RaulRamirez
Legend
Hmmm...what do those three things have in common?
Why is the Nole Slam given so little credit around here?
jarko111
Hall of Fame
He's perhaps one of the most talented players that ever picked up a racket. And he seems to embrace celebrity in a completely different way than Fed and Nadal.
A lot of people have always held that against him. They see him as the Djoker.
Had he not throat punched the lineswoman would he have taken the USO? I dunno. Maybe.
I don't know why but that tournament seemed from the start like it was just ill-fated for him. I never thought he'd win it. But I never thought he'd go out like that, either.
The Nole Slam is huge. Having all four titles at once... that's Herculean. I think he's just going to miss 20 slams but he'll always have that Nole Slam to hang over Nadal's head if, in fact, Nadal goes over 20.
A lot of people have always held that against him. They see him as the Djoker.
Had he not throat punched the lineswoman would he have taken the USO? I dunno. Maybe.
I don't know why but that tournament seemed from the start like it was just ill-fated for him. I never thought he'd win it. But I never thought he'd go out like that, either.
The Nole Slam is huge. Having all four titles at once... that's Herculean. I think he's just going to miss 20 slams but he'll always have that Nole Slam to hang over Nadal's head if, in fact, Nadal goes over 20.
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
Because neither fans even consider Federer on their radar.This thread is hilarious because the OP intended it to stir a fight between Federer and Djokovic fans but instead it turned out to be a brawl between Nadal and Djokovic fans. Backfired
Backfired
RaulRamirez
Legend
I think that reasonable fans (of tennis, in general) will say that winning the NCYGS is more prestigious than winning the career grand slam but not as prestigious as the (true) calendar year Grand Slam (upper case, both words).
I don't know why it has to be explained that the Grand Slam is more prestigious than the NCYGS, but I'd say this for two main reasons:
1. There is a certain premium on doing something in the same calendar year - in all sports.
2. It also ensures that the Channel Slam (somewhat rare) has been achieved.
In Novak's case, I think he was robbed of more acclaim for two reasons, possibly three:
1. It completed his own career slam, after some close calls at RG.
2. It did not include the Channel Slam, so he lost shortly thereafter. Not much time to celebrate, with such a short break between RG and Wimbly.
3. (Perhaps, Novak isn't as popular as Rog or Rafa.)
I should not have to explain why the 4-in-a-row is much more of an achievement than the career slam. And yes, it's not quite the Grand Slam, but nobody else but Novak has done it since 1969.
There is no sure way to quantify this, but let's say we quantified achievements - just for illustration. I might posit that the career grand slam is worth "40", the Novak (NCYGS) Slam a 75 and the Grand Slam a 100.
What does this all mean?
Yes, I think Novak's achievement should have, and should, get more acclaim than it has.
But none of us - even the few objective fans - really know how to quantify and weigh these non-obvious achievements. I mean, any idiot can say 20 > 17, and some do, ad nauseum.
I don't know why it has to be explained that the Grand Slam is more prestigious than the NCYGS, but I'd say this for two main reasons:
1. There is a certain premium on doing something in the same calendar year - in all sports.
2. It also ensures that the Channel Slam (somewhat rare) has been achieved.
In Novak's case, I think he was robbed of more acclaim for two reasons, possibly three:
1. It completed his own career slam, after some close calls at RG.
2. It did not include the Channel Slam, so he lost shortly thereafter. Not much time to celebrate, with such a short break between RG and Wimbly.
3. (Perhaps, Novak isn't as popular as Rog or Rafa.)
I should not have to explain why the 4-in-a-row is much more of an achievement than the career slam. And yes, it's not quite the Grand Slam, but nobody else but Novak has done it since 1969.
There is no sure way to quantify this, but let's say we quantified achievements - just for illustration. I might posit that the career grand slam is worth "40", the Novak (NCYGS) Slam a 75 and the Grand Slam a 100.
What does this all mean?
Yes, I think Novak's achievement should have, and should, get more acclaim than it has.
