i didn't realize Djokovic won a Nole Slam (equiv. Tiger slam)

#51
The Nole Slam isn’t an "official" achievement and it’s not as impressive or difficult as the CYGS so there’s that. And as long as Federer and Nadal will be in the picture, they will shift attention away from his achievements a little bit because he has to share the limelight with them.
Already long ago, Grand Slam didn't differentiate on career vs. calendar GS. We have the Golden Slam, the WTF Slam, the Super Slam and also the non-calendar Grand Slam.

If Novak was Nike's client, Nike's PR-activities would ensure Djoker Slam was widely known. But Novak's sponsor was Uniqlo, who neglected the promotion of his success.
 
#53
Already long ago, Grand Slam didn't differentiate on career vs. calendar GS. We have the Golden Slam, the WTF Slam, the Super Slam and also the non-calendar Grand Slam.
"Grand Slam" has nearly always referred to the calendar year version. There's only been a brief period during which ITF has awarded a special prize for holding all four at the same time (which Martina Navratilova won), but they clarified their position by confirming that the "Grand Slam" means winning them during the same calendar year.
Also, the definition in the ITF Constitution, during some years, did define it as holding all four at the same time, but has since been updated to add the calendar year aspect.

However, whatever discrepancies existed, the lowest definition of "Grand Slam" (without additional qualifier) was always to hold all four at the same time.

There had never been an official ITF definition of a "Career Grand Slam", this is rather PR and media talk that started quite recently when Agassi achieved it (as no one had even been able to win all four slams during thier career since Laver, it was indeed remarkable at the time).

By the way, in other sports, "Grand Slam" generally refers to multiple wins at the same event or the same season.

If Novak was Nike's client, Nike's PR-activities would ensure Djoker Slam was widely known. But Novak's sponsor was Uniqlo, who neglected the promotion of his success.
Uniqlo did promote the "love" stuff, though. But obviously failed at promoting the Nole Slam; maybe the short time between RG and WC didn't help.
 
#59
"Grand Slam" has nearly always referred to the calendar year version. There's only been a brief period during which ITF has awarded a special prize for holding all four at the same time (which Martina Navratilova won), but they clarified their position by confirming that the "Grand Slam" means winning them during the same calendar year.
Also, the definition in the ITF Constitution, during some years, did define it as holding all four at the same time, but has since been updated to add the calendar year aspect.

However, whatever discrepancies existed, the lowest definition of "Grand Slam" (without additional qualifier) was always to hold all four at the same time.

There had never been an official ITF definition of a "Career Grand Slam", this is rather PR and media talk that started quite recently when Agassi achieved it (as no one had even been able to win all four slams during thier career since Laver, it was indeed remarkable at the time).

By the way, in other sports, "Grand Slam" generally refers to multiple wins at the same event or the same season.
ITF oversleep time. Today, the term "Grand Slam" doesn't mean profit of titles on all four majors in one season, but it is the name of category the 4 most prestigious tennis tournaments. For a series of 4 GS titles in one season, created term the Calendar Year Grand Slam, for a series of 4 GS titles within two seasons, was created the term Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam and for to complete the GS titles collection Career Grand Slam.
 
#63
ITF oversleep time. Today, the term "Grand Slam" doesn't mean profit of titles on all four majors in one season, but it is the name of category the 4 most prestigious tennis tournaments. For a series of 4 GS titles in one season, created term the Calendar Year Grand Slam, for a series of 4 GS titles within two seasons, was created the term Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam and for to complete the GS titles collection Career Grand Slam.
This is somewhat a rewriting of history.

"Grand Slam" initially comes from whist/bridge, where it means winning all tricks. It was then used in tennis (and some other sports), to refer to winning all major titles in the same season.
The tournament category itself should be called "Grand Slam tournament", these are the tournaments one needs to win (in a season) to achieve and win the "Grand Slam" itself.

The wordings "Non-calendar year Grand Slam" and "Career Grand Slam" were created much later, when players achieved these without winning the "true" Grand Slam and PR/media made articles about it. Then "Calendar year Grand Slam" got to be used to differentiate the actual true one from these lesser (new) versions.
 
