Why are we pretending that Novak never won 4 in a row?

T

Thinker_145

Rookie
I absolutely don't understand why the tennis world is pretending that NCYGS never happened? It absolutely happened and is not in any way, shape or form a smaller achievement than CYGS.

Novak himself isn't helping matters by going along with this narrative but remember he has nothing to win by doing that. If he does win CYGS then the thing to celebrate would be that he has done it twice but no one is going to talk about that. If he fails then it would give further fodder to downplay the importance of NCYGS.

You know if anything starting from Wimbledon or USO is harder than CYGS because you have to maintain your level for a longer time. Starting from AO you are done with the CYGS in 8 months, same with FO. But if you start with Wimbledon then it takes 11 months and from USO around 10 months. In any case this is just me nitpicking as well, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter where you start from. CYGS is a completely arbitrary thing and Novak has already done it.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
Thinker_145 said:
. . . the bottom line is that it doesn't matter where you start from. CYGS is a completely arbitrary thing and Novak has already done it.
Click to expand...
It matters because the fans and the powers that be have determined that it matters. Of course it's arbitrary. What isn't?

Caring about the CYGS is arbitrary, to begin with. During most of the Open Era, most players didn't care enough about it to travel to Australia for it. They didn't care enough to not skip Slams every year. It's rarity has made it more important in modern times, that's about it.
 
Kralingen

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
Thinker_145 said:
You know if anything starting from Wimbledon or USO is harder than CYGS because you have to maintain your level for a longer time. Starting from AO you are done with the CYGS in 8 months, same with FO. But if you start with Wimbledon then it takes 11 months and from USO around 10 months.
Click to expand...
The corollary is that you have to maintain your level without an off-season and extended break in a NCYGS such as the Nole Slam or Serena Slam

whereas the CYGS requires winning Australia in February, then playing clay season, and then winning the French, Wimbledon, US Open in basically 3-4 months. Mental and physical conditioning have to be extremely high to pull this off, as burnout is the biggest issue in a CYGS campaign.

The NCYGS may take more time, but it also gives the benefit of an off-season and a rest. the CYGS is more brutal and thus more difficult, at least in my opinion.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Kralingen said:
The corollary is that you have to maintain your level without an off-season and extended break in a NCYGS such as the Nole Slam or Serena Slam

whereas the CYGS requires winning Australia in February, then playing clay season, and then winning the French, Wimbledon, US Open in basically 3-4 months. Mental and physical conditioning have to be extremely high to pull this off, as burnout is the biggest issue in a CYGS campaign.

The NCYGS may take more time, but it also gives the benefit of an off-season and a rest. the CYGS is more brutal and thus more difficult, at least in my opinion.
Click to expand...
In men’s tennis in the Open Era the data indicates they are both equally hard, having happened only once each in over 5 decades
 
BauerAlmeida

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Nobody is pretending anything. He won four in a row now he's going for four in the same season.


Spencer Gore said:
The Grand Slam is The One.

All others -Non-Calendar, Career -are pale imitations invented to make players and their fans feel better about not being able to achieve the Big One.
Click to expand...

Non-calendar slam in 3 different surfaces is more impressive than calendar on two surfaces.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
GabeT said:
In men’s tennis in the Open Era the data indicates they are both equally hard, having happened only once each in over 5 decades
Click to expand...
This is one of those times where the numbers don't really tell the whole story. I mean, 50 years seems like a long time for something in sports to have only happened once . . . until you realize that most players weren't shooting for that record for 20 of those years.

It's no small coincidence that Laver (and Court), the first two players to win the Grand Slam were both Australian, at a time when most players outside of Australia skipped that Slam regularly.
 
Kralingen

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
GabeT said:
In men’s tennis in the Open Era the data indicates they are both equally hard, having happened only once each in over 5 decades
Click to expand...
I agree they are massive achievements. Don’t take it as me trying to downplay the NCYGS just illustrating why the CYGS is viewed as more prestigious.

(Also fwiw I agree with the OP especially considering Djokovic won the ATP year end finals in 2015. So it’s actually 5 big titles in a row)
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
GabeT said:
In men’s tennis in the Open Era the data indicates they are both equally hard, having happened only once each in over 5 decades
Click to expand...

All four of the possible sequences are equally unlikely as each other (I'm not sure it makes sense to talk in terms of difficulty, as this is really a question of probability). However, the point of the CYGS is that by specifying which tournament has to be first, you cut the chances of a sequence of four being the right sequence of four in four. There is three times as much chance of a NCYGS as of a CYGS because there are three possibly NCYGSes and only one CYGS.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
Spencer Gore said:
The Grand Slam is The One.

