Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
What's up with 2005? Did he not know how to bite it yet?This:
What's up with 2005? Did he not know how to bite it yet?This:
Yes you do. Leading up to it everyone gets an off season, and since he started at wimbledon he did not have the fresh start, he got his break in the middle. So not a fresh start could be seen as tougher.
Either way, is a two month rest a huge difference?
Start a thread about Borg/Laver/Nadal, turns into a discussion about Federer/Sampras.Federer basically destroyed Philippousis in Wimbledon, also has wins while being so young vs Ivanisevic. I am not sure how this is supposed to make Sampras looking better.
He realised it's awkward biting it like he did in 2005.What's up with 2005? Did he not know how to bite it yet?
What's up with 2005? Did he not know how to bite it yet?
holding all four is the sameNobody has really got close to the Grand Slam since Laver. Twice someone has got halfway (Wilander in '88 and Djokovic in '14), then bombed out at Wimbledon.
Nobody except Borg has even done back-to-back Channel Slams, let alone been shooting for 3 in a row.
All 3 of these achievements are pretty peerless, with the next best only being half as good (or less).
And Fed was as close as you can get to Borg, as he made so many fo finals, you cant say anyone is close to nadal. Ofcourse nobody has done the 3 fo wimbledon doubles but some one was very close, Nadal gets this easilyNobody has really got close to the Grand Slam since Laver. Twice someone has got halfway (Wilander in '88 and Djokovic in '14), then bombed out at Wimbledon.
Nobody except Borg has even done back-to-back Channel Slams, let alone been shooting for 3 in a row.
All 3 of these achievements are pretty peerless, with the next best only being half as good (or less).
Nobody has really got close to the Grand Slam since Laver. Twice someone has got halfway (Wilander in '88 and Djokovic in '14), then bombed out at Wimbledon.
Nobody except Borg has even done back-to-back Channel Slams, let alone been shooting for 3 in a row.
All 3 of these achievements are pretty peerless, with the next best only being half as good (or less).
Change impressive to boring and you got it right on the nose.This:
It’s only close if the F is at Flushing Meadows. Dead rubbers don’t count because the Grand Slam is already off the table.I have to say, I think winning 3 out of 4 slams and being in the final of the other counts as coming close. Hard to get much closer.
As for the thread itself, I'd probably have to go with Borg: two completely different styles of play (so I've heard, didn't really watch him), domination of two most opposite surfaces, and probably could have had more of them.
Rafa's record will most likely stand the test of time, but it's a one trick pony record. Laver's got a number of but's attached to his CYGS, even though obviously even now it's extremely highly regarded.
And Fed was as close as you can get to Borg, as he made so many fo finals, you cant say anyone is close to nadal. Ofcourse nobody has done the 3 fo wimbledon doubles but some one was very close, Nadal gets this easily
The one trick pony who reached 5 RG and Wimbledon finals in the same summers? Only 2 of the greatest ever grass court players to play the game stopped Nadal making it 5 channel slams. I believe Borg made 4 of them. Was he a one trick pony too?
Yes, NCYGS is so much easier that nobody did it in 47 years till Novak finally did it in 2016....The big difference between a CYGS and 4 in a row is that with CYGS you only get one (1) chance every year to make it, and you don't get to recharge your batteries mid-way or any time through the feat.
With 4 in a row you can start the count 3 times per year.
Also, every CYGS is also a 4 in a row, but only one type of 4 in a row (starting in Australia) is a CYGS. Hope this clears it up.
The one trick pony who reached 5 RG and Wimbledon finals in the same summers? Only 2 of the greatest ever grass court players to play the game stopped Nadal making it 5 channel slams. I believe Borg made 4 of them. Was he a one trick pony too?
Yes, NCYGS is so much easier that nobody did it in 47 years till Novak finally did it in 2016....
The point is to hold all at the same time, wtf cares if its in October or June
As I said before, my English is good enough to understand your BS arguments.Like I said a couple times now, if your comprehension of English or logic is too low to understand the difference, you shouldn't really post here. Or anywhere else.
Womens - Martina 6 in row.On men's side:
Fed's 20
Nole's NCYGS
Laver's CYGS
Rafa's RG 12
On women's side:
Stefi's Golden CYGS
Serena's 23
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Nadal also has 2x channel slams which is one less than Borg so it's not as though he's only winning FO.Depends how you look at it.
- 12 French opens = singular dominance/longevity
- 3 channel slams = Incredible adaptability
- CYGS = Concentrated dominance and the ultimate achievement
Obviously 12 slams is more than 6 is more than 4 so by itself Nadal's 12 slams is more impressive. However I do think the X-factor for Borg and Laver's achievements, beyond what it added to their slam totals, is perhaps just as great or maybe greater.
Nada
Nadal also has 2x channel slams which is one less than Borg so it's not as though he's only winning FO.
Though Borg did his playing grass and clay court tennis rather than playing on grass and clay.
Laver has 2 channel slams as well though one being amateur.
The difference between Borg's (and Laver's, though I don't rate amateur achievements much ) and Nadal's is that Borg had to massively shift his play-style to succeed at both. Nadal's change in play-style wasn't as extreme and was largely the same by comparison.
