Djokovic and the Channel Slam

[James695]

Hi everyone.

Long time lurker first time poster here, so go easy on me! Will admit to not having the vast array of tennis knowledge that many here seem to have.

I've noticed then whenever there is a thread discussing if the Djokovic slam should be valued close to the CYGS, no one ever seem to bring up what i feel is the clear difference seperating these two achievements. Surely winning the channel slam, the two most opposing surface slams that are also the closet together, is the hardest part of any four in a row. Even though the difference in the surfaces is nowhere near as vast as the nineties, surely winning these two in succession is harder than winning the US and Aussie, or the Aussie and then French.

Djokovic has many great achievements, which have obviously been the focus of this forum over the last eight months or so. But how big a gap in his CV is not having the channel slam? Compared to Nadal doing it twice and Fed once. Will he ever win it? Will he do it this year? Does this achievement even matter? Would love to hear your thoughts?

 

[Sport]

My thoughts:

1. The Channel Slam matters.

2. Djokovic is not the favorite to win RG, but he is the favorite to win WB.

 

[James695]

My thoughts:

1. The Channel Slam matters.

2. Djokovic is not the favorite to win RG, but he is the favorite to win WB.

I don't think Nadal gets anywhere near the credit for doing it twice, and i'm a big Federer fan! Not sure how he can get called a one surface wonder when he has this in his back pocket.

 

[Le Master]

As much as I don't want him to have the achievement, four in a row is four in a row. The calendar year means nothing in tennis.

 

[Noletheking]

My thoughts:

1. The Channel Slam matters.

2. Djokovic is not the favorite to win RG, but he is the favorite to win WB.

My friend you were wrong even at ao open . Djokovic is hot favourite for FO open alongside Nadal.

 

[Sport]

My friend you were wrong even at ao open . Djokovic is hot favourite for FO open alongside Nadal.

Haha yes I was so wrong at the AO, but now the truth is with me.

 

[James695]

As much as I don't want him to have the achievement, four in a row is four in a row. The calendar year means nothing in tennis.

But this doesn't mean not winning the channel slam isn't a blot on Djokovic's CV. Is year end number 1 not an achievement then? Not necessarily arguing with you but if CYGS is nothing then so is YE1.

 

[Noletheking]

Haha yes I was so wrong at the AO, but now the truth is with me.

Now opinion is with you and you're perfectly entitled to have opinion ,anyways you try to be objective and I like it.

 

[underground]

Kid get out of here whilst you can, go back to lurking

 

[Big_Dangerous]

Kid get out of here whilst you can, go back to lurking

This is by far the wisest thing that will be said in this thread.

 

[James695]

Kid get out of here whilst you can, go back to lurking

I'm hoping as long as i avoid all "Federer peaked at 35" threads i should be able to hold onto my sanity!

 

[Le Master]

But this doesn't mean not winning the channel slam isn't a blot on Djokovic's CV. Is year end number 1 not an achievement then? Not necessarily arguing with you but if CYGS is nothing then so is YE1.

YE#1 absolutely is not an achievement in and of itself. It's no more an achievement than #1 on any arbitrary date of the year. Until points stop being a trailing 52 weeks and are redefined to only accumulate beginning January 1st, then there is no logical argument for anything calendar year related. We as fans and players like to speak of things as occurring within in a calendar year because it's convenient for our brains to place events in those conceptual boundaries.

 

[James695]

YE#1 absolutely is not an achievement in and of itself. It's no more an achievement than #1 on any arbitrary date of the year. Until points stop being a trailing 52 weeks and are redefined to only accumulate beginning January 1st, then there is no logical argument for anything calendar year related. We as fans and players like to speak of things as occurring within in a calendar year because it's convenient for our brains to place events in those conceptual boundaries.

I somewhat agree that it an arbitrary achievement, but i still think the CYGS is greater than the Novak slam for a few reasons.

It involves the channel slam, which are the hardest consecutive slams to win.
They very fact that people put added significance on it does increase the pressure somewhat. I'm sure Serena would agree.
If you fail at the Aus Open, you have to wait a year to start again for the CYGS. Winning four in a row can start at any slam at any time so it is more likely.
Having to complete the CYGS in New York, with that crowd, when you are tired towards the end of the season, knowing how much the US media will make of it. I can't think of a harder environment to win four in a row than there.

