Is winning 3 slams on 3 surfaces in a Calendar year, the closest feat to CYGS?

[LazyNinja19]

No player has won the CYGS since the Legendary Laver. It's believed to be the toughest feat in Tennis.

A couple of players have won 3 Slams in a season - Connors, Wilander, Federer(x3), Nadal & Djokovic.
However, only 1 man has been able to win 3 consecutive Slams on the 3 surfaces in one calendar year, in the history of this sport.

Now I know, that CYGS is by far the toughest accomplishment. But is this feat the toughest(after CYGS) and closest to it?

NOTE- When Laver won the CYGS, the Slams were played on only 2 surfaces, i.e Grass and Clay courts. It is an incredible achievement nonetheless.

EDIT- Kindly note, that the Poll question also includes "toughest (after CYGS)".

 

[adil1972]

NOTE- When Laver won the CYGS, the Slams were played on only 2 surfaces, i.e Grass and Clay courts. It is an incredible achievement nonetheless.

the three grand slams AO, Wimbledon and US Open were all played on grass during laver era, however the grass in these 3 grand slams were not the same, so even then laver has to adjust his game for three different types of grass.............

yes nadal achivement is greater than the achivement of federer and djokovic

on the other hand nadal is the only player to lose 3 consecutive grand slams finals in a calender year

sorry not in a calender year

 

[Goosehead]

no, the closest to the cygs by definition is someone reaching a final in whatever other of the 4 they didn't win. otherwise it wouldn't be the closest to the cygs would it ?.. :neutral:, that gives us Federer who in 2006 and 2007 was W, F, W, W. (IF we look back retrospectively..but..)

....you could look at it the other way and say the closest to winning cygs was the player would was undefeated in the majors in whatever year, starting with AO (since 1987 when it moved date)..

ie in 2011 djokovic won AO then reached SF of FO..so he won 13 of the required 28 matches before losing..

that's really the way to look at it..but because we look back in time, we can retrospectively say Federer was "one win short" when really at the time of the 2006/07 FO final he failed to win match number 14 of the 28 needed to complete the CYGS.

that's not even halfway to a major grand slam..lol.

 

[SpinToWin]

well, if it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would likely have 2 CYGS…

Oh well doesn't manner. It's hard to rank this achievement really. I only rank the Wimbledon RG combo extra high as the tournaments take place almost consecutively and the surfaces are the most different (though changes to grass in recent years have reduced the differences).

 

[monfed]

In theory, Yes. But when Nadal had his 3-slam year, the field was at an all-time low. Fed was done by AO 2010, Nole was having his worst year, Murray was basically a MS champion and the rest of the field were, well not that great. Also, it's worth noting that due to surface polarization and Nadal not having to play drastically different in the 3 majors, takes away the sheen a bit. Great achievement nevertheless. Fed's 2004, 2006 and Nole's 2011 are more impressive imo.

Special mention to Ralph's USO 2010 cakedraw and the absence of the defending champion DelPotro who had previously laid a beatdown made it much simpler. In comparison, Fed had to suffer RG defeat after defeat before he finally took it in 2009.

 

[kiki]

When Laver won his GS, there were three different grass courts slam tournaments, so the surface variety was really quite bigger.

He also won a Pro Slam when he was playing his best tennis, in 1967.As hard or harder to achieve as the other two.

 

[TMF]

no, the closest to the cygs by definition is someone reaching a final in whatever other of the 4 they didn't win. otherwise it would be the closest to the cygs would it ?.. :neutral:, that gives us Federer who in 2006 and 2007 was W, F, W, W. (IF we look back retrospectively..but..)

....you could look at it the other way and say the closest to winning cygs was the player would was undefeated in the majors in whatever year, starting with AO (since 1987 when it moved date)..

ie in 2011 djokovic won AO then reached SF of FO..so he won 13 of the required 28 matches before losing..

that's really the way to look at it..but because we look back we can retrospectively say Federer was "one win short" when really at the time of the 2006/07 FO final he failed to win match number 14 of the 28 needed to complete the CYGS.

QFT.

The Grand Slam is about the result of the 4 biggest tournaments. For the players that have won 3 slams/year, the tie-breaker would be the outcome of the 4th slam that they didn't win.

 

[TMF]

When Laver won his GS, there were three different grass courts slam tournaments, so the surface variety was really quite bigger.

