The myth that Channel Slam (Roland Garros + Wimbledon in the same year) is the most difficult combin

[Deleted member 716271]

AO/RG are two gruelling surfaces, the most gruelling of slams, but the same styles don't necessarily work there. AO is a hard court obviously and the movement there is very diff from clay. Great baseliners like Djoko mold (think Agassi as another of the same type) tend to be best on neutral slow hard court that allows the players pure groundstrokes and athleticism to be on display. RG requires many of the same things, but clay tends to reward heavy topspin more as well as a slightly different style of movement. There is some overlap there of course, but it's not as similar as some think, besides the speed.

There is a reason Borg won RG/Wim but never USO. Many players are best either on hard courts, or on the natural surfaces.

Again, the combination of AO and RG being the most physically demanding, yet requiring somewhat different skill sets makes them a rare combo. You would think being the first 2 slams of the year, a fresh player could easily get on a good run and bag them, but the stats show the opposite.

People say well Nadal skewed the stats, but don't you think there's a reason he has struggled so much at AO? Is it just luck? Or maybe even though he's so athletic and great for slow clay courts, that same style doesn't work so well on the slow HC?

 

[Gary Duane]

(AO+RG)

Laver (1969), Wilander (1988), Courier (1992).

I'm not saying that this is not a feat. In Laver's day it was still a move from grass to clay, sort of the other way. The change did not have to happen quickly, but there is a long time between Jan. and June, I guess around 5 months. So that presents a different kind of challenge. A lot of things can happen with level over so many months.

I would think getting the USO and AO in a row would be easiest - similar surface and not such a huge different in time, but still around 4 months.

 

[70後]

In the 90's the clay courters wouldn't play Wimbledon, whereas the grass courters couldn't beat the cc'ers at the French, so.......

 

[Gary Duane]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Real grass. Think about it.

Or: real grass: smoke some before posting here and watch the results.

 

[Dave1982]

Interesting observation and when you perhaps consider it in depth it's perhaps no surprise that the AO-RG combination in a calendar year is the most elusive...while I'm sure conditions has a bit to do with it I also think the extended break between AO and FO has to be considered a factor.

Another likely reason for this is that in the Open Era the FO has not exactly been kind to players from outside of Europe or South America with only 5 winners coming from outside of these continents...in many ways this goes back to Clay Courts being far more popular and prevalent in these regions, in fact many past players from both US and Australia felt completely out of their depth on the surface.

 

[70後]

One year, Bruguera made it to the 4th round at Wimbledon (after skipping it for three straight years). He had no idea how, he just went there, had no time to practice serve volley whatever, he just played his normal game, like he said. Beat Rafter 13-11 in the 5th set too. Then he skipped Wimbledon again for another six straight years. (Bruguera skipped Wimbledon by the basketful)

The European/South American cc'ers just didn't take Wimbledon seriously in those days. As I said before, their Holy Grail was French. I suspect that had they just played their own game with adjustments on grass, they would have made many more inroads at Wimbledon in the 90's.

Not saying French winners of the 90's would have definitely won Wimbledon a few times, only that they could have gone much deeper had they been more serious about it.

The real myth in my view was the thinking that you had to serve and volley on grass (even 80' and 90's grass) that you had to completely change your game, that you had to abandon your natural game and be an all out serve volleyer in the "prescribed" AngloAmericanAustralian manner and fashion. This was Lendl's mistake.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver (1969), Wilander (1988), Courier (1992).

...and a certain Serb

 

[Mainad]

...and a certain Serb

Bugger, forgot about him!

 

[Fiero425]

Bugger, forgot about him!

How is that possible? It just happened this year!

 

[Mainad]

How is that possible? It just happened this year!

I know. I guess I'm still not quite used to thinking of him as an RG champion!

 

[Fiero425]

I know. I guess I'm still not quite used to thinking of him as an RG champion!

IMO, I don't think Nole's played WELL since Qatar, annihilating Rafa in the final! Murray came out smoking in Paris and I thought Nole was in trouble just like he had been against Stan the year before, but it was a colossal choke job and he reverted back to AO form against the #1 player in the world!

 

[S'in-net]

Well Federer did the Channel slam but never the AUS + RG combo
Here's what he says about it (from 2015 interview) :

QUESTION: It’s the first time in a long time someone had a shot at the calendar Grand Slam with Serena winning the first two in fourteen years. Why do you think that has always been so hard and how big do you think it would be for tennis if someone could have a shot at it?

FEDERER: The men?

QUESTION: Men or women.

FEDERER: I don’t know what it is. I think on the men’s side, obviously with Rafa raking it up at the French Open and if he doesn’t win the Australian Open, he was always going to win the French somehow. So, it’s going to be hard for us to do that. I also think because maybe they are further away in the calendar it’s harder to run through from the Australian Open all the way through to the French plus they play quite different. Maybe that’s why it has been hard to double up on those two. I found it quite easy from Wimbledon to the Open. That’s why I won five back to back there, they are closer to one another. So, I feel with the confidence you gain at Wimbledon you can maybe run through same as what Rafa did at the French from time to time also, for me as well, like to play great at the French and even run through to Wimbledon. But you can’t really do that all the way from the Aussie to the French. So, maybe that’s the reason. But clearly it would be interesting to see, especially on the men’s side, if it’s going to happen again. I believe it is at one point just because the surfaces do play more similar today than they ever have and there is not enough dangerous guys on the faster or the slower courts anymore. But I feel if you have a lot of confidence you can achieve it actually easier today than in the past.

http://www.gerryweber-open.de/gwo_e...r-Federer-after-his-win-against-Florian-Mayer

 

[Rafa the King]

AO/RG are two gruelling surfaces, the most gruelling of slams, but the same styles don't necessarily work there. AO is a hard court obviously and the movement there is very diff from clay. Great baseliners like Djoko mold (think Agassi as another of the same type) tend to be best on neutral slow hard court that allows the players pure groundstrokes and athleticism to be on display. RG requires many of the same things, but clay tends to reward heavy topspin more as well as a slightly different style of movement. There is some overlap there of course, but it's not as similar as some think, besides the speed.

