Will anyone care/remember CYGS weak field?

tex123

Professional
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
 
Last edited:

pj80

Hall of Fame
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
well there is still some work left to be done to achieve the CYGS...Medvedev is just as dangerous if not even more dangerous, anything can happen.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
People still discount Steffis CYGS with weak era. I read it here every other week.
 

Strale

Semi-Pro
I can assure you even if field was full as you say...90 percent of those missing would suffer a Tsitsipas faith early on...Nadal at this point of his career can only play on clay,Federer is semi retired and even in his prime was a little threat to Djokovic..Thiem is decent on clay only etc...

The best of what tennis can offer are already playing,make no mistake .
 

gadge

Professional
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
Nope do you know who rod laver won against when he won his CYGS or steffi for that matter
 

gadge

Professional
People still discount Steffis CYGS with weak era. I read it here every other week.
But very few discount it and if someone has won 4 slams it does mean the rest haven’t been good enough and it comes across as a weak era anyway. And fedal absence has got nothing to do with CYGS. Rafa was there at RG and lost. Fed wouldn’t have troubled Novak anyway at 40 yrs old.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
Normalize CYGS…. Lol k
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
Of course people will remember it. Djokovic has seemed utterly invincible in this US Open. Every time he needs a big serve, boom! When he needs to turn his game around, he has. He seems tireless. I will be truly surprised if he loses to Med. This tournament has been a great way to cap the CYGS and get to 21. One more match.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
For sure, there were salty guys in 1969, speaking similar things about Rod and his achievement. Nobody remembers them, nobody cares for them... Only the record is remembered.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
The whining never stops. If Federer and Nadal were in the draw and played Djokovic, there would have been endless whining over their ages and/or injuries

Zverev and Medvedev are the strongest hard court players not named Djokovic right now, and if he's going to win this thing, he will have to beat both
 
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
No, but I disagree with the idea that no one remembers a field was weak.
I remember how the field was very week in 1996 97 98 and most of 1999, with Chang as number 2 after Sampras for 2 years, and Moya, Rafter, Rios (slamless), Kafelnikov reaching number 1. The slams of Sampras in the late 90s after 1995 were won to a rather weak field. Hewitt and Safin, that young people here mock, were a big improvement over the late 90s top players. Only clay had a strong field in the late 90s, because of Kuerten and the Corrteja, Costa tier Spanish claycourters, with Muster and Bruguera still being good in 1997, and Kafelnikov being great on clay too.

People also remember the stabbing of Seles, and Graf winning slams mostly against Sanchez Vicario and Conchita Martinez. That is why Serena breaking her number of Slams made me happy, even if I have never been a Serena fan.
 

BGod

Legend
It will not be accomplished probably ever again. So no. Along with Tsitsipas, Zverev & Medvedev likely winning Slams eventually.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
It's curious that Open-era Calendar Grand Slams were done on wastelands, Laver 69 and Court 70 still on the transition to professional tennis, Graf 88 was between Navratilova/Evert and Sabatini/Seles/Arantxa eras, and Nole's 2021 between the Big 4+ and the Next Gen Era.

Of course rooting for Nole's CYGS, but that's the truth.
 
If it isn't done again. People will remember. If if another 2-3 guys accomplish it, it will be forgotten. I'm sure it would be accomplished against in far less than 50 years if conditions stay the same
 

Biotic

Hall of Fame
It's curious that Open-era Calendar Grand Slams were done on wastelands, Laver 69 and Court 70 still on the transition to professional tennis, Graf 88 was between Navratilova/Evert and Sabatini/Seles/Arantxa eras, and Nole's 2021 between the Big 4+ and the Next Gen Era.

Of course rooting for Nole's CYGS, but that's the truth.
It would be foolish to think that even a 3-slam season can be routinely done in a strong year, let's say with 2+ in form ATG contenders at the top and a solid field.

But no matter what people say, even a prime Djokovic wouldn't be a lock here, as the pressure can get to anyone. Serena lost to Vinci of all people.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
It's curious that Open-era Calendar Grand Slams were done on wastelands, Laver 69 and Court 70 still on the transition to professional tennis, Graf 88 was between Navratilova/Evert and Sabatini/Seles/Arantxa eras, and Nole's 2021 between the Big 4+ and the Next Gen Era.

Of course rooting for Nole's CYGS, but that's the truth.
Less curious and more the natural way of things - it's by necessity. Novak's 2011 is the only one that really came close to winning the CYGS (not counting that Wimby and USO could/would have played different if he had won RG) in a strong era. Potentially 2007 too as Nadal was getting into it on natural surfaces and Djokovic truly starting coming onto the scene , but still not a huge competition pool for most of the year.

