CYGS is not that special compared to NCYGS...

Krish872007 · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
NCYGS = CYGS I agree.

Also Federer came close to real CYGS two times then and Rafa came close 1 time.

They were as close as Novak is in 2021.

Disagree with the bold part
Roger lost his chance the moment he was beaten in the RG finals 2006, 2007 (his best chances)
Nadal's only shot was in 2009 and he lost in R4 of RG - he didn't win the AO in any other year so was never in the running
Djokovic has made it much further than both of them

CCPass · Jul 16, 2021

mwym said:
Not 3 different surfaces , but 3 changes of srface (transitions) :

1. HC (AO) -> clay (RG)
2. clay (RG) -> grass (W)
3. grass (W) -> HC (USO)

In otherv3 sequences player has HC (USO) -> HC (AO) which is the least technically demanding.

That doesn’t address my statement though since Laver’s CYGS was only won on two surfaces (his transitions were grass-clay-grass-grass) , but it’s a good point for why Djokovic’s potential CYGS > his NCYGS.

RF-18 · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
NCYGS = CYGS I agree.

Also Federer came close to real CYGS two times then and Rafa came close 1 time.

They were as close as Novak is in 2021.

Uhm, no, not at all. They were never really close. Both were out of the running already very early. Federer at RG, and Nadal in 2010 already was brought to a stop at the first major of the year.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

Lleytonstation said:
I will remember this when he wins it.

IF he wins it.

CCPass · Jul 16, 2021

alexio said:
no my point was that cygs is harder to fulfill and that's true, as you wanted to prove it on history books

And I have examined your rationale (the sequence, given your “starting point” argument) behind which is statistically false.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

RF-18 said:
Uhm, no, not at all. They were never really close. Both were out of the running already very early. Federer at RG, and Nadal in 2010 already was brought to a stop at the first major of the year.

Federer reached RG final in 2006 and 2007. That's pretty far.

Lleytonstation · Jul 16, 2021

Agree, not a big deal to win cygs.

Lleytonstation · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
Federer reached RG final in 2006 and 2007. That's pretty far.

But it ended in slam 2, if Djoker loses it was in slam 4. Only 7 matches away right now.

RF-18 · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
Federer reached RG final in 2006 and 2007. That's pretty far.

Yea but that's not as close as Djokovic.

We can't just assume Federer to win Wimbledon and USO (no matter how likely that would have been, but we can't just discount all the build up and pressure you face when you are in the running for CYGS). He was out of the convo at RG already, so technically he was never close. In theory, sure, but reality is he still was not even close to how close Djoko is right now. He is 7 matches away.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

RF-18 said:
Yea but that's not as close as Djokovic. That is if we think technically.

We can't just assume Federer to win Wimbledon and USO (no matter how likely that would have been, but we can't just discount all the build up and pressure you face when you are in the running for CYGS). He was out of the convo at RG already, so technically he was never close. In theory, sure, but reality is he still was not even close to how close Djoko is right now. He is 7 matches away.

I am saying NCYGS = CYGS.

Federer was on 27 match win streak in 2006 and 2007.

And novak was in 2012.

There is not much difference between NCYGS and CYGS. These two guys are tennis gods and both deserved it. Novak just a little bit better at RG.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Jul 16, 2021

Russeljones said:
TTWs weakest era for sure.

It is if anyone is pushing the consolation prize of a "NCYGS" over the sport's historic, supreme achievement. If one failed to win the Grand Slam, then its a light on limitations on their abilities.

Hayole · Jul 16, 2021

Ronaldo said:
WTT & December AO in the 70s ruined any chance for a CYGS then

Who do you think could've achieved it besides Connors?

RF-18 · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
I am saying NCYGS = CYGS.

Federer was on 27 match win streak in 2006 and 2007.

And novak was in 2012.

There is not much difference between NCYGS and CYGS. These two guys are tennis gods and both deserved it. Novak just a little bit better at RG.

