Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
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.
"If" 3 of the 4 were on grass now, he certainly could have completed one in 09, as it was he was 2 sets away, and if those finals were both on grass, he quite possibly could have. And prior to that, 'if" 3 of 4 were on grass, he could have started winning slams even more consistently in 04, and the confidence gained by winning more slams, certainly could have gotten him past Nads at one of those FO's. Of course this is usings "ifs", not reality, just as the poster I was replying to was.