But none of us - even the few objective fans - really know how to quantify and weigh these non-obvious achievements. I mean, any idiot can say 20 > 17, and some do, ad nauseum.
the fact is that so-called channel slam is not at all the most rare combination of two adjacent slams. not even more rare than most other slams combinations in tennis (I think that only USO-AO is more frequent). the most rare combination is AO-RG! which also includes 2 different surfaces but you have to keep the form much longer than 1-2 months.
fact is fact and it is easy to check which 2 consecutive slam combinations were won the least number of times and are most rare and the most difficult to achieve.
Last edited:
CYGS
Legend
Because you need to win 4 in a row to enter the discussion. Minimum requirement, we are not talking about any specific unique achievements that all big 3 have plenty themselves.
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Hmm, I thought of chiming in to say that the Nole Slam is indeed under appreciated and that for sure you wouldn't hear the last of it if Fed or Nadal had achieved it. And then I saw the 'reasonable' Nole fans enable the idiots claiming NCYGS is better than a CYGS. Good grief. Well, next time you complain about your guy getting so much hate, maybe have a look in the mirror too.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
This.
Also this.
Grand Slam > Career Grand Slam. Also, winning 4 in row, the Nole/Serena Slam > Career Grand Slam, because you're doing the career slam in one swoop. But, winning all 4 slams in a single year or season is greater than 2 years straight years of winning 2 of 4. This is the simple truth. This isn't taking anything away from holding all 4 titles at once, but winning all 4 titles in a single year is a greater achievement - because it is. 1 Year, 1 Season, 4 slams, 4 titles. If you can fit in an Olympic win in there, then you're golden.
USO
Banned
Everyone knows that in the 2016 FO Nadal had to withdraw during the tournament. If Federer had that luxury he would have had 3 calendar grand slams.
CYGS
Legend
NCYGS is an umbrella term for 4 slams in a row minus CYGS but Nole Slam which has a specific sequence starting from W and ending with RG is in theory just as probable as a CYGS and in practice harder to achieve (more rarely accomplished). So to compare NCYGS vs CYGS is just wrong, because we are comparing Nole Slam vs CYGS.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
The same could be said for Nole to enter the G.O.A.T discussion, he needs to get to 20 slams....
Minimum requirement.
CYGS
Legend
Or they need to win four in a row. It depends on your GOAT criteria.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
So, basically you're saying that the sequence is important. In my book, it doesn't matter that much. In my book all consecutive non-calendar year grand slams are a great achievement and are essentially equal to each other. However, they are all lesser achievements than the actual grand slam, which is by definition, a single year achievement. If anything, Serena winning 3 in one year and 1 in the other is infinitesimally greater than Novak's with is 2 years of 2 out of 4, and it also includes the RG/Wimbly double.
CYGS
Legend
Nobody cares about your book, but sequence is an objective fact that tells Nole Slam is just as hard in theory and harder in practice to achieve than a CYGS in men’s tennis.
Not interested in women’s tennis comparison as it’s a different competitive environment and pool of candidates altogether.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
The relative sample size of Nole Slams and actual Grand Slams is so small that saying that the Nole variety is "more rare" and "harder to achieve" by dragging a non-open era things like Don Budge in 1938 into the mix proves that this isn't really a thing and is as desperate as it looks. Then again, that makes sense.
Rod Laver did it in 1969. That's the open era grand slam. The others count, but it was different times. These other half concocted non-grand slams are an achievement, but they're not the genuine article.
Quoted again, for relevance.
Tennis_Freak99
Legend
He won in 2010. 2009 Rg, Wim, USO, 2010 AO could have been his 4 in a row
CYGS
Legend
They are rare by definition, since it’s the ultimate task to accomplish, so unless there’s other objective measure provided, it still stands that Nole Slam is in theory just as hard and in practice more difficult than CYGS to achieve in men’s tennis.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
In fact, when Novak did not win a 5th slam in a row I think it showed how impossible it is to keep going because of the pressure.
For me Laver's GS comes first.
