This is certainly a possible scenario. With enough time, I suppose it will become a likely scenario. But what is also possible is that the game will change in a way that facilitates the banking of slam titles. E.g., a fifth and perhaps even a sixth annual major could be recognized someday. If that were to happen, the partisans of the holders of the old records might at first whine about how it's unfair to wipe out the records due to new, greater playing opportunities. This has happened before in other sports, the most famous example (in the U.S., at least) being Babe Ruth's single-season home run record, which was set in a 154-game season, finally falling after the switch to a 162-game season. The whiners were at first appeased (via an infamous "asterisk" in the books), then ignored, and finally silenced. In fact, something similar has already happened in tennis, since almost no one regularly played all four slams in the first 15 years or so of the Open Era. Fans of Borg, Connors, Mac, etc., can argue with some justification that their guys would have won more slams, possibly many more, if they had simply played more. But no one cares about these excuses anymore, at least when it comes to acknowledging the actual records (the larger GOAT question may be fuzzier). The men's slam record is 24. It doesn't matter how many slams were played or not played. If/when the record is broken, it won't matter how many slams are then available.