Roland Garros 2011 and Australian Open 2017 - Would you swap the wins if you are a fan of either or both for the DCS?

Would you do the swap?


  • Total voters
    29

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic has his double career slam...but Federer and Nadal have directly prevented each other from having it also.

If it were up to you, would you swap the wins so both Federer and Nadal get the DCS by beating each other, everything else stays the same, or would you let it be as it is.
Federer tally - 5 AO, 2 RG, 8 W, 5 USO
Nadal tally - 2 AO, 12 RG, 2 W, 4 USO

Would you take it?
 

ffw2

Semi-Pro
Because beating a rampaging undefeated Djokovic and then the king of clay back to back isn't stuff of legend?
Dude, Fred turned 36 later that year.

But also, clay is an afterthought.

(Kit aside) That AO17 final topped the charts.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Dude, Fred turned 36 later that year.

But also, clay is an afterthought.

(Kit aside) That AO17 final topped the charts.
Yes, Fed turned 36 later that year, and of course what he did was special.

But if you're telling me that beating Djokovic 2011 and then beating Nadal who is undefeated in RG finals isn't something that would enhance his legacy, then we will have to disagree on that. Of course, this is your choice to make, hence the question. However RG 2011 would have been story book also, as both Djokodal were in their mid 20s and at the height of their peak powers.
 

ffw2

Semi-Pro
Yes, Fed turned 36 later that year, and of course what he did was special.

But if you're telling me that beating Djokovic 2011 and then beating Nadal who is undefeated in RG finals isn't something that would enhance his legacy, then we will have to disagree on that. Of course, this is your choice to make, hence the question. However RG 2011 would have been story book also, as both Djokodal were in their mid 20s and at the height of their peak powers.
Question's legit.

Hard court tennis just moves me more. (y)
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Never been so pissed at Federer than after that RG final. Then at 2017 AO I switch to Nadal for the first time ever in their rivalry and Federer is the one that comes back from the dead. Such lousy picking LOL.

But looking at it all now, I can say that DCGS is the mountain that only true legends of the game climb. So all turned out well. :p
 

tudwell

Legend
Don't think I'd switch. The 2017 final was just too sweet. One of the coolest moments to be a Federer fan. Of course, I don't know what it would have felt like if he'd won the 2011 final. Might have been even sweeter than the 2017 final ended up being, but I don't know, hard to give up that epic tournament.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Never heard of any stupid terms like DCS for 20 years, only this year I heard such terms, must have been coined by Novak lobby

Anyway, AO 2017 is a very special win, that cannot be traded for anything, maybe wimbledon 2008 can be traded for AO2017, nothing else - PERIOD
 

Sunny014

Legend
No Federer fan will ever dream of switching AO2017 with anything except Wimbledon 2008

If they do then they are not a Fed Fan.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has his double career slam...but Federer and Nadal have directly prevented each other from having it also.

If it were up to you, would you swap the wins so both Federer and Nadal get the DCS by beating each other, everything else stays the same, or would you let it be as it is.
Federer tally - 5 AO, 2 RG, 8 W, 5 USO
Nadal tally - 2 AO, 12 RG, 2 W, 4 USO

Would you take it?
Wouldn’t swap AO17 for anything. That one was special, the crazy run, the on fire backhand, all of it.

I’m not sure what Federer would answer to that though?!!!?
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I think a better question is which match would I trade for the 2011 FO title? It wouldn’t be a Wimbledon, or then, Fed is tied with Pete. It wouldn’t be a USO title, or then, Fed doesn’t co-own that record. I guess I would trade the 2018 AO title for the 2011 FO title. We will say Nadal beats Cilic, then goes to the final to bear Federer for the 2018 AO title in exchange for Federer winning the 2011 FO title. Now granted, that would cost Federer all of his weeks in at #1 in 2018. So that’s a tough trade. But that’s the only title I’d trade for the 2011 FO title.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I think a better question is which match would I trade for the 2011 FO title? It wouldn’t be a Wimbledon, or then, Fed is tied with Pete. It wouldn’t be a USO title, or then, Fed doesn’t co-own that record. I guess I would trade the 2018 AO title for the 2011 FO title. We will say Nadal beats Cilic, then goes to the final to bear Federer for the 2018 AO title in exchange for Federer winning the 2011 FO title. Now granted, that would cost Federer all of his weeks in at #1 in 2018. So that’s a tough trade. But that’s the only title I’d trade for the 2011 FO title.
Pretty sure winning 2011 FO would have been bigger for Fed's legacy than any of his other individual slam wins. Hardly anything would top it.