Novak's NCYGS comes next, for obvious reasons, but it is interesting to see how many time Nadal ruined grand slams for other players.
I thnk winning 3 out of 4 in three different years is also huge.
By the way, no one has come close to what Nadal has done at RG. Because it is unique and so far beyond any other player, I tend to think it is the most impressive record. Laver and Budge have to share the GS. But Nadal is out there all by himself. Also, the claim is that now all surfaces are almost the same, homogenization, but doesn't that mean there are more players out there who could win there now? And yet Nadal has turned it into his private slam.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I think if you talk about achievements in general, it is given credit as an unique and rare record. In GOAT discussions, it does not matter as much as one spectacular year does not override better consistency throughout a career. If Novak finished one behind Nadal in Slams and ahead of Federer, it could conceivably be used to justify Novak being the GOAT if he still has more Masters titles, weeks at #1 and a better head-head over Nadal. But, if he finishes well behind Nadal in Slams, the Nole Slam will not be a tiebreaker.
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
Oh of course. Hell, you had people going nutty about his channel slam in '09, which is peanuts compared to the Nole Slam. Seriously people, the guy won FOUR MAJORS IN A ROW. People were lauding Pete in '94 for being the first guy to win THREE in a row since Laver (and rightly so), and once again for Feddy for doing it in '06. How do you not grasp the greatness of being THE ONLY MAN since Laver to win ALL FOUR IN A ROW?
Clowns be crackin' me up. Talk Feddy warehouse indeed.
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
Would you say the same if it were the Calendar Slam rather than Nole Slam? It seems like we propel Rocket to stratospheric levels of GOATyness for one measley Calendar slam in the Open Era, yet lol Nolan away for accomplishing something almost as great.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
No, I wouldnt. I think CYGS is marginally better than a NCYGS. What Nole did in 2015-2016 was amazing, but he needs to keep up with Nadal in Slams and overtake Federer.
With regards to Laver, I don’t rank him that highly as per this post from October.
For me, ATP singles players should be measured by their ability to win matches (career winning % - see link below), win tournaments and win the major tournaments (Grand Slams). I also think that it is hard enough to compare players from different decades within the Open Era and it is impossible to compare pros with the amateur champions.
Win/Loss Index | ATP Tour | Tennis
In-depth data analysis of the performance of ATP World Tour players. Featuring year-to-date, 52-week, and career data for the top players in men's professional tennis.www.atptour.com
So, my top 10 list of Open-era champions would be as follows:
1. Djokovic (helped by subjective eye test of watching Indian Wells tournament in person since Nineties, 17 Slams)
2. Nadal (clay dominance, 20 Slams)
3. Federer (20 Slams, 2nd in titles won)
4. Sampras (14 Slams)
5. Connors (record 109 titles)
6. Lendl (high number of titles)
7. Borg (hurt by early retirement)
8. Laver (hurt by mostly winning on grass and considering only his Open-era career)
9. McEnroe
10. Agassi
GoldenMasters
Semi-Pro
Double standard obviously. Don't even bother to read arguments why it's not special achievement from Federer and Nadal fans because I can assure you that if one of those two won 4 slams in a row their fan bases would go insane with hyping up this achievement. It is a shame that the world works like this.
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
I see the argument for CYGS being significantly greater than Nole Slam, since its winning all four majors in the same season and essentially utterly dominating the field at the most important events not just annually to tennis, but historically as well. That said, I think Nole Slam is as great a leg up over modern Career Slammers as Career Slam is over non-Career Slammers (e.g. Sampras). I rate Agassi's Career Slam over Fedal's since he won during a period of polarization and specialists as opposed to utter homogeneity, but still I'd put Nole Slam far over Agassi's Golden Career Slam as well.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic has them all? Your point?
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
NatF
Bionic Poster
If a man owns the tiebreakers, surely he's broken the tie?
Well they're not tied yet...
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Wow you weren't lying
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
True, Fed has more slams still. But Nole has the #1 record in the bag as well as beating Fedal for the majority of his slams. I'm just saying the guy has a case even as we speak.