Not sure I follow. In your original post, you said they were close to real CYGS like Novak is now in 2021.

Whisper · Jul 16, 2021

Gary Duane said:
Remember, Laver has two, but the first was as an amateur, so Joker has clear bragging rights if he can do it.

laver said he wasn’t sure which of his GS’s was more diffucult. That may surprise some people, but then you look at 1962 and in 3 of those slam finals he had to beat Roy Emerson, who also has a double career slam as do Laver and Djokovic. People also may not realise Emerson still holds the all time slam record for combined singles, doubles and mixed. He won every slam there is to win in all 3 disciplines. That’s a tough guy to face in slam finals. No wonder Laver can’t say which was more difficult.

NonP · Jul 16, 2021

You jokers might like to think athletes are robots insusceptible to tradition, hype and pressure. They're not. That's the reason why Navratilova and Serena fell short of the feat despite overwhelming odds and no man since Laver has come close until now.

Also the surface premise is almost equally asinine, for 2 reasons: 1) Rod won arguably the most important HC event of '69 (Johannesburg) and 2) it presupposes that grass-clay-grass-grass is less noteworthy than hard-clay-grass-hard. If anything one could easily argue the latter is less impressive because the two HC majors allow a smoother fast-to-slow transition and back.

No longstanding tradition is "arbitrary." Try to digest that and you may understand why this talk of statistical rarity/difficulty misses the whole point of the Grand Slam.

game..set..match · Jul 16, 2021

always said there is no difference between the two. the order in which the 4 slams are obtained is irrelevant. if you hold all 4 slams simultaneously, you've done the grand slam. end of story

RF-18 · Jul 16, 2021

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
It is if anyone is pushing the consolation prize of a "NCYGS" over the sport's historic, supreme achievement. If one failed to win the Grand Slam, then its a light on limitations on their abilities.

And here we are now, Djokovic is one tournament away after so many years. Do you think he can do it?

Cortana · Jul 16, 2021

Lavers 1969 CYGS was done on 3 grass courts...

Krish872007 · Jul 16, 2021

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
It is if anyone is pushing the consolation prize of a "NCYGS" over the sport's historic, supreme achievement. If one failed to win the Grand Slam, then its a light on limitations on their abilities.

What are your views on Djokovic's chances at the Grand Slam? Is this the most excitement there has been around the men's game since 1969?

game..set..match · Jul 16, 2021

Third Serve said:
The difference is in the off-season. For a CYGS, you don’t get that extra couple of months off in between your Slam wins. It’s all in one, long, grueling tennis season with little to no breaks in between.

I don’t think an NCYGS is up there with a CYGS, but it’s not especially far off either.

this does not matter because the offseason applies to everyone, not just the player going for the cygs

Spencer Gore · Jul 16, 2021

Performing under increasing pressure is a vital part of sport. Whether that be throughout a match, throughout a tournament or throughout a season.

The Grand Slam is the grail. All of these other "grand-slams": non-calendar, career, golden etc) are Johnny-come-lately inventions.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

CYGS is same as NCYGS

Red Rick · Jul 16, 2021

I think Wimbledon - Roland Garros is by far the "easiest" order in which to do it tbh. RG and Wimbledon are really lcose together, and the USO doesn't give that much time to recover either.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

Cortana said:
Lavers 1969 CYGS was done on 3 grass courts...

Exactly. That's easier than doing NCYGS on 3 surfaces.

Whisper · Jul 16, 2021

Hayole said:
Who do you think could've achieved it besides Connors?

Mcenroe in 1984. Led Lendl 63 62 in FO final before fading 46 57 57 last 3 sets. He went on to win Wim and USO easily. In fact at FO he only lost 1 set in the tournament before the final. AO was on grass and end of the yr at that time. If he was going for GS he would have played and he’s pretty good on grass. Mac would be up there with Laver had he just kept his cool for 5 more points in that FO final.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

Neither Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Boris and Stefan had any realistic chance.

