The Grand Slam (CYGS): What is the value?
- Thread starter Lleytonstation
- Start date
Winning all four Grand Slams in a single year is definitely the ultimate achievement in tennis. I remember watching Rod Laver’s 1969 feat and thinking how incredible it was. Given how much the game has changed since then, with players specializing and the surfaces becoming more similar, it's wild to think that even the Big 3 couldn’t pull it off. If someone manages to achieve this in today's game, it'll be a legendary moment for sure!
4 in a row is four in a row order doesnt matterSo it seems this is the greatest accomplishment in all of tennis. It is a simple to understand achievement. Win all four slams in one calendar year. The grandaddy of em all.
It has only been done once in over 50 years of the open era, by one man, Rod Laver. Not Djoker (yes NCYGS), not Federer, not Rafa, not a single other person.
Clearly it must be the hardest thing to achieve in tennis, 20 slams has been done 3 times and many here believe it will be four soon. Yet, this one achievement is essentially not possible anymore. Djoker came as close as it gets, but not even the greatest could do it?
Now as far as Laver goes, he did it 1969 at the beginning of the open era on 3 grass courts and one clay court. So it being on 3 different surfaces makes it even more difficult. However, there are less specialized players than ever before. No clay specialists or grass specialists exist who are capable of winning slams. The courts are too similar, the technology and game styles have led to a very homogeneous tour.
It is just 4 slams. Four slams. Big3 have combined for 66 slams and could not do it once.
We could discuss forever what they reason as to why it has not happened, and we will continue to do so. However, the question is what is it worth? Four slams in a row, the AO, RG, WC, and USO.
Imagine the player that does finally pull it off?
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
CYGS is only bettered by a Golden CYGS, its the ultimate achievement in tennis. If a player does it they certainly can be considered to have had the highest peak the game ever saw and if they also get doublle digits majors would have to be considered GOAT . Laver is now only not considered GOAT as he is so old and many from his Era in terms of fans are no longer alive to argue his case but 30 years ago Laver was literally revered like God almost.So it seems this is the greatest accomplishment in all of tennis. It is a simple to understand achievement. Win all four slams in one calendar year. The grandaddy of em all.
It has only been done once in over 50 years of the open era, by one man, Rod Laver. Not Djoker (yes NCYGS), not Federer, not Rafa, not a single other person.
Clearly it must be the hardest thing to achieve in tennis, 20 slams has been done 3 times and many here believe it will be four soon. Yet, this one achievement is essentially not possible anymore. Djoker came as close as it gets, but not even the greatest could do it?
Now as far as Laver goes, he did it 1969 at the beginning of the open era on 3 grass courts and one clay court. So it being on 3 different surfaces makes it even more difficult. However, there are less specialized players than ever before. No clay specialists or grass specialists exist who are capable of winning slams. The courts are too similar, the technology and game styles have led to a very homogeneous tour.
It is just 4 slams. Four slams. Big3 have combined for 66 slams and could not do it once.
We could discuss forever what they reason as to why it has not happened, and we will continue to do so. However, the question is what is it worth? Four slams in a row, the AO, RG, WC, and USO.
Imagine the player that does finally pull it off?
Even Djokovic hasnt managed it. Nadal never got close. Federer couldnt solve Nadal at the FO. Alcaraz looks like he could do it at some point but Sinner may have a word about that
pedro94
Semi-Pro
Laver's CYGS is legendary indeed, for those times. In today's terms it's pretty much a glorified channel slam. Laver only won on grass and clay, 3 out of the 4 slams were on grass, and most players didn't even play the AO back then. So in today's world it really feels like a 1.6 x channel slam tbh
inflation_era
Professional
Greatest dominance we have seen is Federer 2004-2007.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
CYGS = 5 slams
NCYGS = 4.8 slams
CGS = 4.3 slams
I would not rate a player who has only a CYGS over a player who has won 6 Slams.
Of course it also depends on other factors, like if the player with 6 titles won them in 3 tournaments out of the 4 then maybe I'd rate the one with the CYGS higher.
NCYGS = 4.8 slams
CGS = 4.3 slams
I would not rate a player who has only a CYGS over a player who has won 6 Slams.
Of course it also depends on other factors, like if the player with 6 titles won them in 3 tournaments out of the 4 then maybe I'd rate the one with the CYGS higher.
Juice4080
Semi-Pro
He would have an hell of an argument despite being 4 slam behind. Id probably side with him as im a huge peak guy in those kinds of comparisons.
NO! The CYGS, a truly great achievement, represents one year in a player's career. Laver never came close to winning a slam after 1969.