No1eslam (on 3 different surfaces with 2 different HC surfaces) > Laver CYGS (in first OE year when f.ex. AO was allmost all OZI players and on 2 different surfaces)
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a special achievement and better than the career grand slam. There's at least one poster on here, though, saying it's more "rare" and "just as hard" or "harder to achieve" than the actual grand slam.
In other words...
Laver 1969 Grand Slam ≤ Novak 2015-16 "Nole Slam"
This is what I'm not buying.
CYGS
Legend
3 different surfaces + full field at AO + statistically rarer > 2 different surfaces + not full field at AO + statistically less rare
RaulRamirez
Legend
I had to go back to your comment that I replied to. My simple answer is "yes", as that seemed to be why you lumped then in as tiebreakers - which (to my thinking) kind of belittles each of those achievements.
But if this is consistent with an argument that only slam count matters and everything else, collectively, is a tiebreaker -- whether weeks or years at #1, special achievements, etc - then so be it.
I don't see it that way, but admittedly find it hard to quantify everything else.
If we get everyone to just cut to the chase and hold them to arguments that work for all players, it would be nice. It may also eliminate 97.54% of all posts.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I agree in the main, but here is where I depart a little.
3 out of 4 x 3 is great, but it's not something that a player aspires to, other than trying to win each particular slam.
Nadal's insane dominance at RG is also remarkable, but in looking at number of slams won, I don't really look at distribution as a positive or a negative.
I suppose I'm not 100% adamant here, as there is some added value in career slams on up to NCYGS and a true GS.
But per this thread, some of this is "whataboutism":. Novak achieved this, so what about that. Alone?
NatF
Bionic Poster
This is a bit cynical but ok. I picked two of what I consider the less important but often spoken about metrics, I probably consider time at #1 of greater important than nearly anything else which will soon no longer be an advantage Fed holds over at least Djokovic. I don't think only slams matter, I think everything matters but there's a weighting to it all which is complex and subjective. For example with masters titles the fact that they weren't mandatory for most of the OE and the fact they've changed format devalues them a bit historically for me. Structually a masters event has the same number of rounds and format e.g. BO3 as a 250 or 500 - more often than not the draws are tougher but not always. So I've never found masters counts particularly important beyond the value to the title count - top quality matches like Rome 2006 or Miami 2011 etc...matter to me but not in a way that I can measure. Even so you can have matches like that at all levels, for example Djokovic topping Murray in Doha 2017 is a more impressive title to me than Djokovic's masters wins in 2020 over poor fields. Dominance over the field matters to me over individual h2h's, as does longevity - I also gravitate to players who mastered multiple surfaces. Would I put these over the NCYGS? I've not really thought about it. I'd also point out I think each of the Big 3 has inflated their careers in the vaccum era of 2017-present, I think the seperation they've put between themselves and say Sampras isn't really reflective of their abilities as players.
My pick for the GOAT is actually Pancho Gonzalez as he was basically number one non-stop for his entire prime, I also think Laver has a very strong case for GOAT too. Anyway, I don't appreciate the cynicism, I'm aware that my preference for Fed shapes my views as you should be aware that as fair as you try to be it's also clear where you preferences lie as well. This whole excercise is futile and subjective as long as we each can support our biases in a reasonable way that's all we can ask for.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Djokovic winning 3 Slams in a row 3 times is why I think that the Nole Slam wasn't a fluke.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Perhaps, my first reply to you showed some cynicism, but that's hardly been my approach overall. As you know, I don't align my opinions with anyone else or support talking points to win arguments for my "side". My side is my own opinions, and I support strong ones and reject weak ones, from wherever they come from. I respect your knowledge of the game, and a lot of your insight.
Per all this, I don't know how to rate
or rank Pancho, Laver or even Rosewall. All very special players, obviously. Conditions have changed even within the OE but to include players who preceded it, or spanned eras, I find extremely difficult. So, "GOAT" to me has been limited to the best (all) OE players until now. And even within that construct, it gets both difficult and sometimes silly.
