CYGS is not that special compared to NCYGS...

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Really? Where did you read that?

It’s obvious. They level on slams and Djokovic has virtually most of the other tiebreaker stats in his favour. Most of the pundits are saying Djokovic is the best now. I don’t know how anyone can argue it currently. I admit though it can easily change again on the next slam. If Djokovic wins again though he can put it out of reach and make it undisputed. Especially if he wins the us open and maybe Australia next year too.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I would argue that it is the fundamental component. If you are holding all 4 slam titles at the same time it means the feat was achieved within 52 weeks. Which means it all boils down to the petty difference of a year vs calendar year definitions …but both are still 52 weeks.

Nonsense. We live in the accepted standard framework of a calendar year, with a fixed beginning and end, which starts again every January. That is the logical, accepted frame of the Grand Slam--not majors strug together across years. Either one can achieve that concentrated dominance in the accepted standard framework of the calendar year, or he or she cannot. Consolation prize distinctions are not substitute for the Grand Slam.

 

[Gary Duane]

1. As Gary said, one point of difference is the additional hype for starting the job in Australia and finishing in New York
2. I guess that winning RG and few weeks later Wimbledon might be a tad more difficult than winning Wimbledon and almost a year later RG
3. Given how few players did it, it doesn't really matter whether the 4 came in one season or rolled over 2 seasons

The extra difficulty is not about the level of tennis but about the hype, and players are not immune to that. Novak is a smart guy, and he knows history. He knows that Laver did it, and he has not. He's a competitive guy, so he wants it!

 

[Whisper]

What I’m saying is that the starting point doesn’t matter because no matter when it starts, 4 slam wins a row are still required.

yes but you need to win all the slams in 1 tennis year. Over a 10 year period you get 10 chances at the starting point of a calendar slam. The number of starting points for any 4 wins in a row is 37.

 

[Whisper]

Exactly. This special status for CYGS seem pretty abstract. Holding all slams in a row is same whichever way you put it.

If that was true we’d expect a poll asking “Would you prefer to win a calendar slam or a non calendar slam?” to be roughly 50-50, not 100-0

 

[Whisper]

No, CYGS, NCYGS starting with RG, NCYGS starting with W and NCYGS starting with USO have the exact same probability, mathematically. In Open Era, CYGS was achieved once and the NCYGS starting with W too. No one is rarer than the other. Men’s Singles only, as I’m not interested in comparing apples to watermelons.

Do you want your football team to win the league with the most points in the one football season, or will you just claim victory any time they reach the top points over 2 seasons? If they have most points from last July to today then they are the champions?

 

[Whisper]

I would argue that it is the fundamental component. If you are holding all 4 slam titles at the same time it means the feat was achieved within 52 weeks. Which means it all boils down to the petty difference of a year vs calendar year definitions …but both are still 52 weeks.

It’s a totally unreasonable take to claim the ncygs is not an equal feat to the cygs. They are absolutely equal.

Then soccer, basketball etc competitions can be won over 2 seasons. If you have most points over any 12 month period it’s the same mathematically as in the one season.

 

[Kralingen]

Do you want your football team to win the league with the most points in the one football season, or will you just claim victory any time they reach the top points over 2 seasons? If they have most points from last July to today then they are the champions?

I mean, the analogy really falls flat here considering you win 4 consecutive Slam championships either way. Unless you’re suggesting a Slam is like a regular season match, I don’t think there’s any parallels to be made to team sports the way you’re suggesting.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Djokovic is already the GOAT now. Only way it changes again is if Federer or Nadal win another slam. Big pressure on Fedal!

I'm sure that Federer still wins every GOAT poll. He is a genius. Whereas Djokovic is only a hard worker.

 

[Whisper]

You can think what you like. The entire tennis establishment and the entire history of tennis since the Grand Slam became possible disagrees with you.

Margaret Court wrote in her book she targeted the grand slam every year and was disappointed when she lost in a slam as she’d have to wait til next year to start again. She didn’t think ‘no worries,
l’ll just start again from the next slam’.

 

[Whisper]

If Djokovic wins again though he can put it out of reach and make it undisputed. Especially if he wins the us open and maybe Australia next year too.