At most Borg, Connors and Mcenroe can come close to big 3. The old big 3 to current big 3.

Whisper · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
Exactly. That's easier than doing NCYGS on 3 surfaces.

yes and no. everyone was a grass expert then so tougher competition. Today only Djoker and Fed play well on grass as there is no real grass season for next gen to gain some skills.

TMF · Jul 16, 2021

Either you win the Calendar Grand Slam(CGS) or you didn't. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were close, but still haven't achieved the CGS. No other random 4 slams is equal to the CGS.

The amount of insecurity/desperation by some joker fans is getting comical.

RF-18 · Jul 16, 2021

NonP said:
You jokers might like to think athletes are robots insusceptible to tradition, hype and pressure. They're not. That's the reason why Navratilova and Serena fell short of the feat despite overwhelming odds and no man since Laver has come close until now.

Also the surface premise is almost equally asinine, for 2 reasons: 1) Rod won arguably the most important HC event of '69 (Johannesburg) and 2) it presupposes that grass-clay-grass-grass is less noteworthy than hard-clay-grass-hard. If anything one could easily argue the latter is less impressive because the two HC majors allow a smoother fast-to-slow transition and back.

No longstanding tradition is "arbitrary." Try to digest that and you may understand why this talk of statistical rarity/difficulty misses the whole point of the Grand Slam.

An argument is also that there were more great grass players then cause grass was so common. So in that way it's just as hard.

Full respect to the Rod.

Whisper · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
Neither Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Boris and Stefan had any realistic chance.

At most Borg, Connors and Mcenroe can come close to big 3. The old big 3 to current big 3.

Krish872007 said:
What are your views on Djokovic's chances at the Grand Slam? Is this the most excitement there has been around the men's game since 1969?

yes, this and also Mac v Borg Wimbledon finals were peak excitement.

game..set..match · Jul 16, 2021

alexio said:
objectively speaking cygs is harder to fulfill so it values more fair and square now as it stands i guess ..coz with cygs you have way less space for mistake..i.e. you have only one starting point (ao) while with ncygs you have three starting points to choose where it'd would be better for you to start

why does it matter that there are 3 starting points? once you win one slam, you need 3 more in a row. if you win one slam but lose the next one, you start over so what. the emphasis on the 4 slam wins needing to start in january only is preposterous.

TMF · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
Federer reached RG final in 2006 and 2007. That's pretty far.

QFT.

Federer won every single grand slam matches except 1(which was in the final) in both 2006 & 2007. That is as close as you can get.

Phoenix1983 · Jul 16, 2021

CCPass said:
That’s actually false because objectively speaking winning W-USO-AO-RG (the exact sequence) is rarer than CYGS if looking at the entire tennis history.

That's true at present, yes.

Budge from 1938 W - 1939 RG and Novak Djokovic from 2015 W - 2016 RG the only ones to achieve it.

Whereas the CYGS has been done three times.

Of course, the exact sequence USO - AO - RG - W has only been done once, by Budge in 1938 / 39, and the exact sequence RG - W - USO - AO has never been done in the men's game.

RF-18 · Jul 16, 2021

TMF said:
QFT.

Federer won every single grand slam matches except 1(which was in the final) in both 2006 & 2007. That is as close as you can get.

When Federer entered Wimbledon 2006 and 2007, there was no CYGS to play for. Whatever he did after RG, is irrelevant in relation to the achievement that is the Grand Slam.

Spencer Gore · Jul 16, 2021

TMF said:
Either you win the Calendar Grand Slam(CGS) or you didn't. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were close, but still haven't achieved the CGS.

Only Djokovic has been close.