I do think that, along with The Big 3, that Borg and Sampras are the truly special players of the OE. Not a knock on Lendl, Connors, Mac, etc. But for a while, it's just that The Big 3 have distanced themselves from them accomplishment-wise, no matter the reasons.
Within that, and knowing that crowning the mythical GOAT is a bit silly, I just want to make, and see, reasonable arguments that appreciate all the players.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Anyway, Djokovic just needs to reach 20 Slams. And then with his weeks at #1, YE #1s, the Nole Slam, I don't have to read about him being the 3rd wheel anymore.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
im currently losing sleep anyway without even having to care about any of this bs on here
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I don't think it matters that much which one is greater or better tbh, Laver's CYGS versus the Nole Slam, since both are great, but I do find it interesting how more people thought the Nole Slam was more impressive in a thread a couple of years ago compared to this thread.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
First of all I think we hear plenty about it.
Second of all if it is not held up as one of the great, great feats of all time it is probably because in the previous 10 years there were numerous instances where it was a couple of sets away from being achieved, but one guy just stood in the way. That guy wasn't in the way when it was finally accomplished, so it's kind of like, "So what?". How much more amazing is this really than what Federer did in 05-06, 06-07, or what Djokovic did in 11-12?
Second of all if it is not held up as one of the great, great feats of all time it is probably because in the previous 10 years there were numerous instances where it was a couple of sets away from being achieved, but one guy just stood in the way. That guy wasn't in the way when it was finally accomplished, so it's kind of like, "So what?". How much more amazing is this really than what Federer did in 05-06, 06-07, or what Djokovic did in 11-12?
CYGS
Legend
"Almost won" = "loss" that 's the difference and that's why it's so difficult and exclusive
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
By the yardstick of almost, Roddick would be at least a four time slam winner and a three time Wimbledon champ instead of having just one slam. People falter after getting close for the reason that it's so difficult. I just don't buy that a statistical anomaly somehow makes a NCYGS better than a CYGS. The fact that both Graf and Serena achieved an NCYGS a bunch but Graf 'only' managed one CYGS and Serena never, suggests that the CYGS is tougher.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I will add that in so far as my original post - those talking points can become more significant depending on the seperation and context. If for example you value total masters titles above total titles, but the gap in masters titles is 1 and total titles is 40 to give an extreme example I would say clearly the 40 titles is more important. Or on the flip side if Djokodal end up tied in most metrics and Djokovic has the NCYGS and Nadal has a huge gap in masters and other titles I'd probably lean more towards the Spaniard etc...I don't have a set formula.
No problem in not rating Pancho, Laver, Rosewall etc...their feats aren't common knowledge, better to not rank than rather to try and rank them and be half-baked.
All I want from a discussion is intellectual honesty, that's unfortunately in short supply on these boards.
it should be mentioned that in addition to AO 1969 being almost 60% OZI players (28 of a total of ONLY 48 players), Laver needed to win only 5 matches to win AO. 3 of those against other OZI players.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
That is not comparable to this at all. There are innumerable guys you could say that about. The feat this thread is about is far more meaningful, unique, and was literally almost accomplished on three separate occasions in the 10 years prior to Djokovic finally pulling it off.
I actually think a lot of the non calendar year thing depends on the order in which you do it. Serena's first one is remarkable given it features the channel slam with the two week turnaround.
Like, people have started making excuses for Thiem at last years Roland Garros that he was EXHAUSTED, perhaps not remembering the fact that this Slam and Wimbledon used to have the exact same gap between them every single year by design as last years US Open and Roland Garros did.
Also, I think there is something to be said for finishing at the US Open, especially in the modern day when the game has gotten so physically demanding, and we're seeing people worn out by the time that tournament rolls around.
Adding the physical test to the massive mental test of finishing that feat is something we certainly saw the effects of when Serena tried pulling it off in 2015, and seems tougher than say finishing either in Australia or Paris where you're comparatively far fresher physically.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 748597
- General Pro Player Discussion