GoatNo1
Legend
give me some concrete exemple so i will give you answer! as much as i know we have only 2 players who archive GS in OE. laver (CYGS) and nole (nole-slam). and nole-slam is greater than lavers CYGS by some margin. 3 different surfaces and full draw on all 4 slams. laver slam was on transition from amatheur to OE.
pirhaksar
Professional
I voted the last option. CYGS does makes a difference when you are comparing close to equals like the big 3 or differentiating goats across eras. The fact remains that only one man has done it and that tells you all you need to know about how difficult it is to accomplish and that by itself ends the argument if one were being objective. When something is that rare and difficult to accomplish its value is simply higher common sense dictates that. Novak did own all 4 at the same time which is similar to me in a lot of ways being consistent and dominant over a 8/12 month window but the calendar year right or wrong has been romanticized so much that it’s tough to ignore. Bottomline when comparing someone with 8 slams and cygs vs someone with 10 slams, I pick the former but when 10 becomes say 15 slams, I pick the later.
Juice4080
Semi-Pro
Greatest means different things to different people. For me greatest means how dominant you were at your best relative to your peers provided your best was of reasonable length. Then if it's close i will look at things like longevity and accolades. In tennis i don't think any player has seperated himself from the pack as far as peak tennis is concerned save maybe for Laver who was able to accomplish the CYGS so im this case i would probably lean with Novak for his longevity and accolades. So for me a player can absolutely be the GOAT without being the slam leader.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic did his four in a row. Whoever takes CYGS Djokovic will be able to back himself with that achievement. Only Donald Budge (1938) has managed to hold all 4 slams at once outside the calender year. The way Djokovic did it is actually more rare than doing it in a calender year if we gonna go the rare route. (12 month dominance as opposed to 8).
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Those days 3/4 slams were on grass.Djokovic did his four in a row. Whoever takes CYGS Djokovic will be able to back himself with that achievement. Only Donald Budge (1938) has managed to hold all 4 slams at once outside the calender year. The way Djokovic did it is actually more rare than doing it in a calender year if we gonna go the rare route.
And why did he cry during his match loss with Medvedev at USO 2021? Why all the pressure, when already the deal was done. Maybe. Laver felt a bit less pressure in 1969, because he had already done it twice (wiining everything in a year), in 1962 as amateur (Grand Slam with 22 tournaments overall), and 1967 in the pro game (clean sweep of all important pro events, Wim, Wembley, US Pro, French Pro, US indoor pro among 19 overall) event wins).
roysid
Legend
In last 10 years, have seen unreal hype twice. Djokovic in 2021 and Williams in 2015.
When they came to USO with Calendar grand slam on the line. Both had unexpected losses.
Graf did it in 1988 but not much hype that time if i recall correctly.
Lavers 1969 record is now referenced as close to impossible and benchmark. But during 69 i think it was hardly a big deal.
In present days, impossible for anyone to do it. Alcaraz will have a bad day or two. Djokovic is now old enough. Rest of the field are stuck at lifetime 1 slam or even lower
When they came to USO with Calendar grand slam on the line. Both had unexpected losses.
Graf did it in 1988 but not much hype that time if i recall correctly.
Lavers 1969 record is now referenced as close to impossible and benchmark. But during 69 i think it was hardly a big deal.
In present days, impossible for anyone to do it. Alcaraz will have a bad day or two. Djokovic is now old enough. Rest of the field are stuck at lifetime 1 slam or even lower
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Fed would be greatest ever in that regard then. 12 slams in 5 years, 5 straight uso, 5 straight WC, 10 straight slam finals, 237 consecutive weeks at number one.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
No. Anyone can string together the four majors across years but the sport purposely determined its four majors as being an annual structure, within our accepted frame od living through calendar years, not random events picked from random years.
Concentrated dominance is the most rare example of true mastering of any sports discipline, where talent and knowledge join at an unmatched level. Laver (for one example) was universally recognized as a GOAT player during and after his time on tour for one reason: the Grand Slam, not h2h, winning three in a calendar year, not the consolation prize of the "personal slam", weeks at a certain rank, how many finals he reached, or any other stat some use in recent decades to bolster the careers of the so-called Big Three, Navratilova, Serena, Evert, Sampras, Borg, Seles, and recently, wild, laughable projections about one certain male and one certain female player on tour right now.
Its the zenith of the sport, only reserved by those with GOAT abilities.
Quite true.