He also won a Pro Slam when he was playing his best tennis, in 1967.As hard or harder to achieve as the other two.

But Laver doesn't agree that his 1969 Grand Slam is equal to today's modern Grand Slam.

 

[kOaMaster]

The closest would be losing the 4th final after having matchpoint.
Since this has not happened at all, Federers
"two sets away" which he achieved in 2006 and 2007 (and 2009, although he only won 2 GS) was the closest to a CYGS since Laver.

If you think about it, this actually is crazy! Federer was three times so so close and yet didn't achieve it...

 

[NatF]

Harder to win 3 slams and make the final of the other one.

 

[Vensai]

Regardless, it still isn't the CYGS.

 

[jg153040]

I don't see the logic here. 3 wins + final is closer.

Also Fed had tougher draws in finals. RG+W = Rafa. Rafa had Soderling, Berdych.

Also Fed was this close 2 times, proving it's less of a fluke.

 

[torpantennis]

Surfaces have been homogenized. Grass is clay after first two rounds, some hard courts are slower than madrid clay, and indoor carpet is banned. So with the slowed down AO, clay Wimbledon and RG itself, we have 3 clay-like conditions. And even USO is not that fast nowadays.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

3 Slams 4 finals

 

[forehand fan]

I don't see the logic here. 3 wins + final is closer.

Also Fed had tougher draws in finals. RG+W = Rafa. Rafa had Soderling, Berdych.

Also Fed was this close 2 times, proving it's less of a fluke.

considering soderling is the only player ever to beat nadal at rg, you can easily say that that was nadal's toughest rg final.. well at least on paper

 

[NADALRECORD]

It could be argued that what Nadal did was better than what Laver did, because Laver won slams on 2 surfaces, while Nadal won slams on 3 surfaces (in 2010).

 

[eldanger25]

How about the Connors Grand Slam in 1974 - winning every slam you're allowed to play in during a calendar year.

 

[NADALRECORD]

^ How many slams was that? And how many surfaces?

 

[jg153040]

considering soderling is the only player ever to beat nadal at rg, you can easily say that that was nadal's toughest rg final.. well at least on paper

In that case, Djokovic was easy draw for Rafa at USO 2010. Since Djokovic didn't beat Rafa at ANY major till then.

If we go by this logic.

 

[NADALRECORD]

Djokovic was even easier to beat in 2013, when Nadal breadsticked him in the 4th set of US Open final.

 

[jg153040]

It could be argued that what Nadal did was better than what Laver did, because Laver won slams on 2 surfaces, while Nadal won slams on 3 surfaces (in 2010).

On paper this feat sounds great.

But if we look things in context, USO and AO is not the same surface.

Fed also made a final to fourth major, while Rafa lost early. And Fed had tougher draws in most finals. Fed had clay goat on his way, Rafa had Soderling, Berdych.

Also Fed did this feat TWICE and in LESS surface homogenization.

So, on paper Rafa's feat looks great, but if we look things in context, what Fed did is much more impressive. And he did it twice.

Also look at Fed's draws in 2007. FO , W final = Nadal. USO final = Djokovic.

Fed's draw at 2006 = also FO+W Nadal, USO=Roddick.

That is still a lot better than Rafa's draw.

 

[NADALRECORD]

^ AO and USO are both hardcourt, no matter what you say. and draws are irrelevant and just make for weak excuses. And surface homogenization doesn't even exist.

 

[jg153040]

^ AO and USO are both hardcourt, no matter what you say. and draws are irrelevant and just make for weak excuses. And surface homogenization doesn't even exist.

How come homogenization doesn't exist? You were arguing Laver's slam has less value compared to Nadal because of homogenization.

 

[forehand fan]

In that case, Djokovic was easy draw for Rafa at USO 2010. Since Djokovic didn't beat Rafa at ANY major till then.

If we go by this logic.

i totally agree, i don't think there is any hard draw for nadal :twisted:

 

[NADALRECORD]

How come homogenization doesn't exist? You were arguing Laver's slam has less value compared to Nadal because of homogenization.

No, I was saying one could argue that Nadal winning on 3 surfaces is better than Laver winning on 2 surfaces. Laver won on grass and clay, while Nadal won on clay, grass and hardcourt. You are the one talking about homogenicrap.

