Originally Posted by abmk
so having 4 slams on clay/grass in comparision to having 4 slams on HC is the very same ?
Again, you are missing the crucial point: anti-Laver (pro-Federer) types attempt to suggest Laver enjoyed some advantage, but that is patently impossible, as he played under the same conditions as everyone else in that year, so it came down to talent/mastering the sport.
Moreover, as the majors eventually used four different surfaces, it did not stop Graf from transitioning to win the Grand Slam, so either way, there is no spinning history to protect and/or inflate Federer--or anyone else
(as noted earlier), who won three majors in the calendar year.
federer's seasons in 2004,2006 and 2007 ( 3 slam years ) are wayyy ahead of wilander's when in comes to dominance ( see win-loss % )
federer had a win loss record of
74-6 in 2004 (3 slams+YEC)
81-4 in 2005 (2 slams+2 slam semis)
92-5 in 2006 (3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)
68-9 in 2007 ( 3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)
that is concentrated dominance in a calendar year unless you are thick ...only reason he didn't win the GS is in 2006/07 is a certain rafael nadal, the CC GOAT.
Concentrated DOMINANCE does not mean, "well, he sort of had a run at the majors
in this year, and that year, then failed somwhere along the way at one of them." No, it means winning all four majors in the calendar year, which he did not do
, and in that regard, he's in the exact position with the same end result of Wilander: no Grand Slam. Winning 3 in two additional years over Wilander still ends with no Grand Slam.