Didn't feel like he was that close though, despite that 1st set. Maybe if he didn't have to play out of his skin to beat Novak in the semis first.
 

Amen786

Semi-Pro
Djokovic has his double career slam...but Federer and Nadal have directly prevented each other from having it also.

If it were up to you, would you swap the wins so both Federer and Nadal get the DCS by beating each other, everything else stays the same, or would you let it be as it is.
Federer tally - 5 AO, 2 RG, 8 W, 5 USO
Nadal tally - 2 AO, 12 RG, 2 W, 4 USO

Would you take it?
I'd take it in a flash, because of the butterfly effect it'll be generateing.
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Never heard of any stupid terms like DCS for 20 years, only this year I heard such terms, must have been coined by Novak lobby

Anyway, AO 2017 is a very special win, that cannot be traded for anything, maybe wimbledon 2008 can be traded for AO2017, nothing else - PERIOD
Have you been in hibernation for 20 years ? People were talking about it way before Djokovic did it, initially Nadal fans were actually the most vocal ones about it.

Besides, denying the importance of winning each slam twice on the pretext that "DCS/DCGS" is not an "official" term is one of the most idiotic things some people have been doing. As if the value of an achievement were dependent on it having an official name or not.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
I think a better question is which match would I trade for the 2011 FO title? It wouldn’t be a Wimbledon, or then, Fed is tied with Pete. It wouldn’t be a USO title, or then, Fed doesn’t co-own that record. I guess I would trade the 2018 AO title for the 2011 FO title. We will say Nadal beats Cilic, then goes to the final to bear Federer for the 2018 AO title in exchange for Federer winning the 2011 FO title. Now granted, that would cost Federer all of his weeks in at #1 in 2018. So that’s a tough trade. But that’s the only title I’d trade for the 2011 FO title.
2010 Australia is probably the only one of the 20 that I think is less important than 2018 Australia.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
No Federer fan will ever dream of switching AO2017 with anything except Wimbledon 2008

If they do then they are not a Fed Fan.

2017 AO was wicked awesome; arguably my favorite Federer match ever. I wouldn’t trade it for any other match.
It had to feel so good for Federer to finally beat the King in a BO5 for the first time in a decade lol :giggle:
 

Nadal_King

Hall of Fame
Nadal record for 10 straight years winning a slam wouldn't exist in this scenario also a loss to federer at his pet slams so no it's better as it is, there were other better opportunities for rafa to complete DCGS than this one I feel
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
No.

If Novak takes the Slam Record then he'll have the numbers anyway, in that context Fed having the DGCS wouldn't mean anything. It's not worth giving up the heartstopping joy of AO 17 for that. If we assume that a new Rafael Nadal does not emerge it's likely that more players in the future will achieve the feat..

Plus I rather like the fact that FO 09 is his only win there. That Final, knowing it was very likely to be his only chance of bagging the title, I regard as the most high pressure match he ever played. And he won it in straight sets.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
Have you been in hibernation for 20 years ? People were talking about it way before Djokovic did it, initially Nadal fans were actually the most vocal ones about it.

Besides, denying the importance of winning each slam twice on the pretext that "DCS/DCGS" is not an "official" term is one of the most idiotic things some people have been doing. As if the value of an achievement were dependent on it having an official name or not.
I was not in these forums until recently so I have not heard of these terms a lot, but yes Nadal fans used to say that he needs to win AO once to complete Double career slam.... well anyway that has been a useless thing really
Winning every slam twice, winning every slam thrice, such terms are arbitrary terms coined by fans

Even I can say Federer is the only man to win 5+ slams on 3 out of 4 slams which makes him most complete dominator across slams, does that make sense?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Double Career Slam, CYGS etc etc are just trash terms created and hyped by fans which eventually put pressure on players too for no reason, like for example everyone knows the olympics medal in Tennis has no value but Fed and Novak have some ego issues, both of them felt that if Murray and Nadal have it then maybe even I should have, in Novak's case he is definitely feeling that, he even went to Tokyo against his father's good advice and suffered burnout at the USO in the final.
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
I was not in these forums until recently so I have not heard of these terms a lot, but yes Nadal fans used to say that he needs to win AO once to complete Double career slam.... well anyway that has been a useless thing really
Winning every slam twice, winning every slam thrice, such terms are arbitrary terms coined by fans

Even I can say Federer is the only man to win 5+ slams on 3 out of 4 slams which makes him most complete dominator across slams, does that make sense?
Who cares about the term itself, how could one even try to argue that winning each slam at least twice is not a special and spectacular accomplishment ? If you acknowledge that winning each slam once is a great achievement, then doing it a second time is automatically a great achievement as well. That's just common sense.