Another possible scenario is Rafa wins USO and is 1st guy to 21. He’s beaten Djoker twice easily in USO finals, will have little pressure and huge motivation, while Djoker will be under the pump. What if he also wins AO, and then has FO coming up? In the blink of an eye Rafa could be leading 23/20/20. In that scenario can you see Djoker getting to undisputed goat status? He’ll be 35 and needs at least 4 slam wins to overtake Rafa, provided Rafa stops there. Too early to start counting your chickens imo.

 

[SonnyT]

Of course CYGS is more special. NCYGS, you can start with any of the slams. But CYGS you have to start with the 1st Slam of the year, so specifically it's 4 times as special.

 

[CCPass]

I'm sure that Federer still wins every GOAT poll. He is a genius. Whereas Djokovic is only a hard worker.

No on the Guardian one Djokovic is at 75%, so narrative is changing.

 

[HailDjokovic]

I'm sure that Federer still wins every GOAT poll. He is a genius. Whereas Djokovic is only a hard worker.

Only a genius can choke 40-15 against the GOAT and dethrone his resume in a matter of seconds multiple times.

Media doesn't like Djokovic but not much you can argue when he is on the brink of every record

 

[beard]

Maybe just a bad day? Not hitting the ball well. That can happen to anyone, including Serena, Federer, Nadal Djokovic and I am sure it happened to Graf, Navratilova & co as well.

Plus, Vinci isn't an easy opponent. She had an unusual game. A lot of slices, variations, was often going to the net. When she was in good f and playing well, she was tricky. And if she was playing her first Slam Semifinal, it means she was most certainly playing well. Typically the kind of player who can push you to make plenty of UE and self-destruct if you're in a bad day.

Plus, if I remember correctly, it was a hot and very windy day. Everything Serena hated. Playing against someone who abuses slices in windy conditions is never easy, even for Serena.

Day? You mean days? She lost again and again, which proves it wasn't CYGS pressure... She is weak mentality for years...

 

[Enceladus]

NCYGS is an impressive success, but CYGS is bigger. This is due to the pressure that is gradually being exerted on the tennis player. This is not the case with NCYGS, because the tennis player can start this series at any time. But with CYGS, the tennis player must get the first GS slot, then the second GS slot, the third GS slot, and finally the fourth GS slot. If a tennis player fails at any slot, (s)he must wait for the following year.

 

[RaulRamirez]

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.

Close, in retrospect, but not close as it was happening.

 

[RaulRamirez]

A few opinions:

Obviously, 4-in-a-row is special no matter how achieved (as evidenced by only one man doing it in the last 52 years), but I do think that the true Grand Slam (CYGS) is more special. There's a certain rhythm to the calendar year, and the CYGS assures that the Channel Slam was completed. Still, Novak's NCYGS of 2015-16 was quite special, and a bit underrated.

Now, here's why I think that Novak's NCYGS did not get as much hype as (perhaps) deserved. This is independent of Novak not getting as much favorable coverage as Roger or Rafa.

1. It culminated at RG, where he had been snake-bit for years. So there was a sense of "Wow, he finally won RG...and by the way, that's 4-in-a-row."

2. It was already under-hyped if you will, and then -- just a couple weeks later - he was ousted at Wimbledon. No time to celebrate his unique feat. A CYGS assures at least four months of holding all 4.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Another possible scenario is Rafa wins USO and is 1st guy to 21. He’s beaten Djoker twice easily in USO finals, will have little pressure and huge motivation, while Djoker will be under the pump. What if he also wins AO, and then has FO coming up? In the blink of an eye Rafa could be leading 23/20/20. In that scenario can you see Djoker getting to undisputed goat status? He’ll be 35 and needs at least 4 slam wins to overtake Rafa, provided Rafa stops there. Too early to start counting your chickens imo.

I agree things can change again. Although it’s probably only Rafa who has a chance to do something about it. I think Fed is very likely done winning slams.

Although you got to be honest Rafa is probably gonna struggle more now at 35, after injuries and a battle worn body. I think it’s difficult to see him winning another non clay slam unless the draw really opens up. If he has to beat like Shaps-Tsitsipas-meddy-Djoker in a row it’s unlikely he can us open or other other non-clay slams.