All others -Non-Calendar, Career -are pale imitations invented to make players and their fans feel better about not being able to achieve the Big One.
Click to expand...
I think that's an overstatement. The traditional Grand Slam is the biggest achievement, being able to dominate for an entire season/year on tour. But holding all four titles simultaneously is nothing to look down on, either. Only a few of the best of the very best in our sport have managed it. Many of our all-time greats have not. So any way you look at it, Djokovic is in rarified company, with Martina and Serena. And he's got a leg up on every other modern men's player. And I'm not even a fan of his.
 
T

Texas Tennis Fan

Professional
Spencer Gore said:
The Grand Slam is The One.

All others -Non-Calendar, Career -are pale imitations invented to make players and their fans feel better about not being able to achieve the Big One.
Click to expand...
I like you Spencer Gore, but "pales in comparison"? That seems a bit harsh. I understand the CYGS is sexy and noteworthy because it has not been done for a while, but neither has 4 slam wins in a row (for men). I see the 4 in a row as 2/3s as good as a CYGS.
 
BeatlesFan

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
skip1969 said:
Caring about the CYGS is arbitrary, to begin with. During most of the Open Era, most players didn't care enough about it to travel to Australia for it. During most of the Open Era, most players didn't care enough about it to travel to Australia for it.
Click to expand...
The Australian Open was played in December until the mid-1980's. Players skipped it because it was playing during the Christmas season. No player who had won the first three legs of the CYGS would EVER have skipped it. You're suggesting players skipped it because the CYGS wasn't important, neglecting to mention the AO was the last slam of the year.
 
Kralingen

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
BeatlesFan said:
The Australian Open was played in December until the mid-1980's. Players skipped it because it was playing during the Christmas season. No player who had won the first three legs of the CYGS would EVER have skipped it. You're suggesting players skipped it because the CYGS wasn't important, neglecting to mention the AO was the last slam of the year.
Click to expand...
Plus no one other than Laver/Budge ever won 3 consecutive slams in a year either, before Rafa in 2010. so it's not like the AO was a limiting factor.

Winning consecutive slams is ridiculously difficult.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
BeatlesFan said:
The Australian Open was played in December until the mid-1980's. Players skipped it because it was playing during the Christmas season. No player who had won the first three legs of the CYGS would EVER have skipped it. You're suggesting players skipped it because the CYGS wasn't important, neglecting to mention the AO was the last slam of the year.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Players didn't skip it because of Christmas. Boxing Day was bad timing, to be sure. But they mostly skipped it because it was a second-tier Slam and it was a long ways away.

From 1969, the first year the Australian was "open" until 1977, it was held in late December/early January. Back then, that made it the first Slam of the tennis calendar year. It was the first leg when Laver won the Slam in 1969 and the first leg when Court won the Slam in 1970.

It was only in 1978 when the tennis calendar changed (and the AO was played twice in '77) that the December/January slot became the last Slam of the year, which they gradually moved up to late November/early December in 1981.

It was in 1987, after no AO was played in 1986, that the AO went back to January and being first Slam of the year, where it's been since. 1987 would be the last year at Kooyong and the last year it was played on grass.

So it was the last Slam of the year for only eight of those years, 1978-85. If players really cared about the CYGS (which most players didn't really, especially in the '70's) you wouldn't skip the Australian because of Christmas. You couldn't. It was the first leg. But many did, because it wasn't all that important to win the AO, much less the CYGS.

The AO was much more regional than the other three Slams. By the time Graff won her Grand Slam in 1988, that regional dynamic was definitely changing. The AO had changed venue and surface in order to become more relevant. And players were attending it to kick off their year. But it's relative irrelevancy for the first 20 years of the Open Era meant that the CYGS was not the Holy Grail that people view it today.
 
topher

topher

Hall of Fame
skip1969 said:
Incorrect. Players didn't skip it because of Christmas. Boxing Day was bad timing, to be sure. But they mostly skipped it because it was a second-tier Slam and it was a long ways away.

From 1969, the first year the Australian was "open" until 1977, it was held in late December/early January. Back then, that made it the first Slam of the tennis calendar year. It was the first leg when Laver won the Slam in 1969 and the first leg when Court won the Slam in 1970.