 

[GabeT]

YE#1 absolutely is not an achievement in and of itself. It's no more an achievement than #1 on any arbitrary date of the year. Until points stop being a trailing 52 weeks and are redefined to only accumulate beginning January 1st, then there is no logical argument for anything calendar year related. We as fans and players like to speak of things as occurring within in a calendar year because it's convenient for our brains to place events in those conceptual boundaries.

Things you can only read in online forums! Not a single pro would agree with this. Not a single tennis commentator.

 

[GabeT]

Hi everyone.

Long time lurker first time poster here, so go easy on me! Will admit to not having the vast array of tennis knowledge that many here seem to have.

I've noticed then whenever there is a thread discussing if the Djokovic slam should be valued close to the CYGS, no one ever seem to bring up what i feel is the clear difference seperating these two achievements. Surely winning the channel slam, the two most opposing surface slams that are also the closet together, is the hardest part of any four in a row. Even though the difference in the surfaces is nowhere near as vast as the nineties, surely winning these two in succession is harder than winning the US and Aussie, or the Aussie and then French.

Djokovic has many great achievements, which have obviously been the focus of this forum over the last eight months or so. But how big a gap in his CV is not having the channel slam? Compared to Nadal doing it twice and Fed once. Will he ever win it? Will he do it this year? Does this achievement even matter? Would love to hear your thoughts?

1.Channel Slam is irrelevant.
2. See point 2

Winning RG and then Wimbledon is worth exactly two slams, the same as any other consecutive two-slam win.

 

[James695]

1.Channel Slam is irrelevant.
2. See point 2

Winning RG and then Wimbledon is worth exactly two slams, the same as any other consecutive two-slam win.

Am I right that in your last two posts you are arguing that the arbitrary calendar year end number 1 achievement is valid, but the arbitrary calendar year grand slam is not and is worth no more than any 4 consecutive slams?

If the later is true, then surely year end number 1 is no more impressive than any other number 1 position throughout the year.

How can you value one of these and not the other? Both achievements are entirely calendar based.

 

[GabeT]

Am I right that in your last two posts you are arguing that the arbitrary calendar year end number 1 achievement is valid, but the arbitrary calendar year grand slam is not and is worth no more than any 4 consecutive slams?

If the later is true, then surely year end number 1 is no more impressive than any other number 1 position throughout the year.

How can you value one of these and not the other? Both achievements are entirely calendar based.

The CYGS is quite valuable, but mainly for prestige. If player 1 won the CYGS and and player 2 won 2 FO and 2 USO would anyone value player 1 more? Don’t think so. And even if it’s worth something is it worth at least an extra slam? Again, don’t think so. Player 1 wins CYGS. Player 2 wins 5 slams, in any combination. Does anyone place player 1 ahead of player 2?

 

[Towser83]

the channel slam is probably better than winning any 2 other slams in a row, but winning 4 in a row even not including the channel slam has to be be better. Winning 4 in a year containing the channel slam is in a way harder I guess but it also can play into the hands of one player being in great form for a few months and other players being injured/out of form

 

[James695]

The CYGS is quite valuable, but mainly for prestige. If player 1 won the CYGS and and player 2 won 2 FO and 2 USO would anyone value player 1 more? Don’t think so. And even if it’s worth something is it worth at least an extra slam? Again, don’t think so. Player 1 wins CYGS. Player 2 wins 5 slams, in any combination. Does anyone place player 1 ahead of player 2?

I actually think many would place a player who had the calendar slam over someone with an additional slam. Even the career slam is seen as very significant these days. Would winning 5 US opens be better than a career slam. I think there is a debate.

I agree I think it’s fair to say the CYGSs importance can be exaggerated.

 

[James695]

the channel slam is probably better than winning any 2 other slams in a row, but winning 4 in a row even not including the channel slam has to be be better. Winning 4 in a year containing the channel slam is in a way harder I guess but it also can play into the hands of one player being in great form for a few months and other players being injured/out of form

I agree winning 4 slams consecutively is obviously much better than the channel slam. I just think the channel slam is a bit component to why the CYGS is seen as more impressive than the Novak slam. Not by much maybe but the difference is there.

 

[Towny]

Hi everyone.

Long time lurker first time poster here, so go easy on me! Will admit to not having the vast array of tennis knowledge that many here seem to have.

I've noticed then whenever there is a thread discussing if the Djokovic slam should be valued close to the CYGS, no one ever seem to bring up what i feel is the clear difference seperating these two achievements. Surely winning the channel slam, the two most opposing surface slams that are also the closet together, is the hardest part of any four in a row. Even though the difference in the surfaces is nowhere near as vast as the nineties, surely winning these two in succession is harder than winning the US and Aussie, or the Aussie and then French.