Yes, Federer winning 5+ slam titles in 3 out of the 4 slams is an extremely impressive achievement and definitely something special, what makes no sense is trying to argue otherwise. Nobody cares whether there's a name for it.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Who cares about the term itself, how could one even try to argue that winning each slam at least twice is not a special and spectacular accomplishment ? If you acknowledge that winning each slam once is a great achievement, then doing it a second time is automatically a great achievement as well. That's just common sense.

Yes, Federer winning 5+ slam titles in 3 out of the 4 slams is an extremely impressive achievement and definitely something special, what makes no sense is trying to argue otherwise. Nobody cares whether there's a name for it.
Novak winning 2 frenchs can not be hyped as a special feat because Federer at his peak age when he could have won FOs/CYGS was stopped by peak Nadal, Novak on the other had vultured some wins of a geriatric Nadal, if Nadal was born in 1992 instead of 1986 then it would be Novak facing 23 yr old Nadal in 2015, 24 yr old Nadal in 2016 and 29 year old Nadal in 2021, good luck beatin the clay GOAT when he is at his peak and also 5 years younger to you =))

^ This is why Novak's wins on Clay over weak Nadal is same as Roger's win over Soderling, they are all flukes obtained due to Nadal either being injured or old.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
DCGS is just another grandiose term used to up the hyperbolic narratives of men who hit tennis balls for a living.
What I find closer to reality is if you just say "he managed to win at least two of each slam."
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
Ifs..thread are all hypothetical and just fun.

As a Federer fan , the 2017 AO wim was his greatest . A miracle. Beat his top rival after close to 10 years in a slam.
That too from 1-3 down in the 5th.
Conjured his neo backhand
And he was 15-40 down while serving. Came up with an ace and the forehand winner
 

goldengate14

Professional
A double career slam is a meaningless made up term. A player either has a career slam or doesnt. There is no way Nadal trade any of his RG titles for anything. Federer AO 2017 was a historic moment. FO 2011 for him would be meaningless in comparison as nowhere near as historic.
the poll results confirm the above as it is so one sided a poll result. This tread will sting those who think a double career slam means much.
ill bet Djokovic would trade his FO 2021 or FO 2016 for USO 2021 or USO 2020. The Us Open is the most prestigious hard court event and it must sting to be so far down the pecking order there.
i doubt any player would trade a Major title for a diferent one.
 

goldengate14

Professional
Ifs..thread are all hypothetical and just fun.

As a Federer fan , the 2017 AO wim was his greatest . A miracle. Beat his top rival after close to 10 years in a slam.
That too from 1-3 down in the 5th.
Conjured his neo backhand
And he was 15-40 down while serving. Came up with an ace and the forehand winner
Some threads beggar belief. This is a prime example. To even suggest Federer would trade AO 2017 is so misguided it is spellbinding.
 

Sunny014

Legend
@Hitman might be an objective fan of Tennis but he has proved that he is a Novak fan and not a fan of Fed or Nadal with this post

I mean no fan of Federer will ever exchange AO21 with anything except W2008
Nd no fan of Nadal will ever exchange W2008 with any defeat of Nadal ......that wimbledon is most special win of his career.

This is so clear, how can even ask a question about exchanging these wins with some DCS??? Nobody cares much for DCS type nerdy stats :D
 
Last edited:

ffw2

Semi-Pro
@Hitman might be an objective fan of Tennis but he has proved that he is a Novak fan and not a fan of Fed or Nadal with this post

I mean no fan of Federer will ever exchange AO21 with anything except W2008
Nd no fan of Nadal will ever exchange W2008 with any defeat of Nadal ......

This is so clear, how can even ask a question about exchanging these wins with some DCS??? Nobody cares much for DCS type nerdy stats :D
Compared to much of the usual low-effort garbage here, this was an engaging query.

Despite the answer being obvious from an emotional perspective, it is at least food for thought.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Compared to much of the usual low-effort garbage here, this was an engaging query.

Despite it being obvious from an emotional perspective, it is at least food for thought.
Yeah, maybe from a tennis fan perspective it could be a food for thought.

In those same lines if I had to exchange AO17 with a french to make a real difference then I would swap it with FO2008, that would give Federer confidence to win wimbledon 2008 and AO2009 as well, that loss at FO2008 caused 2 more slam losses.

However another way of seeing things is AO17 gave Fed newfound power to win 2 more slams over the course of the next 12 months...
 
Top