It was only in 1978 when the tennis calendar changed (and the AO was played twice in '77) that the December/January slot became the last Slam of the year, which they gradually moved up to late November/early December in 1981.

It was in 1987, after no AO was played in 1986, that the AO went back to January and being first Slam of the year, where it's been since. 1987 would be the last year at Kooyong and the last year it was played on grass.

So it was the last Slam of the year for only eight of those years, 1978-85. If players really cared about the CYGS (which most players didn't really, especially in the '70's) you wouldn't skip the Australian because of Christmas. You couldn't. It was the first leg. But many did, because it wasn't all that important to win the AO, much less the CYGS.

The AO was much more regional than the other three Slams. By the time Graff won her Grand Slam in 1988, that regional dynamic was definitely changing. The AO had changed venue and surface in order to become more relevant. And players were attending it to kick off their year. But it's relative irrelevancy for the first 20 years of the Open Era meant that the CYGS was not the Holy Grail that people view it today.
Click to expand...

You are right mostly, I believe. I thought I remembered in 79 maybe, after one of Borg’s channel slams saying he would go play AO if he won the USO. And Connors saying he’d “chase that son of a ***** across the world”. So the CYGS was not a complete non-factor.

But Connors skipped the AO when he was #1 for several years before 78, so the CYGS was not the be all end all to some. He was also skipping RG though, which banned him in 74, his best year and best shot at the CYGS.

I believe one of the only reasons Connors ever attended the AO was because he was dating Evert in 74-75 and she was going anyways.

The Australian fans were incredibly partisan at Kooyong too, I’ve heard it described as an almost Davis Cup atmosphere. So few wanted to travel across the world to get jeered at and paid little, in subpar facilities, much less on Christmas.
 
Last edited:
RaulRamirez

RaulRamirez

Legend
skip1969 said:
It matters because the fans and the powers that be have determined that it matters. Of course it's arbitrary. What isn't?

Caring about the CYGS is arbitrary, to begin with. During most of the Open Era, most players didn't care enough about it to travel to Australia for it. They didn't care enough to not skip Slams every year. It's rarity has made it more important in modern times, that's about it.
Click to expand...
That would be an argument in Novak's favor, wouldn't it (as compared to 1969) as all the top players, unless injured, have competed in all the slams the last 30 or so years.
 
topher

topher

Hall of Fame
skip1969 said:
This is one of those times where the numbers don't really tell the whole story. I mean, 50 years seems like a long time for something in sports to have only happened once . . . until you realize that most players weren't shooting for that record for 20 of those years.

It's no small coincidence that Laver (and Court), the first two players to win the Grand Slam were both Australian, at a time when most players outside of Australia skipped that Slam regularly.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Laver, while he had it easier in the AO, the channel slam was much more difficult back then. The grass was not durable at all and bounces were bizarre at times. You basically had to volley to avoid them.

Not to mention they’ve added time (2 weeks?) between RG and Wimbledon since then.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
topher said:
You are right mostly, I believe. I thought I remembered in 79 maybe, after one of Borg’s channel slams saying he would go play AO if he won the USO. And Connors saying he’d “chase that son of a ***** across the world”. So the CYGS was not a complete non-factor.

But Connors skipped the AO when he was #1 for several years before 78, so the CYGS was not the be all end all to some. He was also skipping RG though, which banned him in 74, his best year and best shot at the CYGS.

I believe one of the only reasons Connors ever attended the AO was because he was dating Evert in 74-75 and she was going anyways.

The Australian fans were incredibly partisan at Kooyong too, I’ve heard it described as an almost Davis Cup atmosphere. So few wanted to travel across the world to get jeered at and paid little, in subpar facilities, much less on Christmas.
Click to expand...
I think the whole Big Three/GOAT debates of the last 10 plus years have made people forget about history of our game, or at least the unpredictability and zaniness that came about after "open tennis" began in 1968/69. There were rival tours and factions and players barred here or there. They went where the money was skipped whatever events didn't suit them. It was a much more individualistic time and the globe-trotting pros that we take for granted today had a much tougher go of it back then.

The tourneys were also not uniformly run or prized. New fans can't stop tripping over themselves to rave about the Australian Open and how great it is. Many of them don't remember when it was EASILY the least-prized Slam. They were FAR behind the other Slams and were coveted mostly by Australian players. It helped, of course, that so many great Australian players existed back in the 60's and '70's. But even still, the Australian bounced around to a few locations, it was the last to go Open, it had the smallest draws and the most regional entrants, the humblest facilities compared to the other three Slams.