Rafa will always have good chances at the french provided he’s fit and healthy. He lost to an inspired Djokovic in night conditions so I certainly don’t think he’s done there yet. The problem Rafa got though he can no longer just rely on french open to try get the slam record now Djokovic has levelled him in slams and arguably a bigger favourite at 3/4 majors. We will see what happens and maybe Nadal surprises all at the us open and plays lights out. Outside the french the us open is his best chance I guess.

 

[Whisper]

I agree things can change again. Although it’s probably only Rafa who has a chance to do something about it. I think Fed is very likely done winning slams.

Although you got to be honest Rafa is probably gonna struggle more now at 35, after injuries and a battle worn body. I think it’s difficult to see him winning another non clay slam unless the draw really opens up. If he has to beat like Shaps-Tsitsipas-meddy-Djoker in a row it’s unlikely he can us open or other other non-clay slams.

Rafa will always have good chances at the french provided he’s fit and healthy. He lost to an inspired Djokovic in night conditions so I certainly don’t think he’s done there yet. The problem Rafa got though he can no longer just rely on french open to try get the slam record now Djokovic has levelled him in slams and arguably a bigger favourite at 3/4 majors. We will see what happens and maybe Nadal surprises all at the us open and plays lights out. Outside the french the us open is his best chance I guess.

Yes Fed is done. He hasn't won USO since 2008, 13 yrs ago so what chance now at 40? Wimbledon will once again be his best, and this time only chance at a slam (very slim).

If Rafa wins he will also be equal open era USO goat with 5 titles like Connors/Sampras/Federer. You can't call him a 1 surface wonder if he's goat at 2 slams.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Yes Fed is done. He hasn't won USO since 2008, 13 yrs ago so what chance now at 40? Wimbledon will once again be his best, and this time only chance at a slam (very slim).

If Rafa wins he will also be equal open era USO goat with 5 titles like Connors/Sampras/Federer. You can't call him a 1 surface wonder if he's goat at 2 slams.

True that’s why this us open is massive. For the reasons you say and both Djokovic and Nadal vying to final break Feds record. Many thought nadal would break the slam record first but now Djokovic is favourite to do it. Add in a CYGS chance it’s one of the biggest slams for a long time.

 

[Whisper]

True that’s why this us open is massive. For the reasons you say and both Djokovic and Nadal vying to final break Feds record. Many thought nadal would break the slam record first but now Djokovic is favourite to do it. Add in a CYGS chance it’s one of the biggest slams for a long time.

And if he's going for the golden grand slam then this is hands down the most important slam in history. What other slam carried similar legacy implications for 1 player, let alone 3?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

4 in a row is 4 in a row, doesn't matter when.

In fact, in the same calendar year, it's done in a shorter period of time than if it's, say, from Wimbledon in a certain year to Roland Garros of the following one.

 

[Aabye5]

4 in a row is 4 in a row, doesn't matter when.

In fact, in the same calendar year, it's done in a shorter period of time than if it's, say, from Wimbledon in a certain year to Roland Garros of the following one.

That's why it's harder...

 

[BauerAlmeida]

That's why it's harder...

It's harder if you have to sustain a high level for a longer period of time.

 

[Aabye5]

It's harder if you have to sustain a high level for a longer period of time.

No - there's a break in between. Time to recuperate, time to tweak your game, time to see family. How many times have we seen players regroup from a bad year by starting out strong at the AO?

How many times have players complained about the length of the season? All the time. They talk about never seeing their families, never having downtime, etc. Getting that break in-between allows them to recharge.

 

[socallefty]

If you ask most pro players, NCYGS would probably be considered as special as a CYGS as most know how hard it is to win 1 Slam, let alone 4 in a row.

If you ask most media members, they would say a CYGS is much more special. On the other hand, if a media favorite like Federer or Coco Gauff achieved a NCYGS, they probably would change their narrative and say it is as special.

If you ask most fans who don’t play tennis, they probably listen to whatever their favorite media outlets are preaching and right now would say a CYGS is more special.

If you ask fans who play a lot of tennis tournaments regularly, the opinion split might be much more closer between those who consider a NCYGS as prestigious as a CYGS because they know how hard it is to win any tournament even at the rec level.

