View Single Post
Old 01-03-2013, 09:40 AM   #20
New User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by hoodjem View Post
I would argue that it doesn't even do much to pad a resume.

The career slam is merely the product of recent media hype--struggling to conjure up reasons for American fans to return to watching tennis.
the career slam was worth something when agassi did it, no doubt

and of course, because agassi played hard court tennis on clay and was not particularly good on the surface (those early FO finals and that Rome win are misleading)

he relied on his magnificent hand to eye co-ordination for those returns to win wimbledon 92, he wasn't a natural grass court player either

but it was worth something, purely because no one had done it in 30(?) years

edberg and courier came close

edberg with 2 AO, 2 WIM and 2 US, FO final

courier with 2 AO, 2 FO, WIM final, US final

but had edberg won it, would he then be above mcenroe, both having 7 slams?

however, in the context of a career overall, it means less

then of course, you have federer and nadal (and nearly djokovic) achieving it in the space of a few years

this is due to slowed down surfaces (or sped up in the case of clay), the same prevalent game style and the same players winning every tournament that matters

it still means something to win at every slam, but (nowadays) overall slam counts, weeks at no 1, and total titles won, those are the main deciders in tennis greatness
Tagg is offline   Reply With Quote