Stop the nonsense please - the only ATP player in the last 40 years who came closer than Djokovic in the CYGS chase was Djokovic himself

beltsman

Legend
Djokovic 2021 stopped at 27/28. Djokovic 2016 stopped at 16/28. All the “comparisons” with other players in the last 40 years are pure nonsense and a monstrous travesty of reality.

Especially, comparing Djokovic’s achievements in the CYGS chase to Federer’s is like comparing the construction of a full house, where only the front door is missing to a house not even built at 50%.

Stop the nonsense now!
Federer came closer
 

AceSalvo

Legend
"He's played Rafa 9 times at RG."

Nonsensical posters prefer to throw away "context" and ramble. Instead of talking about CGS, they bring the entire career stats as if no other tennis fans are aware of it.
 
Last edited:

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
I get your main point. If you consider a CYGS to be superior to a NCYGS (I do), then Novak's 2021 came the closest by far to achieving it in the OE. (Since Laver did it in 1969).

It's hard to believe that the only other guys to win AO and RG to start the year were Wilander88 (18/28), Courier92 (16/28) and Djok16 (16/28).
The problem is obviously Nadal. He is the reason for Laver being the only man too do it.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
The problem is obviously Nadal. He is the reason for Laver being the only man too do it.
In part.
Mostly, he stopped Roger.
Roger stopped Novak, as did Stan.
Rafa is the only other men's player to win 3 straight in a calendar year, but of course lost in the quarters in Australia.

But, pre-Big 3 Era, it wasn't Rafa stopping guys. It's just very, very hard to accomplish!
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with the OP. Djokovic holds the stand-alone, uh, record of "Closest CYGS Attempt".
So, Nole fans, please cheer up because that closest attempt record in matches will stand forever, because for the player who wins one more match, it would just not be a CYGS attempt anymore.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Members of the Fedal came close too gang are either dimwitted or unable to accept facts contrary to their preferred alternative reality. I think the latter explanation is more of a problem in general and not in the inconsequential tennis context. o_O
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
In part.
Mostly, he stopped Roger.
Roger stopped Novak, as did Stan.
Rafa is the only other men's player to win 3 straight in a calendar year, but of course lost in the quarters in Australia.

But, pre-Big 3 Era, it wasn't Rafa stopping guys. It's just very, very hard to accomplish!
That because every ATG had a glaring weakness on at least 1 surface. Djokovic won the AO 9 times and if he had of backed that up with RG things could of been different in say 2012-2013. Djokoerer are great on Clay just Nadal stopped them dead. See if Djokoerer didn’t exist I still think Nadal doesn’t do CYGS (maybe 2010) but if Nadal didn’t exist both Djokovic and Fed would have one
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Close only counts in horseshoes. :)
Live granade throwing I thought was the classic.:unsure:

OP was in response to the Fedal came close to a CYGS too nonsense. What falling short is worth is another issue but IMO one match short still equals one of the GOAT seasons. Whether it’s better than other GOAT seasons, say 2006 FEDR (a season during which FEDR was never close to the CYGS), is a matter of opinion.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I get your main point. If you consider a CYGS to be superior to a NCYGS (I do), then Novak's 2021 came the closest by far to achieving it in the OE. (Since Laver did it in 1969).

It's hard to believe that the only other guys to win AO and RG to start the year were Wilander88 (18/28), Courier92 (16/28) and Djok16 (16/28).
Bigly no. The definition of a CYGS and who came close to it is independent of the value you place on a CYGS, NCYGS or any other metric.
 

Mark-Touch

Hall of Fame
Live granade throwing I thought was the classic.:unsure:

OP was in response to the Fedal came close to a CYGS too nonsense. What falling short is worth is another issue but IMO one match short still equals one of the GOAT seasons. Whether it’s better than other GOAT seasons, say 2006 FEDR (a season during which FEDR was never close to the CYGS), is a matter of opinion.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed on what the post is all about. :)

Listen, I think we can ALL agree that the order of the slams is arbitrary.
Change the order from A.O-F.O.-Wim-U.S. to A.O-U.S.-Wim-F.O.
and Fred would also have been just "one match short" of a GOAT season in 2006 AND 2007.
Let's be realistic here (and honest).
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Bigly no. The definition of a CYGS and who came close to it is independent of the value you place on a CYGS, NCYGS or any other metric.
I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with: that a CYGS is more of an accomplishment than a NCYGS, or that a player who loses at RG did not come as close to a CYGS as a player who lost in the USO?
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with: that a CYGS is more of an accomplishment than a NCYGS, or that a player who loses at RG did not come as close to a CYGS as a player who lost in the USO?
Neither of those. I don’t have anything to add to my post other then to state more directly that you’re If-Then statement is simply wrong.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Neither of those. I don’t have anything to add to my post other then to state more directly that you’re If-Then statement is simply wrong.
I truly don't know what point you're making then, especially if you consider the context of my reply that you "Bigly No'd".
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed on what the post is all about. :)

Listen, I think we can ALL agree that the order of the slams is arbitrary.
Change the order from A.O-F.O.-Wim-U.S. to A.O-U.S.-Wim-F.O.
and Fred would also have been just "one match short" of a GOAT season in 2006 AND 2007.
Let's be realistic here (and honest).
Why stop there. We can ALL agree that the definition of CYGS is arbitrary. If we exclude the FO, FEDR has won the CYGS and if we exclude all but the FO then Vamos has won 13 CYGS. Vamos!
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Neither of those. I don’t have anything to add to my post other then to state more directly that you’re If-Then statement is simply wrong.
If you are making the point that anyone other than Djokovic 2021 came close you’re wrong. How can it be close if it’s dead 1st round of Wimbledon. On paper 27/28 will show 1 win away which is close in stats but overall they weren’t close as it didn’t exist after half a season
 

