Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
What's up with 2005? Did he not know how to bite it yet?This:
Most Impressive Slam Achievement?
- Thread starter Cashman
- Start date
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.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
Start a thread about Borg/Laver/Nadal, turns into a discussion about Federer/Sampras.
Go figure.
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.
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.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
He realised it's awkward biting it like he did in 2005.
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8666393/53024091.jpg)
holding all four is the same
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
Tennisgods
Hall of Fame
Channel slams, meh.
Personally, when you win slams is never very important to me. 4 in a row is great, but it’s still 4 slams. Don’t really get the fuss and I certainly don’t see it as being any different to what Djokovic did, unless one is really anal about calendars. I mean it’s nice and all that but more of a cherry on top thing than an outstanding achievement.
On balance, I think Nadals achievement is most impressive, by a mile actually. And that’s because i’m not convinced anyone will match that amount of slams at one Major.
Of course, all of this is in modern context. I’d be amazed by any of these things in a pre-big 3 era, but their achievements collectively dwarf anything else seen in the Open era of the sport. They’ve basically ruined the record books for all who follow them.
Personally, when you win slams is never very important to me. 4 in a row is great, but it’s still 4 slams. Don’t really get the fuss and I certainly don’t see it as being any different to what Djokovic did, unless one is really anal about calendars. I mean it’s nice and all that but more of a cherry on top thing than an outstanding achievement.
On balance, I think Nadals achievement is most impressive, by a mile actually. And that’s because i’m not convinced anyone will match that amount of slams at one Major.
Of course, all of this is in modern context. I’d be amazed by any of these things in a pre-big 3 era, but their achievements collectively dwarf anything else seen in the Open era of the sport. They’ve basically ruined the record books for all who follow them.
Tennisgods
Hall of Fame
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.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Change impressive to boring and you got it right on the nose.This:
Cashman
Hall of Fame
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.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
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?
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
No, no, I said his record is a one-trick pony, not the guy.
Rafa is a complete player, no doubt about it. His record speaks for himself. However, his lack of consistency outside of clay compared to Roger and Rafa is also one of the prime reasons people always have him at no. 2 or 3.
beard
Legend
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
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Obviously Borg played the same way at Wimby as the Nadal. Obviously. Comparisons FTW.
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.
NatF
Bionic Poster
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.
- 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.
Last edited:
beard
Legend
As I said before, my English is good enough to understand your BS arguments.
Sorry if you cant stand different opinions.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
W
Womens - Martina 6 in row.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Nada
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.
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.
NatF
Bionic Poster
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.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah Laver approached the net alot more on clay then Borg did.
Karma Tennis
Legend
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 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.
BlueB
Legend
Yes, I forgot about that one! How would you rate it compared to other two?
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
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.
Karma Tennis
Legend
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.
BlueB
Legend
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...
Otherwise I agree, for 6 in row you have to sustain the top form for a 50% longer period. It's a crazy one too!
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It's too bad that Borg didn't play AO that year because he would have walked away with at least 3 Slams and maybe 4.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Make that 80 years. Only Don Budge has done NCYGS before Nole and that was back in the 30s.
BlueB
Legend
exactly, 12 rgs absolutely craps on the other 2Yep, Nadal made 5 RG then Wimbledon finals on 5 occasions .
NatF
Bionic Poster
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.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
I gotta go with Hot Rod here.
Benjamin Rio
Professional
Winning 5 consecutive Wimbledon's and US open
3 times winning AO Wimbledon Us open
4 consecutive times doing the double Wimbledon Us open
playing all 4 slams finals 3 times.
Reaching 10 consecutive GS finals
Reaching 23 GS SF in a row
3 times winning AO Wimbledon Us open
4 consecutive times doing the double Wimbledon Us open
playing all 4 slams finals 3 times.
Reaching 10 consecutive GS finals
Reaching 23 GS SF in a row
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
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. He had to win 28 consecutive matches, Laver 26. But people purposely want to turn a blind Eye to it.
Last edited:
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Timing is everything. Doesn't really matter to me if 4 people competed in Aussie Open. Laver is the one that did it, nobody else could. Bonkers.
Tennisgods
Hall of Fame
Sorry, I just think that’s bull.
You cannot seriously believe that a player who - even in retrospect - was one flipped result away from 4 in a row didn’t come close. But for Rafa, it’s likely Roger would have managed the feat at least once. Believe me, he came close.
By the way, you also effectively described Slam finals as “dead rubbers.” Like we’re lumping them in with those unnecessary Davis Cup matches that get played as best of 3...
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It's OK man. We know it's the most impressive feat in that last 40 or 50 years but we can let them have this one.
Not only did he win four in a row on outdoor hard, grass and clay but he won the WTF tournament on indoor hard. He held the 5 biggest titles in his sport at the same time, all played in different types of conditions, and set a points record. Won't be duplicated for a very very long time.
Last edited:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Yea so Djokovic is the only man to do it this way since tennis was founded. It's his own achievement - Nole Slam.
Karma Tennis
Legend
IMO, many do not realise just how difficult it actually was to win the Australian Championships / AO back in the 1960s.
It wasn't just the players that had to be beaten. It was also the conditions.
The Australian heat was blistering, day after day. The grass courts in Australia were terrible. Very uneven, terrible bounces.
The Officials were very officious. The facilities were pretty disgusting for the most part.
A lot of International players didn't come to Australia because they didn't want to travel long distances and also because they were aware of how tough the conditions were.
Now that might have given the decent Australian players of the era a bit of an advantage. But you can only play who you play.
And winning an Australian Championship playing day after day in blistering heat was no mean feat.
This is not to devalue the great feats of the modern players. The stats that the Big 3 have racked up are very impressive. But it's 50 years since Laver achieved his second GRAND SLAM. And we still talk about him and his great achievements.
Tennisgods
Hall of Fame
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?
IMO, that's a weird way of measuring how close someone got to the grand slam. You are measuring chronologically, but multiple players have come within a match of winning the GS. Federer has done it twice (3 majors + FO Finals). Djokovic has done it (3 majors + FO finals). That, imo, is a better measure of how close someone has been
It's worthy of recognition, but it's not the same thing and I'd suggest it is the lesser thing.
One of the commentators at the French described the non-cygs as something no one else (except Djokovic) had done since Rod Laver. It's a weird, albeit true statement.
Similar threads