Djokovic has many great achievements, which have obviously been the focus of this forum over the last eight months or so. But how big a gap in his CV is not having the channel slam? Compared to Nadal doing it twice and Fed once. Will he ever win it? Will he do it this year? Does this achievement even matter? Would love to hear your thoughts?

Welcome!

I agree that one of the crucial differences between the CYGS and the Nole slam is the missing channel slam. Despite what some here believe, the channel slam is, in my opinion, the most difficult pair of back to back slams to win, although it's certainly easier now than in Borg's day.

The pushback argument would be that Novak sustained his dominance over a longer period, with Wimbledon to the following RG being the longest stretch of 4 slams. Personally, I think concentrated dominance is slightly more impressive but it's a debatable issue.

Either way, the Nole slam was very impressive and I don't think not winning the channel slam is a significant blight on his career. It may well all become a moot point this year anyway, if Novak continues his dominant stretch, although I think it would be unlikely he wins both

 

[Luka888]

The thing with Djokovic is you never know. Can he win RG and W. Yes. Will he? I don't know but he did say that he would be focusing more on majors. It's tough though.

Borg was the best and that was a long time ago. Borg was absolutely amazing .

 

[Towser83]

I agree winning 4 slams consecutively is obviously much better than the channel slam. I just think the channel slam is a bit component to why the CYGS is seen as more impressive than the Novak slam. Not by much maybe but the difference is there.

Yeah I get that point, it's a fair one. So would winning USO, AO, RG and Wimbledon or RG, W, USO and AO in those orders be more on a par with CYGS?

 

[oldmanfan]

Hi everyone.

Long time lurker first time poster here, so go easy on me! Will admit to not having the vast array of tennis knowledge that many here seem to have.

I've noticed then whenever there is a thread discussing if the Djokovic slam should be valued close to the CYGS, no one ever seem to bring up what i feel is the clear difference seperating these two achievements. Surely winning the channel slam, the two most opposing surface slams that are also the closet together, is the hardest part of any four in a row. Even though the difference in the surfaces is nowhere near as vast as the nineties, surely winning these two in succession is harder than winning the US and Aussie, or the Aussie and then French.

Djokovic has many great achievements, which have obviously been the focus of this forum over the last eight months or so. But how big a gap in his CV is not having the channel slam? Compared to Nadal doing it twice and Fed once. Will he ever win it? Will he do it this year? Does this achievement even matter? Would love to hear your thoughts?

Agree with you partly about the channel slam.

Look at how a NCYGS/CYGS is won:

NCYGS:
1) RG, WB, USO, AO
2) WB, USO, AO, RG
3) USO, AO, RG, WB

CYGS:
1) AO, RG, WB, USO. The end.

The channel slam, although difficult, contains only 2 legs of the CYGS/[NCYGS (2 of 3)], and as we all know, winning 2 is easier than winning 4 (Djokovic not yet winning the channel slam is a bit of an anomaly). There are 3 ways to win the NCYGS. BUT... there is only ONE way to win the CYGS and each year, only 1 player gets a shot at it vs. 3 players getting a chance for the NCYGS.

 

[Le Master]

Things you can only read in online forums! Not a single pro would agree with this. Not a single tennis commentator.

The YE#1 being recognized and discussed more often doesn't raise it above being #1 at any other point. It factually has no more value. It's simply interesting to look at who the best player was in that [calendar] year, especially when there's a brief respite and time to discuss things.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Kid get out of here whilst you can, go back to lurking

Claims Fed fandom (with emphasis on claims), so he gets a pass for the moment. Probably an undercover Djokovic user from a banned account feigning humbleness and Fed fandom. But let's stay positive.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Welcome, James - good post.

I agree with you that going for the channel slam is one aspect that makes the CYGS more difficult, and slightly more prestigious, than winning the NCYGS.

That said, the Nole Slam is still significantly a greater feat (in my opinion) than winning (just) the channel slam. And of course, he's the only men's player to have won 4-in-a-row since Laver...in 47 years, at that point. So no, I wouldn't - all things considered - consider the lack of a channel slam to mean much of anything within the context of his career.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Bump

 

[NoleFam]

Just throwing this out there....Djokovic did the original Channel Slam. 2 weeks in between RG and W. First since Borg.