Mark-Touch

Hall of Fame
Why stop there. We can ALL agree that the definition of CYGS is arbitrary. If we exclude the FO, FEDR has won the CYGS and if we exclude all but the FO then Vamos has won 13 CYGS. Vamos!
Why stop there?
I was being reasonable and you are now simply being unreasonable.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Connors famously once said that if Borg had won the USO, he would make the trip to AO to stop him winning the CYGS.
Which never made much sense given that Borg never played the AO. He clearly wasn't ever bothered about winning the CYGS.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Which never made much sense given that Borg never played the AO. He clearly wasn't ever bothered about winning the CYGS.
Back then the AO was in December so Borg was losing at the USO so he wouldn't have had a chance to win the CYGS. That's what he means.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Back then the AO was in December so Borg was losing at the USO so he wouldn't have had a chance to win the CYGS. That's what he means.
But as I said, Borg never travelled to Australia no matter what time of the year the AO was played (apart from one appearance right at the start of his career when he was a youngster) so Connors' point remained irrelevent.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
But as I said, Borg never travelled to Australia no matter what time of the year the AO was played (apart from one appearance right at the start of his career when he was a youngster) so Connors' point remained irrelevent.
He did go to the AO once, but I'm pretty sure if he had won the 1st three Slams, he would have made that trip to Australia in December to try for the CYGS. Any player probably would. McEnroe even said if he had won RG in '84, he would have went to AO even though he didn't really play the tournament much during that time.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
But as I said, Borg never travelled to Australia no matter what time of the year the AO was played (apart from one appearance right at the start of his career when he was a youngster) so Connors' point remained irrelevent.
Borg, had he won the USO (what he never did) would have Shirley gone down under. What is hard to understand?
 
Last edited:

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Well, it's not like Djokovic lost to Nadal or Fed at USO this year. Federer could've won CYGS if not for Nadal at FO and we all know Nadal is the absolute king of clay. Same cannot be said of Medvedev at USO.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Idk, I think I see another opportunity for a made-up acronym/term for the #NoleFam.

ACYGS=Almostest Calendar Year Grand Slam? Not even Laver has that one!
Other ACYGS--
Jack Crawford in 1933. Crawford was up 2 sets to 1 before losing the last two sets to Perry.

And Hoad in '56.
Hoad was even closer than Djokovic: winning the first set in the final before losing to Rosewall in four.



(Of course Budge won six slams in a row, starting with Wimbledon 1937 to the US championship 1938, for the first true Grand Slam.)
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Borg, had he won the USO (what he never did) would have Shirley went down under. What is hard to understand?
"Shirley" who? Given his absence from the AO for almost his entire career it is far from certain. What's hard to understand about that?
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
"Shirley" who? Given his absence from the AO for almost his entire career it is far from certain. What's hard to understand about that?
Back in the end of the 70’s, everybody understood it. Surely.
He would have gone, only if he had chances to win the GS.
As he repeatedly fell in the USO (third stage of the CYGS in those years), he obviously did not have to go, and did not go.
 
Last edited:

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
Ah, but Nadal’s peak was 1901-2005. Then he peaked again in 2009-2011, then 2016-2019. At all other times he was poor and any decent player would have thrashed himz
Nadal was fcuking good!!! 100+ years of top form with a bad foot.
 
Last edited:

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
Other ACYGS--
Jack Crawford in 1933. Crawford was up 2 sets to 1 before losing the last two sets to Perry.

And Hoad in '56.
Hoad was even closer than Djokovic: winning the first set in the final before losing to Rosewall in four.



(Of course Budge won six slams in a row, starting with Wimbledon 1937 to the US championship 1938, for the first true Grand Slam.)
The closest ACYGS, which still apparently never happened, would be to have squandered championship points in the fourth slam of the CYGS. Nothing beats that. Imagine a 40-15 episode at that point.
 

Adman

Rookie
Hey people, thanks for all the answers, that was a nice 100 replies thread!

Nice contribution, nice arguments mostly, with the exception of trolls posting Simpson and Mafalda jpgs - no surprise there, there is always a 2% brain dead people in every thread
 

matterer

New User
I'm a huge Federer fan but I'll admit Djokovic was closer. All he had to do was beat Medvedev. I mean, how much closer can you get? Federer had to face a healthy Nadal on clay. An infinitely more difficult task.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
I personally don't give a hoot about "coming close". You achieve something or you don't.
I guess then we shouldn't care about Federer's 23 straight slam semis then....because unless he actually walked away with the title 23 times, it doesn't mean much, right? To each his own I guess.
 

JustBob

Hall of Fame
I guess then we shouldn't care about Federer's 23 straight slam semis then....because unless he actually walked away with the title 23 times, it doesn't mean much, right? To each his own I guess.
Actually 23 straight slam semis doesn't mean much taken on it's own because it's a "streak", not a finite accomplishment. Much like getting a hit 'x' games in a row or throwing for 400 yards 'x' games in a row is fairly meaningless on it's own. All a streak shows is a high/consistent level of play over a period of time. Streaks are mostly fodder for talking heads on tv.

A calendar slam on the other hand is a goal/accomplishment based on strict parameters. You win all 4 slams in a year or you don't. For example, you don't get bonus points for winning 3 games in a 7 games playoff series. You still came one game short of your goal, winning the series.
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Djokovic 2021 stopped at 27/28. Djokovic 2016 stopped at 16/28. All the “comparisons” with other players in the last 40 years are pure nonsense and a monstrous travesty of reality.

Especially, comparing Djokovic’s achievements in the CYGS chase to Federer’s is like comparing the construction of a full house, where only the front door is missing to a house not even built at 50%.

Stop the nonsense now!
You're a moron.
 
Top