Whisper · Jul 16, 2021

game..set..match said:
why does it matter that there are 3 starting points? once you win one slam, you need 3 more in a row. if you win one slam but lose the next one, you start over so what. the emphasis on the 4 slam wins needing to start in january only is preposterous.

because tennis is played in a tennis season, a calendar year. If someone asks ‘what year did Djoker win the ‘grand slam’? Are you going to say ‘2015/2016’? For Laver we say 1969, for Graf 1988 etc

NonP · Jul 16, 2021

RF-18 said:
An argument is also that there were more great grass players then cause grass was so common. So in that way it's just as hard.

Full respect to the Rod.

Yes, that's another reason why all this hairsplitting is rather silly. I've long maintained that if there's one (male) GOAT it's Rod, but if Novak somehow completes the GS (I've got my doubts) these two will be pretty much equal in my book, with equally impressive GSs to boot (though I still tend to think the GS is somewhat overrated in the grand scheme of things).

Having said that... the BOAT remains Pistol and the real GOAT is my girl Navratilova.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Jul 16, 2021

RF-18 said:
And here we are now, Djokovic is one tournament away after so many years. Do you think he can do it?

Considering his form at the three majors already won, I do not see anything stopping Djokovic short of injury, some rare mental lapse or USO official BS again. To think, he has the strong chance of doing what no male player has achieved in 52 years--just over a half century. All of those players, with their talents and experiences could not take that GOAT stage next to Laver, but Djokovic has that chance.

Kralingen · Jul 16, 2021

Federer 8/11 Slams stopped only by GOAT-level Claydal > Nole Slam in 15/16 at least in my eyes, I.e. I find the former more impressive than the latter.

Because it encompasses a longer period of true dominance and also peak Nadal > Wawrinka/Murray.

However as a stand-alone achievement without context I think CYGS > NCYGS > 5 out of 6 Slams, because the consecutive factor adds so much pressure and a higher physical toll.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Jul 16, 2021

RF-18 said:
When Federer entered Wimbledon 2006 and 2007, there was no CYGS to play for. Whatever he did after RG, is irrelevant in relation to the achievement that is the Grand Slam.

True.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

NonP said:
Yes, that's why all this hairsplitting is rather silly. I've long maintained that if there's one (male) GOAT it's Rod, but if Novak somehow completes the GS (I've got my doubts) these two will be pretty much equal in my book, with equally impressive GSs to boot (though I still tend to think the GS is somewhat overrated in the grand scheme of things).

Having said that... the BOAT remains Pistol and the real GOAT is my girl Navratilova.

Navaratilova was the goat, there is no question about that.

But why will Laver be GOAT over Djokovic?
Djokovic will have 7 year end number 1 soon. And he has been number 1 virtually ever year except 2017. The title count during Laver time can't be matched now but the physicality today can't be matched during the pre open era. Even Connors had only half the titles as Rod and he was early open era player.

Krish872007 · Jul 16, 2021

I think the pressure really got to Serena in 2015. She could almost taste it - 2 matches away. Even after eviscerating the field in the first 8 months of the year, she couldn't quite edge past Vinci.
That's how tough this is.

(Though she did complete her second "Serena Slam")

CCPass · Jul 16, 2021

TMF said:
Either you win the Calendar Grand Slam(CGS) or you didn't. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were close, but still haven't achieved the CGS. No other random 4 slams is equal to the CGS.

The amount of insecurity/desperation by some joker fans is getting comical.

Irony.

bluetrain4 · Jul 16, 2021

CYGS is way more special and has been achieved by fewer people. It is harder because the pressure is significantly more.

Even if you don't think it's harder, the whole point is that the CYSG represents a dominant single season of tennis - dominant years/seasons is something we celebrate in all sports, more so than partial dominance in two consecutive seasons.

A football team going 16-0 during the season and winning the Superbowl is way better than the same team finishing the season 8-0 after some losses, winning the Superbowl, and then winning the first 8 games of the the next season -- even though in both scenarios the team won 16 consecutive regular season games and won the Superbowl.

Are you ready to elevate Serena's "Serena Slam" over Graf's CYSG?? [Note: Graf does have her own NCYGS].

