Originally Posted by jokinla
If we're comparing Roger and using ifs, if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass now, Roger would have won more and most likely gotten a couple of calendar slams as well. As it is now, it took the GOAT on clay to stop him from doing this.
LOL please. Roger won only one French Open, so there is only 1 year he could have even possibly won any Calendar Slam with 3 of the 4 on grass, never mind "likely gotten a couple". As it was he was not a dominant enough a player anymore to win the Grand Slam by 2009 no matter what surfaces they were on, so that would mean "likely gotten a zero". Had he won a couple Frenchs from 2004-2007 you might have a case. Lastly despite that he has 7 Wimbledons and only 5 U.S Opens many would argue hard courts are Roger's best surface. He just has tons more competition on hard courts than the abysmal grass field of today, and even then he is more dominant in many of his hard court slam winning runs than many of his Wimbledon ones.