Moving to Flinders Park saved them. It brought them instantly into relevancy. That move in 1988 was the first time they even had a 128 player draw on the men's side . . . something the other three Slams had had since 1969! Steffi winning there to start her Golden Slam also suddenly made winning the CYGS a HUGE deal. Nobody really paid attention to the CYGS until Martina almost did it a few years earlier. So it was the women players that made it a big deal. Most of the men couldn't even be bothered going down to Melbourne to play.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
RaulRamirez said:
That would be an argument in Novak's favor, wouldn't it (as compared to 1969) as all the top players, unless injured, have competed in all the slams the last 30 or so years.
Click to expand...
For sure. Now that most every player tries to play every Slam, and now that all four Slams are highly regarded, Novak is the only man that can even say he's held all four titles simultaneously. So, it's a feather in his cap that the other two don't have. Roger has held three simultaneously (three times), which is also amazing. Nadal held three once. That stat alone says a lot.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
topher said:
To be fair to Laver, while he had it easier in the AO, the channel slam was much more difficult back then. The grass was not durable at all and bounces were bizarre at times. You basically had to volley to avoid them.

Not to mention they’ve added time (2 weeks?) between RG and Wimbledon since then.
Click to expand...
No doubt. I wasn't denigrating his accomplishment. The challenges of winning a Slam in 1969 are very different than winning one today, but there were still plenty of challenges to make it a herculean feat. Not only did he have the game to make it happen, but he also had the nationality. LOL The Aussies were a dominant force back then . . . well, the dominant force, right? And the fact that they took their national championships very seriously meant that it was a huge deal to win it when it wasn't for non-Aussies. Their incentive to play and win there was innate.
 
D

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
It’s due to the fact that it’s the same season so it’s gets the extra credit.
It’s like a player getting to #1 in feburary and losing it in September he was #1 for 7 months of the year but you can’t call him YE1. NCYGS was a great achievement but CYGS is that much better
 
RaulRamirez

RaulRamirez

Legend
Djokovic's 4-in-a-row was a tremendous achievement, and of course, at the time, it had not been accomplished in 47 years, and still hasn't been done again.
It was partly underplayed because there was no time to talk about it -- as he lost early at Wimbledon, and it was almost overshadowed by the fact that he also had won his first French Open, completing the career slam.
But since then, I think it should have garnered a little more respect.

That said, I still give a little more credit to the CYGS, if achieved.

Generally, I tend to think that one slam (lower case, as in a major) is as good as another, although I find some extra value to a career slam, additional for a NCYGS and still more for a true Grand Slam. it's hard to quantify how much extra to give (though I've tried).
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
DjokoLand said:
Also the fact it’s done in seasons and he lost at RG 2015 will always look worse. As 2015 3 slams and 2016 2 slams. 2021 4 slams just makes it
Click to expand...

2015 already better season than this could be though.

3/4 Slams with a Final
WTF
6 Masters of 8 Finals (1 skip)

Insanely high bar unlikely to be touched.

Novak looks probable to have zero Masters this season and 50/50 winning WTF.
 
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
Spencer Gore said:
The Grand Slam is The One.

All others -Non-Calendar, Career -are pale imitations invented to make players and their fans feel better about not being able to achieve the Big One.
Click to expand...

I agree with you THE GRAND SLAM is the toughest ask of all.

However, I think the following are pretty impresseive achievements ...

-Holding all 4 Major Singles Titles at the same time.
-Achieving a Dual Career Grand Slam (even greater if is on at least 4 distinct surfaces).
-Achieving at least 3 Channel Slams.
-Achieving at least 10 Major Singles Titles in a career at one of the Major Championships.
-Achieving at least 300 weeks as the #1 Ranked Singles player.
-Achieving the Singles Title, Doubles Title, and Mixed Doubles Title in the same year at the one Major Championship.
 
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
BGod said:
The logical fans know. 4 Slams in 11 months>4 in 8.
Click to expand...

It can depend on the order they are won in.

I imagine that any consecutive four that encompasses a Channel Slam would be much more difficult.

So, AO, RG, W, USO .... RG, W, USO, AO ... USO, AO, RG, W would be much tougher than W, USO, AO, RG.