Last edited:
soldat
Semi-Pro
CYGS is 4 slams in a row. Just so happens that it is 4 slams in a row that starts at a point arbitrarily determined. If we start a year from spring, which some cultures do, then Laver would not have any CYGS and only NCYGS, so for me the NCYGS is equivalent to CYGS.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Because Djokovic--unlike the worst of his fans-- understood his sport's history, and the supreme value of the GOAT-defining Grand Slam. He--like Serena, who was in a similar position--would not feel such incredible pressure and disappointment for anything less than the one achievement which would have placed them as eternal GOAT players of tennis. Of couse, those desperate to crown Djokovic GOAT right now (in "their time") ignore his own belief and experience that year, while others are setting up excuses in case their new false god Alcaraz fails to win the Grand Slam.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
NCYGS = CYGS
Both are worse than winning 7/8 slams by common sense
Both are worse than winning 7/8 slams by common sense
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
A lot harder than the Olympics. We know Rosset and Massu would have no chance at the coveted CYGS.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Sorry I didn't understand before typing
CYGS is far more difficult and rare. I just was thinking something else, ignore please
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
I would need someone to explain to me a reason as why it is not. It has to be more than because that is considered a season. If so, you are right.
CYGS is the toughest fete in tennis. There's a reason that no man has won it since 1969 and no woman since 1988. I think it is an absolute requirement to be considered the true "GOAT".
NCYGS, while impressive, is not equivalent to CYGS.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
I think you just revealed what the GOAT criteria actually is, not necessarily about records but about public opinion consensus whatever the reason for that opinion consensus.
So you did do a poll and 80% of TTW currently says that the GOAT does not have to hold the slam record.
While that was generally true about lack of competition for the AO, Laver actually went through Stolle, Roche, and Gimeno, all strong players, to win it in 1969. That said, the draw was only 48 players, not 128.
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Nope. 27 percent.
You can not be greatest ever if it is disputed. It has to be clear. Like i said, gretzky and bolt.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
We already have a great example in women's tennis. Steffi Graf has 22 majors, 5 YEC, 1 Olympic Gold, 107 total titles, 377 weeks at #1, a career 88.7% win percentage, and the golden CYGS. Serena Williams has 23 majors, 5 YEC, 1 Olympic Gold, 73 total titles, 319 weeks at #1, and a career 84.6% win percentage. IMO, Graf's CYGS alone would be sufficient for her to squeak past Serena's 1 slam lead, but Graf's 34 more titles, 58 more weeks at #1, and 4.1% better win percentage makes Graf clearly greater.
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
But most think Serena is the greatest ever. In fact it is kind of undisputed.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Media hype, anti racist sympathies and her being American plays huge part.
Also Graf's main opponent was stabbed in the back.
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Hey it is what it is. Slam count is the number they will show and number they will talk about.
No broadcast or commentator is going to be talking about Carlos chasing weeks or masters or titles or WTF, only slams.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
They called Serena the GOAT at 22 or even 21. Media hype can't hide her minor deficiencies vs Graf.
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Slam farm animal. The SGOAT
GoatNo1
Legend
yes.... for both parts. and they play the same format slams and masters and all tournaments so it is not big difference between slams and masters.
I felt that Navratilova in 1984 and Djokovic in 2021, at least put up a better fight of it under the huge pressure at the final / penultimate hurdle, than Serena did in 2015.
Navratilova went down swinging in a 'valiant' way, in an exceptionally high quality 1984 Australian Open SF vs. Sukova - I'd rank it as one of the best women's matches that I saw during the 80s. During the business end of that final set, some of the shots from both players under pressure were incredible. Plus Navratilova saved 5 match points, 4 with forehand winners and the other with a strong forehand return leading to Sukova volleying long (Sukova put her 1st serve into play during all 5 of those match points) before eventually losing.
As mentioned many times though, Navratilova had been credited by the ITF and Philippe Chatrier with completing the grand slam after she won her 4th straight major at the RG in June 1984 - the ITF awarded her a $1 million bonus, and the most respected commentator in the game (maybe ever) Dan Maskell and World Tennis Magazine followed suit, so Navratilova's sponsors including Yonex understandably joined in the party as well. During the 1984 Australian Open when she was aiming to sweep all the majors that year, she was actually introduced on to the court as having completed the grand slam earlier that year.
In order to complete her grand slam, Serena needed to beat Vinci who was appearing in her first ever grand slam semi-final at the age of 32, and then had she won that Pennetta who was appearing in her first ever grand slam final at the age of 33 - Pennetta hadn't reached a grand slam semi-final before that fortnight, though she had been consistent at the USO and won Indian Wells the previous year.