 

[forehand fan]

No, I was saying one could argue that Nadal winning on 3 surfaces is better than Laver winning on 2 surfaces. Laver won on grass and clay, while Nadal won on clay, grass and hardcourt.

i am a nadal fan too.. but what laver did is the supreme achievement of tennis.. bo need to devalue that buddy

 

[jg153040]

No, I was saying one could argue that Nadal winning on 3 surfaces is better than Laver winning on 2 surfaces. Laver won on grass and clay, while Nadal won on clay, grass and hardcourt. You are the one talking about homogenicrap.

Isn't 3 grass majors homogenization?

You argue Rafa has more value, because compared to Laver he played in more surface variety.

But you fail to admit Fed played even in more surface variety compared to Rafa and actually made a FINAL in the fourth majors.

Also, Fed did it TWICE.

But let's go back to Rafa and Laver. I don't think Rafa's is impressive. 4 majors is 4 majors. Even if Rafa was playing in 3 clay majors, he still woudln't make AO final and wouldn't be close. So it's irrelevant compared to Laver.

 

[NADALRECORD]

Isn't 3 grass majors homogenization?

No, its no different to 2 hardcourt slams, except one more.

 

[NADALRECORD]

i am a nadal fan too.. but what laver did is the supreme achievement of tennis.. bo need to devalue that buddy

I can say whatever I want BUDDY. Its simple math. Nadal won slams on 3 surfaces. Laver won slams on 2 surfaces. No talk of homogenization or anything else. 3 surfaces vs 2 surfaces. I give Laver credit for winning 4 slams. But I give Nadal credit for showing more versatility by winning on 3 surfaces.

 

[jg153040]

I can say whatever I want BUDDY. Its simple math. Nadal won slams on 3 surfaces. Laver won slams on 2 surfaces. No talk of homogenization or anything else. 3 surfaces vs 2 surfaces. I give Laver credit for winning 4 slams. But I give Nadal credit for showing more versatility by winning on 3 surfaces.

But even if Nadal had 3 clay majors, he still loses at AO. It's irrelevant, since Rafa had the same court at USO and AO and still failed. So, he fails even if everything would be HC.

Simple math?

4 majors is better than 3.
4 finals is better than 3 finals + quarters.

Sorry, but you can't talk being close to CYGS when you get owned in quarters.

 

[Vcore89]

Fed's 3 slams in a year times 3 is mighty impressive and would probably take a long time to replicate--by anyone. However, CYGS is still the gold standard.

 

[NADALRECORD]

Sorry, but you can't talk being close to CYGS when you get owned in quarters.

I never said Nadal was close to the CYGS, I said one can argue that winning slams on 3 surfaces (clay, grass, hardcourt) is more impressive than winning slams on 2 surfaces (clay, grass). Unless hardcourt counts for NOTHING.

 

[Chico]

No. What Djokovic did in 2011 (Winning 3 slams and 5 Masters, beating main rival in 6 finals and going undefeated until RG) and Federer in 2004/2006/2007 was much tougher and closer to CYGS.

Nadal was practically gifted Wimbledon and USO in 2010 on a silver plate, due to joke cakewalk draws.

 

[tennis_pro]

What a great thread. Fanboyism at its best.

 

[slice bh compliment]

^truth.

How about the Connors Grand Slam in 1974 - winning every slam you're allowed to play in during a calendar year.

^ How many slams was that? And how many surfaces?

Three slams (oz, wimbledon and forest hills). All on grass.
Did not play roland garros because of itf politics against wct.

Played at ucla, then, no huge results in his rookie year. Suddenly dominated much of 1974.

This whole multi-surface thing is funny. The record that will never be broken is connors winning the us open on three different surfaces, haha. Technicality, but also a consistently great fighter.

-not a connors fan but....big respek.

 

[sbengte]

However, only 1 man has been able to win 3 consecutive Slams on the 3 surfaces in one calendar year, in the history of this sport.

In my book, a CYGS is the same as 4 in a row and while doing it in a calendar year may be a nice coincidence, achievement wise both are equal.

So also this 3 slams on 3 surfaces thing. Nadal isn't the only one to win 3 slams on 3 surfaces in the span of one year, he just happened to do it in one calendar year. Federer was the holder of 3 slams on 3 surfaces when he won Wimby 2009 and again when he won AO 2010.