Laver didn't have to change his style so much either? Players could charge the net on all surfaces then it seems, Borg was the prodigy ushering baseline supremacy on clay, no country for net rushers. Clay and grass only played completely differently for about 30 years, that's when the Channel Slam was so crazy to pull off and only Borg could do it, thrice in a row at that.
Yes, I forgot about that one! How would you rate it compared to other two?W
Womens - Martina 6 in row.
I don't rate the Olympics especially that time frame so it's like 4 vs 6. I would rate 4 GS = 5 Slam or near to due to prestige but 6 is much harder.Yes, I forgot about that one! How would you rate it compared to other two?
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
I don't think 3 channel Slams is all that impressive or on the level with the other two options. A better option would be saying he won at least 5 Slams at RG and Wimbledon. Now that is impressive and will be hard to duplicate.
The only thing is, you get a stab at the Olympics only every 4 years. The CYGS has to be timed with it, so it's incredibly hard to repeat...I don't rate the Olympics especially that time frame so it's like 4 vs 6. I would rate 4 GS = 5 Slam or near to due to prestige but 6 is much harder.
I think the Golden part was over rated to make Grafs greater than Courts without going into competition and other less measurable factors. Media likes to make new heroes, though I believe Graf > Court. But at time seemed contrived like Agassi Gold against what? It's worth less than 500 then and looking like in near future.
Borg made 6 Roland Garros Finals and won 6 Titles.
Borg made 6 Wimbledon Finals and won 5 Titles.
Another forgotten fact.
In 1977, there were two Australian Opens played ... one in Jan 1977 and one in Dec 1977. There was a possibility that one player could have won a 5 Major Title GRAND SLAM that year. Borg was probably the only one that could have achieved it. Although Connors might have been a chance. Imagine that happening. LOL.
Yes, NCYGS is so much easier that nobody did it in 47 years till Novak finally did it in 2016....
The point is to hold all at the same time, wtf cares if its in October or June
Typical, are you surprised?So Borgs channel slams gets put in the poll but Djokovic's four in a row on HC, clay and grass doesn't?
exactly, 12 rgs absolutely craps on the other 2Yep, Nadal made 5 RG then Wimbledon finals on 5 occasions .
Make that 80 years. Only Don Budge has done NCYGS before Nole and that was back in the 30s.
There is no such thing as a Calendar Year Grand Slam.
It is called the GRAND SLAM !!!!
If the GRAND SLAM is so easy, why has no Male player achieved it since Laver in 1969?
The debate about surfaces doesn't wash with me. The Grass Courts of Australia, England and the United States all played very differently in the 1960s.
The debate about Serve-Volley tennis also doesn't wash. The players had to return serve and play ground strokes in the 1960s too.
Other things that need consideration to put Laver's achievement into perspective. It was more difficult for the players to travel around the world playing tennis in the 1960s than it is today. Sports science and sports psychology were virtually non-existent. Coaching methods were rudimentary compared to today.
... And don't forget Laver had already achieved it in 1962.
And Laver is also part of that rare group of Male players that have achieved the Double Career Grand Slam. Still waiting for one of the Big 3 to join that elite group.
Nadal could win 100 RG Titles. All it proves is that he is good on the Clay Courts of Roland Garros.
Federer could win 100 Wimledon Titles. All it proves is that he is good on the Grass Courts of Wimbledon.
Borg surpasses both those guys by being good on both of those surfaces with at least 5 Titles on each.
It’s only close if the F is at Flushing Meadows. Dead rubbers don’t count because the Grand Slam is already off the table.
Federer never came close to the Grand Slam because he was always dead in the water by the end of May.
It rarely gets mentioned that to win AO back then you had 5 matches to win against australians. But it never gets said.
Djokovic NCYGS is as impressive or even more impressive than Lavers CYGS if you take into account he did it in 128 man draws/full fields against the best players from all over the world. Djokovic did it aswell by shifting from HC, to clay and grass. But people purposely want to turn a blind Eye to it.
Budge did the Grand Slam with an extra two on top. It was in the amateurs so it carries less weight then other steaks - though I will say that the difference between the amateur and pro ranks in those years wasn't quite as significant as it would be in the 50/60's.
It rarely gets mentioned that to win AO back then you had 5 matches to win against australians. But it never gets said.
The idea of a ‘Non Calendar Year Grand Slam’ or a ‘Career Grand Slam’ is a bit of a furphy anyway. The Grand Slam is the Grand Slam.
I mean, you don’t get a Grand Slam in bridge by winning 13 tricks spread over multiple hands.
Nobody has really got close to the Grand Slam since Laver. Twice someone has got halfway (Wilander in '88 and Djokovic in '14), then bombed out at Wimbledon.
Nobody except Borg has even done back-to-back Channel Slams, let alone been shooting for 3 in a row.
All 3 of these achievements are pretty peerless, with the next best only being half as good (or less).
Now you’ve got to be joking. 4 in a row is 4 in a row, surely? What you’re effectively saying is that, for example, you could win the French through to Wimbledon the following year, so 5 in a row...yet that would be a lesser achievement than being the winner of 4 events in an ITF year and therefore not worthy of recognition?