And clearly THE GRAND SLAM combo is the toughest by far.
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
Thinker_145 said:
I absolutely don't understand why the tennis world is pretending that NCYGS never happened? It absolutely happened and is not in any way, shape or form a smaller achievement than CYGS.
Click to expand...

er it’s not the 1st time it happened lol - you must be a hugely biased Novak fan right : )

Navratilova won 6 slams in a row and got no recognition because she didn’t win calendar slam. Serena and Graf have done it on other occasion, no real recognition. Maureen Connolly did it and in her books the author mentions there was no recognition, all the talk was could she do it in the 1 tennis season, not over 2 seasons. Budge also got no recognition for it.

If Novak gets recognition then that would be bias towards him only as all past winners of 4 in a row get nothing. Fair?
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
skip1969 said:
It matters because the fans and the powers that be have determined that it matters. Of course it's arbitrary. What isn't?
Click to expand...

It’s not arbitrary at all. Holding all 4 slams at the same time doesn’t mean you won them all in 1 tennis season. You won them over 2 seasons.
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
Thinker_145 said:
You know if anything starting from Wimbledon or USO is harder than CYGS because you have to maintain your level for a longer time.
Click to expand...

You could argue that’s easier as you have more time for injuries to recover, train, plan new strategies, mental health break etc. 11 months v 8 months makes a big difference in terms of spreading out the pressure, recovery time etc. Also the hardest thing about the calendar slam is winning FO and Wimbledon with only 2 weeks break inbetween, moving from vastly different surfaces clay to grass. The way Novak did it in 2015/2016 he actually had 11 months between his Wimbledon and FO victories, far easier to do it that way than justb2 weeks to make the changes required.
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
skip1969 said:
Caring about the CYGS is arbitrary, to begin with. During most of the Open Era, most players didn't care enough about it to travel to Australia for it.
Click to expand...

AO was the last slam of the year most of that time. Borg always said he would travel to Australia to go for the calendar slam if he had a chance - he kept losing at USO so never had the opportunity.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
The premise is all wrong. Below are the first two paragraphs of a recent article on Novak at The Guardian. There are many other similar articles.

Perhaps the clearest measure of Novak Djokovic’s greatness, as he prepares for the most significant shot he will ever have at winning tennis’s ultimate achievement, the calendar grand slam, is that he has already achieved a near equivalent feat.

Djokovic’s run of four consecutive grand slam titles between Wimbledon in 2015 and the French Open a year later already stands alone as one of the sport’s greatest ever achievements. Before him, no man had won four grand slams in a row since Rod Laver in 1969. No other man in history has ever held all four majors at once since they were split across three surfaces.
 
Last edited:
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
skip1969 said:
It was only in 1978 when the tennis calendar changed (and the AO was played twice in '77) that the December/January slot became the last Slam of the year, which they gradually moved up to late November/early December in 1981.
Click to expand...

Which was right in Borg’s peak. If they didn’t move it I think Borg would have entered and won a few as he always thought he could win calendar slam. Making it the 4th slam of the year meant he didn’t have to bother unless he won the 1st 3 slams of the yr. He got as far as USO final twice after winning FO/Wim so just short of having 2 cracks at calendar slam at AO.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
helterskelter said:
All four of the possible sequences are equally unlikely as each other (I'm not sure it makes sense to talk in terms of difficulty, as this is really a question of probability). However, the point of the CYGS is that by specifying which tournament has to be first, you cut the chances of a sequence of four being the right sequence of four in four. There is three times as much chance of a NCYGS as of a CYGS because there are three possibly NCYGSes and only one CYGS.
Click to expand...
That’s the theory. But the actual data over several decades shows they are equally difficult.
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
GabeT said:
Djokovic’s run of four consecutive grand slam titles between Wimbledon in 2015 and the French Open a year later already stands alone as one of the sport’s greatest ever achievements. Before him, no man had won four grand slams in a row since Rod Laver in 1969. No other man in history has ever held all four majors at once since they were split across three surfaces.
Click to expand...

Do you give Budge credit for 1 calendar slam and 2 NCYGS? If not why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Federev
Novak to Shock the World
Replies
33
Views
1K
Djokodalerer31
Djokodalerer31
N
If Nadal wins Indian wells then it sets him up perfectly for Us open later in the year.
Replies
12
Views
494
Tennis_Freak99
Tennis_Freak99
Gary Duane
Grand Slams and three in a row...
Replies
17
Views
2K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
terribleIVAN
These last 12 tennis months have been crazy
Replies
5
Views
263
adil1972
A
D
Federer: Novak never won in Paris
2 3 4
Replies
159
Views
7K
cknobman
cknobman
Top