#64
This is somewhat a rewriting of history.

"Grand Slam" initially comes from whist/bridge, where it means winning all tricks. It was then used in tennis (and some other sports), to refer to winning all major titles in the same season.
The tournament category itself should be called "Grand Slam tournament", these are the tournaments one needs to win (in a season) to achieve and win the "Grand Slam" itself.

The wordings "Non-calendar year Grand Slam" and "Career Grand Slam" were created much later, when players achieved these without winning the "true" Grand Slam and PR/media made articles about it. Then "Calendar year Grand Slam" got to be used to differentiate the actual true one from these lesser (new) versions.
Yes, it was originally the term "Grand Slam" meant victories on all 4 GS tournaments in one year. Over the years, however, the meaning of concepts has been changed.
 
#66
Federer also would've won 'Nole' slams if Nadal had pulled out of RG too ;)
in the same way, we can say that nole would win RG 2016 even if he played against rafa that year. nole had, before RG, a row of 7 uninterrupted wins against him including 3 winnings on clay of which one was on RG. and he did it without losing any set in them 7 victories. a row of 15 won sets of which 7 were on clay.

2016 Masters 1000 Rome Clay QF 7-5, 7-6(4)
2016 Masters 1000 Indian Wells Hard SF 7-6(5), 6-2
2016 Doha Hard F 6-1, 6-2
2015 ATP Finals Hard SF 6-3, 6-3
2015 Beijing Hard F 6-2, 6-2
2015 Roland Garros Clay QF 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
2015 Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Clay SF 6-3, 6-3

in them 15 sets rafa only took 47 games which is about 3 games per set on average.
 
#67
Highest ranked opponents beat in 3+ slam streaks:

2015-16 Djokovic: no.1, 1, 1, 1
2011-12 Djokovic: 1, 1, 1
2018-19 Djokovic: 1, 3, 1
2005-06 Federer: 1, 3, 4
1993-94 Sampras: 1, 6, 2
2006-07 Federer: 1, 5, 5
2010 Nadal: 6, 2, 3
Those highest ranked opponents being old Fed and post back surgery pigeon Murray.
 
#68
Djokovic beat the highest ranked opponent in 4 consecutive Slam finals, in his 'Nole Slam'.

Federer beat the highest ranked opponent in 3 Slam finals during all his career.
Completely irrelevant lol. For example at USO in 2005-2008 or AO 2006-2007 Federer beat the best player available while number 2 Rafa was losing to Youzhny and Gonzalez.
 
#73
I was referring to 2014-2016.

2011 was legit top competition with a still well playing Federer and 25 year old prime Nadal.
2015-16 Djokovic: no.1, 1 (W15-fed), 1 (USO15-fed), 1 (OZ16-muzza 1 + fed 2), 1 (RG16-muzza)
2011-12 Djokovic: 1 (W11-rafa), 1 (USO11-rafa 1 + fed 2), 1 (OZ12-rafa 1 + muzza 3)
2018-19 Djokovic: 1 (W18-rafa), 3 (USO18-del potro), 1 (OZ19-rafa)

W15-RG16: 4 in a row: fed-fed-fed-muzza-muzza
W11-OZ12: 3 in a row: rafa-fed-rafa-muzza-rafa
W18-??19: 3? in a row: rafa-potro-rafa-??

not to bad
 
Last edited:
#74
in the same way, we can say that nole would win RG 2016 even if he played against rafa that year. nole had, before RG, a row of 7 uninterrupted wins against him including 3 winnings on clay of which one was on RG. and he did it without losing any set in them 7 victories. a row of 15 won sets of which 7 were on clay.