 

[sbengte]

It is a shame that we have no masters on grass. Else we could coin a name for winning a slam and masters on each surface in a year.

 

[mike danny]

Federer was much closer in 2006, 2007 and 2009 when he reached all 4 slam finals. Since Laver he was the closest 3 times to a calendar slam.

In the last decade the order of closseness to the CYGS is:

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

Federer because he was 1 match away twice, Djokovic because he was 2 matches away (FO 2011) and Nadal because he was 3 matches away (AO 2010)

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

When Laver won his GS, there were three different grass courts slam tournaments, so the surface variety was really quite bigger.

He also won a Pro Slam when he was playing his best tennis, in 1967.As hard or harder to achieve as the other two.

Your facts will be ignored or shoved through the spin machine by the usual suspects in love with lies. In truth, there's no "closest" to the Grand Slam. The difference is the absolute zenith of authority (in all categories) to control the court--no matter the opponent. That is the foundation of why only a certain type of player can win the Grand Slam.

 

[jg153040]

i totally agree, i don't think there is any hard draw for nadal :twisted:

Does this mean weak fields or Rafa that good?

 

[forehand fan]

Does this mean weak fields or Rafa that good?

you are free to make any explanation that would make you happy

 

[jg153040]

you are free to make any explanation that would make you happy

Weak clay era. Since clay is the weakest surface for Djokovic, Federer, Safin, old Agassi, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt.

And it shows when 0 RG champions like Ferrer, Soderling and Nole are making RG finals.

Also Fed who fluked out 1 RG title is making 5 RG finals. People argue that Fed is a lot worse than even Kuerten.

And RG 2011 is the proof. Grand papa Fed can make RG final and still beats Nole who was in semis also due to weak clay field.

Toughest guys on clay were Almagro, Ferrer, who are undefeated vs Fed. I mean lol.

HC and grass field was very deep.

 

[tennisaddict]

Your facts will be ignored or shoved through the spin machine by the usual suspects in love with lies. In truth, there's no "closest" to the Grand Slam. The difference is the absolute zenith of authority (in all categories) to control the court--no matter the opponent. That is the foundation of why only a certain type of player can win the Grand Slam.

Exactly. A guy with just 4 majors in a year in his career is greater than someone who wins 17 majors over 10 years. LOL. Going to any lengths to discredit achievement since Fed owns every other record in the game.

 

[torpantennis]

Weak clay era...
Toughest guys on clay were Almagro, Ferrer, who are undefeated vs Fed. I mean lol.

HC and grass field was very deep.

Couldn't agree more. And some even try to claim that guys like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin were weak! Oh c'mon, LOL.

 

[cknobman]

LOL poor question bordering on dumb.

Closest thing achieved outside of a CYGS is Federers 3 slams and a 4th final. 2 years he achieved this. 1 match away from a CYGS.

 

[jg153040]

LOL poor question bordering on dumb.

Closest thing achieved outside of a CYGS is Federers 3 slams and a 4th final. 2 years he achieved this. 1 match away from a CYGS.

Didn't he also win WTF those years?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Exactly. A guy with just 4 majors in a year in his career is greater than someone who wins 17 majors over 10 years. LOL. Going to any lengths to discredit achievement since Fed owns every other record in the game.

Oh, you mean like the most French Open titles....oh...wait...that's not Federer.

Perhaps he owns the most Wimbledon titles....oh....wait...

Okay, perhaps he owns the most USO titles...oh...wait...

Okay, perhaps he owns the most AO titles....oh....wait...

....and of course, the great thorn in the side of the Federer Fringe: no Grand Slam.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

OP: Nadal didn't win the grand slam, get over it.

 

[cknobman]

Oh, you mean like the most French Open titles....oh...wait...that's not Federer.

Perhaps he owns the most Wimbledon titles....oh....wait...

Okay, perhaps he owns the most USO titles...oh...wait...

Okay, perhaps he owns the most AO titles....oh....wait...

....and of course, the great thorn in the side of the Federer Fringe: no Grand Slam.

Your biased trolling has gone down in level these days.

Fed does share the record for most Wimbledon and USO titles.

 

[Phoenix1983]

It's a special feat, for sure.

Whether it's greater than Fed's 2006/2007 (slam performances only) is debatable. Fed reached the final of the one slam he didn't win in both those years.