Why is it considered hard for a player to win 30 slams?

[ShaoLaoDragon]

Nowadays it's pretty easy to dominate for 10 years. Win 3 slams a year. That's 30 slams over a period of only 10 years. Most modern players can play for 20 or even 30 years no problem and dominate for 10 years.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Bc now the best player on tour is

 

[legcramp]

Bc now the best player on tour is

It's Novak but what's wrong with Sinner? He just whooped Novak a couple matches ago, not many people can say they just beat Novak on hardcourt in the last 10 years.

 

[Neptune]

It's Novak but what's wrong with Sinner? He just whooped Novak a couple matches ago, not many people can say they just beat Novak on hardcourt in the last 10 years.

How about ONE set?

 

[Tennisbg]

Because no one has done it before.

 

[jxs653]

That someone special does it does not mean an exception can be a norm. Sampras said if you won a slam that's a good year. I think that's more or less a norm.

 

[AO13]

Nowadays it's pretty easy to dominate for 10 years. Win 3 slams a year. That's 30 slams over a period of only 10 years. Most modern players can play for 20 or even 30 years no problem and dominate for 10 years.

Yes. it's pretty easy to win 3 slams a year for 10 years. Pretty easy. Why don't you do it?

 

[tex123]

Nowadays it's pretty easy to dominate for 10 years. Win 3 slams a year. That's 30 slams over a period of only 10 years. Most modern players can play for 20 or even 30 years no problem and dominate for 10 years.

It's not hard. Just have a crap field and 30 is easy.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I think the closest we will come to that is if someone like Jack Sock crossed over to pickleball very early in their career and dominated that sport equivalently while it is still developing as a pro sport. That could definitely happen.