2016 Masters 1000 Rome Clay QF 7-5, 7-6(4)
2016 Masters 1000 Indian Wells Hard SF 7-6(5), 6-2
2016 Doha Hard F 6-1, 6-2
2015 ATP Finals Hard SF 6-3, 6-3
2015 Beijing Hard F 6-2, 6-2
2015 Roland Garros Clay QF 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
2015 Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Clay SF 6-3, 6-3

in them 15 sets rafa only took 47 games which is about 3 games per set on average.
Ahh the old 2015 Rafa and early 2016 being taken into consideration once again. :-D
That wasn't the same guy who was playing in RG 16 and looking very good.

Also there is a pattern in all those matches.......Nadal was getting closer everytime they played and by the clay season the gap wasn't much.

PS Lets remember also that at RG, Nadal is a different beast than in Rome... 7-5, 7-6 win for Novak meant nothing. He has beaten Nadal a few times in Rome, and still couldn't beat him at RG those years.
 
#75
Ahh the old 2015 Rafa and early 2016 being taken into consideration once again. :-D
That wasn't the same guy who was playing in RG 16 and looking very good.

Also there is a pattern in all those matches.......Nadal was getting closer everytime they played and by the clay season the gap wasn't much.

PS Lets remember also that at RG, Nadal is a different beast than in Rome... 7-5, 7-6 win for Novak meant nothing. He has beaten Nadal a few times in Rome, and still couldn't beat him at RG those years.

anyway, nole won RG 2016, and won 4 slams in a row. something that fed and rafa never did and will never do.
 
#77
anyway, nole won RG 2016, and won 4 slams in a row. something that fed and rafa never did and will never do.
Never say never, when talking about the Great 3.
For Fed, it's hugely unlikely, but I wouldn't say Rafa's chances are zero. Of course, Nole has the best odds to do it again.
 
#80
Djoker would very probably beat Nadal at RG 2016 (self-confidence and game levelplay had a better Nole), deal with it.
Yeh cos he beat him so convincingly in Rome before RG 16 didn't he? :rolleyes:
Infact if memory serves me correct, Nadal broke Djokovic in both sets in that Rome match, and barely lost.
Djokovic 2016 on clay was beatable for Nadal.
 
#81
Yeh cos he beat him so convincingly in Rome before RG 16 didn't he? :rolleyes:
Infact if memory serves me correct, Nadal broke Djokovic in both sets in that Rome match, and barely lost.
Djokovic 2016 on clay was beatable for Nadal.
In Rome 2016, Nole's performance was sub-par (for example, he received a bagel from Bellucci, LOL!). On RG his level of play was again TOP.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
#84
It wasn't something you should've missed if you follow tennis closely, but at the same time, it's not on the same level as the CYGS either. That's where I think many people lost the plot in 2016. They tried to equate the two, but only one of those gets you serious media attention and instant fame.
 
#86
Playing against Rafa at the FO is completely different matter from playing him in the clay tournaments leading up to the RG. It's not so much about playing best of 3 vs best of 5, it's the conditions at RG are different than in Rome, MC or Madrid. Much higher bounce, hotter weather, bigger playing area all these things make Rafa much tougher opponent there.
 
#87
I guess I never paid attention, but is there an alliance between Nadal and Djokovic fans? I wondered why neither fan base attacks the other.
Djokodal fans are not that common from what I have seen. Less so than Fedal fans.
Too many losses sting for both fan bases.
Problem with Tennis Twitter is that Djokovic fandom seems dominated by a particularly nasty group of Fed haters - they have their entertainment value occasionally ( as when they complained that their timelines were being targeted by Fed ads - it had to be explained that the algorithms can't distinguish between those who talk about Fed all the time because they love him and those who talk about him all the time because they hate him ) but generally they're a seriously unpleasant lot. Suspect they've driven away all the genuine Djoko fans. They don't care about Nadal at all or indeed about Djoko himself.

Whilst there are still Nadal and Federer fans who hate each other this is a lot less common now since Fed and Nads themselves have been having a (partly genuine and partly marketing driven) love-in for the last two years. The few unreconstructed Nadal haters left tend to spend as much time moaning about Fedal fans as about Nadal himself.

And of course I don't waste far too much time on there - that's why I don't know all this stuff.
 
Top