Whisper · Jul 16, 2021

Krish872007 said:
I think the pressure really got to Serena in 2015. She could almost taste it - 2 matches away.

Yes, just like Navratilova‘s choke v Sukova in 1984 2 matches short. Navratilova had won 6 slams in a row but cracked due to calendar slam pressure. Navratilova had earlier in the year completed the NCYGS with easy win over Evert 61 63 in the FO final. That tells you the difference in pressure when going for calendar slam. I’m sure if Djoker pulls it off he’ll tell you much tougher it was than NCYGS no doubt about it.

nolefam_2024 · Jul 16, 2021

bluetrain4 said:
CYGS is way more special and has been achieved by fewer people. It is harder because the pressure is significantly more.

Even if you don't think it's harder, the whole point is that the CYSG represents a dominant single season of tennis - dominant years/seasons is something we celebrate in all sports, more so than partial dominance in two consecutive seasons.

A football team going 16-0 during the season and winning the Superbowl is way better than the same team finishing the season 8-0 after some losses, winning the Superbowl, and then winning the first 8 games of the the next season -- even though in both scenarios the team won 16 consecutive regular season games and won the Superbowl.

Are you ready to elevate Serena's "Serena Slam" over Graf's CYSG?? [Note: Graf does have her own NCYGS].

I think Serena's NCYGS is as good as Graf's CYGS.
Otherwise Graf would still be considered the goat. Serena did it twice. Just like Steffi's 1 CYGS and 1 NCYGS.

Same thing can happen if Djokovic is successful at USOpen. He will match Laver.

NonP · Jul 16, 2021

nachiket nolefam said:
Navaratilova was the goat, there is no question about that.

But why will Laver be GOAT over Djokovic?
Djokovic will have 7 year end number 1 soon. And he has been number 1 virtually ever year except 2017. The title count during Laver time can't be matched now but the physicality today can't be matched during the pre open era. Even Connors had only half the titles as Rod and he was early open era player.

Don't wanna turn this into another GOAT slugfest. Lemme just say Rod was the world #1 arguably just as long and the # of pro tours/titles he won that could be considered rough Slam equivalents is pretty high. Like Novak's and unlike Fedal's his resume has no holes, plus he also happens to be (arguably again, yes) the most complete player in tennis history. Throw in the amateur, pro and Open-Era GSs and you've got virtually unbeatable GOAT credentials.

Also you may wanna read this before you assume tennis was a gentlemen's club game in Rocket's heyday:

First time since 1973 no American men ranked in the top-30

The M in MAGA stands for Mahesh. Bad take here. Trying to equate two vastly different concepts and lacking all nuance.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

WhiskeyEE · Jul 16, 2021

It's only better because of the additional pressure. There was a ton of pressure on Serena at the USO to complete it. There will be a lot on Novak too. More than for the non calendar one.

Diminic D'Coco · Jul 16, 2021

beard said:
I don't see CYGS as that special... Only great in that is player have all 4 at the same time... NCYGS is about the same, IMO, having all 4 at the same time... I said that when Novak wasn't near completing CYGS, and I say that in the moment Novak have great chance of getting CYGS... It's more media hype thing, but there is no big difference...

Someone will say "CYGS is harder to do compared to NCYGS", and I will answer " ok, if that's the case, how many NCYGS were completed before Novak did it in 2016"...

there are 3 chances of getting the NCYGS VS only one way of getting the CYGS.

Diminic D'Coco · Jul 16, 2021

game..set..match said:
always said there is no difference between the two. the order in which the 4 slams are obtained is irrelevant. if you hold all 4 slams simultaneously, you've done the grand slam. end of story

yes. because in a carreer span of 10 years any goven player has 10 chances of getting a CYGS, and a 37 chances of getting the NCYGS...

oh...

wait...

CYGS is not that special compared to NCYGS...

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Rookie

Similar threads