 

[Aabye5]

If you ask most pro players, NCYGS would probably be considered as special as a CYGS as most know how hard it is to win 1 Slam, let alone 4 in a row.

If you ask most media members, they would say a CYGS is much more special. On the other hand, if a media favorite like Federer or Coco Gauff achieved a NCYGS, they probably would change their narrative and say it is as special.

If you ask most fans who don’t play tennis, they probably listen to whatever their favorite media outlets are preaching and right now would say a CYGS is more special.

If you ask fans who play a lot of tennis tournaments regularly, the opinion split might be much more closer between those who consider a NCYGS as prestigious as a CYGS because they know how hard it is to win any tournament even at the rec level.

Wait...is Serena a media darling?

Anyway, Navratilova almost certainly was, and I've never heard her achievement mentioned in the same breath as Laver's.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

There's actually an argument that the NCYGS is a better achievement, with regards to the tennis calendar...

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

And if he's going for the golden grand slam then this is hands down the most important slam in history. What other slam carried similar legacy implications for 1 player, let alone 3?

I feel if he does that he wont play for much longer. I definitely don’t see Djokovic playing as long as Federer. Maybe 2 more years or something. As we know he misses his family a lot and does have other interests outside of tennis too

 

[R. Schweikart]

4 in a row is 4 in a row, doesn't matter when.
...

4 slams are 4 slams, doesn't matter when...

Dude, it is not about winning 4 slams.
It is not about winning 4 slams in a row either.
It is about winning all 4 slams in one year.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

4 slams are 4 slams, doesn't matter when...

Dude, it is not about winning 4 slams.
It is not about winning 4 slams in a row either.
It is about winning all 4 slams in one year.

Winning 4 in a row means you're holding all the slams at the same time. And, by definition, it's within a year, unless there's some strange occurrence like last year with RG and the USO.

 

[-NN-]

What's better, the Grand Slam or 5 in a row not including the Slam.

How about 6 in a row not including the Slam?

 

[R. Schweikart]

What's better, the Grand Slam or 5 in a row not including the Slam.

How about 6 in a row not including the Slam?

I'd prefer winning 4 in a calendar year and 2 at a late stage over winning 6 in a row any day.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Winning 4 in a row means you're holding all the slams at the same time. And, by definition, it's within a year, unless there's some strange occurrence like last year with RG and the USO.

In one calendar year.
That is the point.

Winning 4 slams is great.
Winning 4 different slams (NCYGS) is greater.
Winning 4 slams in a row ("Navratilova slam") is even greater.
Winning 4 slams in a calendar year (CYGS) is almost the greatest.
Winning 4 slams and the Olympic gold (Golden Slam) is the holy grail. Steffi Graf has done it, Nole Djokovic has a shot at replicating it.

 

[Whisper]

If you ask most pro players, NCYGS would probably be considered as special as a CYGS as most know how hard it is to win 1 Slam, let alone 4 in a row.

None of them would say that and actually mean it. Take a poll, what would you rather win? It would be 100% to calendar slam. If you were right then we'd expect round about 50-50.

 

[Whisper]

Winning 4 slams and the Olympic gold (Golden Slam) is the holy grail. Steffi Graf has done it, Nole Djokovic has a shot at replicating it.

To round it out throw in the Davis Cup & WTF. Yr-end No.1 is implied.

 

[Enceladus]

In one calendar year.
That is the point.

Winning 4 slams is great.
Winning 4 different slams (NCYGS) is greater.
Winning 4 slams in a row ("Navratilova slam") is even greater.
Winning 4 slams in a calendar year (CYGS) is almost the greatest.
Winning 4 slams and the Olympic gold (Golden Slam) is the holy grail. Steffi Graf has done it, Nole Djokovic has a shot at replicating it.

NCYGS are 4 grandslams in a row, so it, which you call it the "Navratilova Slam". 4 different grandslams (without in a row) is Career Grand Slam.

 

[R. Schweikart]

NCYGS are 4 grandslams in a row, so it, which you call it the "Navratilova Slam". 4 different grandslams (without in a row) is Career Grand Slam.

Yes, of course, "career slam".