There is a reason Borg won RG/Wim but never USO. Many players are best either on hard courts, or on the natural surfaces.

Again, the combination of AO and RG being the most physically demanding, yet requiring somewhat different skill sets makes them a rare combo. You would think being the first 2 slams of the year, a fresh player could easily get on a good run and bag them, but the stats show the opposite.

People say well Nadal skewed the stats, but don't you think there's a reason he has struggled so much at AO? Is it just luck? Or maybe even though he's so athletic and great for slow clay courts, that same style doesn't work so well on the slow HC?

Rafa has overal been a better AO player than USO player. 2009 AO is his highest level on the HC slams and he missed great opportunities in 2011 and 2014, I think he just missed the luck he had from time to time at the Open or he was very unlucky with injuries

 

[DSH]

Smaller gap. Different surfaces. Hardest combo.

US Open

+

Roland Garros
2020


is now the hardest combo ever!

 

[Cashman]

As you can see, Australian Open + Roland Garros is the most difficult slam combination to accomplish within the same year

The sample size is not large enough to draw this conclusion purely from the numbers - especially so if you are only looking at the AO from 1990 onwards.

 

[terribleIVAN]

If we take away Borg, and only count the results from 1990 onwards, AO+RG is STILL the rarest slam combination, so I'm not sure what your point is

You missed the Nadal factor: by himself, Rafa prevented anyone winning the FO for 12 years, starting in 2005.

Take away Borg and Rafa, owners of 5 channel slams, and it becomes clear RG + W is the most difficult combo.

Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Courier, Murray, Wawrinka are all missing one or the other from their records.

And from the lot, Mac is the only one never to have won AO, while 2/3 of them never won RG.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Sampras was injured and cited fatigue in 1991,1992, and 1999

ROFL

Fatigue at 19, 20 ??

Whatever floats your boat, man.

 

[Lew II]

AO-RG may be the hardest combination because it's two different surfaces (even if not polar as grass and clay) and they're separated by 5 months to there can be a bigger fluctuation in form.

 

[ForehandRF]

The AO+RG combo would have been accomplished more frequently in the last 15 years had there not been a guy called Nadal, who made the French Open his backyard.

 

[ChrisRF]

The AO+RG combo would have been accomplished more frequently in the last 15 years had there not been a guy called Nadal, who made the French Open his backyard.

And (equally important) who himself had Australia as his weakest Slam. Still it’s a coincidence that his only AO win and his only RG loss in 10 years came in the same year.

 

[DSH]

And (equally important) who himself had Australia as his weakest Slam. Still it’s a coincidence that his only AO win and his only RG loss in 10 years came in the same year.

Nadal came very close a few times to winning the AO RG combo if it weren't for two guys named Djokovic and Federer.

 

[Mainad]

Nadal came very close a few times to winning the AO RG combo if it weren't for two guys named Djokovic and Federer.

Plus a guy called Söderling.

 

[GabeT]

The AO+RG combo would have been accomplished more frequently in the last 15 years had there not been a guy called Nadal, who made the French Open his backyard.

Isn’t that true for RG/Wim as well?

 

[GabeT]

The sample size is not large enough to draw this conclusion purely from the numbers - especially so if you are only looking at the AO from 1990 onwards.

there is no ”sample size“. We are looking at the whole universe. You can always argue that prior results won’t hold in the future but it’s not an issue of small samples

 

[ForehandRF]

Isn’t that true for RG/Wim as well?

Yes, it is.

 

[mahesh69a]

This is not just about combination, but also about order.

If USO followed by RG happens, I will call it the Angelina slam (she is french-american and one of the rarest of rare individuals)

 

[Sport]

Poeple don't say that the Channel Slam (RG + WB) is the most difficult to achieve. They say it is the most prestigious/important.

The reason?

If you win both RG and WB you have completely dominated 2 surfaces at the Slam level, as there is only 1 Slam on clay and grass.

On the other hand, if you win the AO/USO and RG, you have half dominated hard at the Slam level, because there are 2 Slams on hard and you only would have won 1 of them.

In other words, people value more the RG-WB combo, because both RG and WB share surface specifity, something that neither the USO nor the AO have.

 

[GabeT]

Poeple don't say that the Channel Slam (RG + WB) is the most difficult to achieve. They say it is the most prestigious/important.

The reason?

If you win both RG and WB you have completely dominated 2 surfaces at the Slam level, as there is only 1 Slam on clay and grass.

On the other hand, if you win the AO/USO and RG, you have half dominated hard at the Slam level, because there are 2 Slams on hard and you only would have won 1 of them.

In other words, people value more the RG-WB combo, because both RG and WB share surface specifity, something that neither the USO nor the AO have.

That’s not the argument I’ve read here.

 

[Sorry_to_tell_you_mate]

RG+WB is the most difficult combo to achieve because they are the 2 most prestigious slams and polar opposites in terms of skills needed to master their respective surfaces.

AO and USO are meh slams, especially AO, which is the mehest big tournament ever.