. I think Novak will be up for the YEC... but you'll see more surprise defeats in 2017... particularly in non-slam events.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Well, let me put it this way... IF Djokovic gets to 16, maybe even 15, 14... he will probably get lauded as the greatest of all time by many experts or fans AT the time, because we live in a kind of "What did you do for me today/yesterday" kind of world... but later down the track when he's gone through his decline and lost to lesser players... his stock will subconsciously drop, and Federer's 17 would again be seen as the benchmark.

Heck, even the last 6 months.... his stock has subconsciously dropped a little... yet his legacy as far as achievements concerned hasn't dropped at all.

This. The mark keeps changing and from what we know, each generation gets better and better so the goalposts will continue to be moved. I don't think there's a clear cut answer to the greatest debate, and never will be.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Not really. 40 experts probably all Americans for all I know is an extremely weak sample. I'm sorry but I don't see why "experts" have a deciding vote in a this. We are talking about a collection of facts which can be weighted subjectively. The only thing I'll respect is if someone - even a group of experts - were to come up with a set of criteria which we can get a consensus from as to what characteristics should get higher weightings. After that anyone can gather the data for themselves and see who's ranked where.

I'm not having someone ignore the fact that Laver is not facing the same amount of competition as the guys now, or that we should ignore the fact that winning majors has become a bigger deal now than before

Great post, none of this is set in stone. What people value higher would make their list, and someone else's list would differ.

 

[Fiero425]

This. The mark keeps changing and from what we know, each generation gets better and better so the goalposts will continue to be moved. I don't think there's a clear cut answer to the greatest debate, and never will be.

Players truly are better than past generations, but unfortunately for them "The Big 4" have made them look ordinary when most can't even reach a major final, much less win it! I still remember fondly 20+ years ago, you could very well have a dozen GS major winners in the men's draw; now it's the same 5 or 6 and even that's just increased due to late surge of Wawrinka! Thank goodness for Cilic to break it up a little! Back in the 80's and 90's, the ladies had the same winners taking everything; Martina, Chris, Steffi, Arantxa, Hingis, Mandlikova, & Seles! We need a new superstar; hopefully Thiem, Zrevev, and Poulle excel & fulfill promise where others have come up short! :scratch:

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

 

[Ricardo]

i am not convinced that Murray is a big 4 yet. He is a weak-minded whiner who thrives under Lendl's strong arms.

Djoker, Nadal and Fed are the real deal, even Wawrinka got bigger balls (and game) than Murray.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Players truly are better than past generations, but unfortunately for them "The Big 4" have made them look ordinary when most can't even reach a major final, much less win it! I still remember fondly 20+ years ago, you could very well have a dozen GS major winners in the men's draw; now it's the same 5 or 6 and even that's just increased due to late surge of Wawrinka! Thank goodness for Cilic to break it up a little! Back in the 80's and 90's, the ladies had the same winners taking everything; Martina, Chris, Steffi, Arantxa, Hingis, Mandlikova, & Seles! We need a new superstar; hopefully Thiem, Zrevev, and Poulle excel & fulfill promise where others have come up short! :scratch:

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

I agree about the players being so much better than the previous generations. I haven't seen it before. There was a time when many people had a shot, but now it's been relegated to a select few. What stumps me is, is this the new wave in tennis? Is it possible that someone can come along and up the ante like the Big Four has done? Then there will be no reason for people to argue about who is the greatest because the goalposts will continue to shift. Alexander Zverev has a good start, he's got the game, the attitude, and the fight. Who's to say what he will do.

We need several new superstars, those that you listed and there are probably some more that we haven't heard about yet.