For all the stick that Zverev and Medvedev have received, clearly needing to beat the two of them back to back in 2021, with Zverev winning the Olympic and Cincinnati titles that summer and Medvedev the Toronto title, and with both players having won the YEC and 4-5 masters series titles before, and having reached numerous previous grand slam finals and / or semi-finals, was far tougher on paper for Djokovic relatively speaking than Vinci & Pennetta for Serena. Under that huge pressure, it wouldn't have surprised me if Djokovic had to lost to Zverev in his SF. I personally predicted a Medvedev-Zverev final with Medvedev winning.
Navratilova went down swinging in a 'valiant' way, in an exceptionally high quality 1984 Australian Open SF vs. Sukova - I'd rank it as one of the best women's matches that I saw during the 80s. During the business end of that final set, some of the shots from both players under pressure were incredible. Plus Navratilova saved 5 match points, 4 with forehand winners and the other with a strong forehand return leading to Sukova volleying long (Sukova put her 1st serve into play during all 5 of those match points) before eventually losing.
As mentioned many times though, Navratilova had been credited by the ITF and Philippe Chatrier with completing the grand slam after she won her 4th straight major at the RG in June 1984 - the ITF awarded her a $1 million bonus, and the most respected commentator in the game (maybe ever) Dan Maskell and World Tennis Magazine followed suit, so Navratilova's sponsors including Yonex understandably joined in the party as well. During the 1984 Australian Open when she was aiming to sweep all the majors that year, she was actually introduced on to the court as having completed the grand slam earlier that year.
In order to complete her grand slam, Serena needed to beat Vinci who was appearing in her first ever grand slam semi-final at the age of 32, and then had she won that Pennetta who was appearing in her first ever grand slam final at the age of 33 - Pennetta hadn't reached a grand slam semi-final before that fortnight, though she had been consistent at the USO and won Indian Wells the previous year.
For all the stick that Zverev and Medvedev have received, clearly needing to beat the two of them back to back in 2021, with Zverev winning the Olympic and Cincinnati titles that summer and Medvedev the Toronto title, and with both players having won the YEC and 4-5 masters series titles before, and having reached numerous previous grand slam finals and / or semi-finals, was far tougher on paper for Djokovic relatively speaking than Vinci & Pennetta for Serena. Under that huge pressure, it wouldn't have surprised me if Djokovic had to lost to Zverev in his SF. I personally predicted a Medvedev-Zverev final with Medvedev winning.
Last edited:
zvelf
Hall of Fame
You are asking two different questions. One is whether someone can be considered GOAT without having the slam lead. The overwhelming majority of TTW said yes, contrary to your expectation. Whether that status is undisputed is a separate question.
The CYGS is definitely one of the most difficult achievements in tennis, but it has been achieved 6 times: Budge in 1938, Laver in 1962 and 1969, Connolly in 1953, Court in 1970, and Graf in 1988. But only 3 players have achieved something even harder, winning 6 majors in a row: Budge won 6 as part of his CYGS, as did Court, and Navratilova did it in 1983-84. And no, not "anyone can string together the four majors across years." In fact, other than the people I just named, only two people have ever done it: Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams. As mentioned above, winning the NCYGS is even rarer than winning the CYGS.
Spencer Gore
Legend
In the entire history of men's tennis The Grand Slam has only been achieved three times. That makes it the hardest thing to win in tennis.
Anyone winning it would immediately become a legend, but they would need to also have won double digit slams (probably over 20 if playing in the current conditions of the tour) to be in any conversation for greatest ever.
Anyone winning it would immediately become a legend, but they would need to also have won double digit slams (probably over 20 if playing in the current conditions of the tour) to be in any conversation for greatest ever.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Agreed.
Serena definitely had the easiest opposition of the three.
And it wasn't just the final and semifinal. Djokovic had an extremely tough draw with Rune in the first round, Nishikori in the third, Brooksby in the fourth, and Berretini in the quarters, all of whom took a set off of him. Medvedev by contrast had an extremely easy draw with 12th seed FAA being the only remotely difficult opponent. So I contend that with that draw and the tough 5-setter against Zverev, Djokovic was just too exhausted in the final compared to a relatively fresh Medvedev.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Nah, that's marketing. There is no undisputed GOAT in women's tennis. Here is my thread about it: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/serena-graf-navratilova-evert-and-court.734766/
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
No it doesn’t matter, Carlos would hold the record and that’s all that matters.
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
100% agree. That can not be undisputed. Only one ahead in slams and has nothing else on Graf. Men's it is clear.
Similar threads
- Poll