Even in ones that came close you see a general pattern. Weak close-to-CYGS years are Connors 74 (aging Newcombe, baby Borg, old Rosewall and Laver), Federer 2004 and 2006, Djokovic 2015.

Strong close years are Borg 78-80 (if that counts, seeing as he'd probably storm through AO after winning USO), Mac 81 and 84, Wilander 88 (though the USO itself was weak, but the era was strong), maybe Federer 2007 if you stretch things, Nadal 2010, and Djokovic 2011.

You see the pattern. In strong eras, it's extremely hard to dominate your opponents to the degree you need to in order to win the CYGS. If it's a highly competitive environment, by definition you can't have 1 player win everything.

The close-years only happened during the transition eras, weak AO period (where close didn't take that slam into account since it was a given it could be won if you won the other 3), and a few special cases (Wilander and the Big 3).

In many cases, the simple case of winning the CYGS casts a shadow on the competition. Since back then careers were also much shorter, you effectively killed one of the few years your opponents had at the top, making them less likely to accomplish things in the time they had left. I think the strongest CYGS (of the close years) would've been Djokovic 2011, followed by Wilander 1988, then Nadal 2010, then Federer 2007. Perhaps in hindsight the years would be viewed as weak by virtue of the competition being too weak to handle the winner though.
 

reef58

Semi-Pro
People still discount Steffis CYGS with weak era. I read it here every other week.
Yes Tennis Talk where every era is weak, the young guys are horrible, the player you dislike the most, lied, cheated, got lucky or was gifted all of their wins. Of course your favorite player played in the strongest era, never got lucky, was schemed against, faced the toughest opponents and of course let's not forget wins all hypothetical matches.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Yes Tennis Talk where every era is weak, the young guys are horrible, the player you dislike the most, lied, cheated, got lucky or was gifted all of their wins. Of course your favorite player played in the strongest era, never got lucky, was schemed against, faced the toughest opponents and of course let's not forget wins all hypothetical matches.
This is such a ridiculous thread as so many are when there's this kind of supposition! In 100 years, no one's going to be talking about the competition as weak! That's silly when IMO they're as good as any top player! They just can't take them out in important situations and of course BO5 matches at Majors! Murray, Zverev, Tsitsipas, & Thiem would murder players from era of McEnroe and Connors! Things obviously dropped precipitously when Borg retired in '82, but along came Wilander, Edberg, and Becker! :sneaky:
 

James P

G.O.A.T.
If one person dominates and wins a Grand Slam, it's by definition a weak era. But no, I don't think anyone will care about the "weak field."
 
Also, Djokovic has already won 4 in a row and I don't even think Fedal fans will argue it was weak in 2015 to 2015. Yes, I know Nadal was not at his best, but come on, you can always come up with some excuse to discount an achievement. This is just envy pure and simple. If your favorite had won it, you would seldom be saying things about weak era.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Also, Djokovic has already won 4 in a row and I don't even think Fedal fans will argue it was weak in 2015 to 2016. Yes, I know Nadal was not at his best, but come on, you can always come up with some excuse to discount an achievement. This is just envy pure and simple. If your favorite had won it, you would seldom be saying things about weak era.
They do, constantly.
 

OhYes

Legend
A few years later would anyone care/remember the weak field, the injuries, absence of Nadal/Fed/Thiem etc. that allowed him to win CYGS?

I think he's going to normalise CYGS just like we thought no one would break Sampras' 14 slams. There would be some doing CYGS as well after Novak.
Stick around to remind people about it ;)
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Weak field or otherwise, it is not an easy task to get 28 of 28 matches in a year in BO5

so, just give credit to the Djoker
 

Tennisfan339

Professional
Maybe Medvedev, Zverev, Berrettini, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Auger-Aliassime, Shapopalov,... will all win multiple slams in the next 15 years.

Will they still be considered "weak field/era", then?

If Djokovic wins the CYGS and all these players drop off the surface of the earth in 2022 and never win anything, yeah maybe we'll reconsider Djokovic's performance. But it's very unlikely imo. More likely Zverev Medvedev and Tsitsipas will all win 5-8 slams, maybe more. Thatls when people will realize these guys aren't as "weak" and pathetic as you describe them. If only Djokovic can stop them from winning slams, there is a good reason for that. ;)

And no, I doubt people will remember anyeay.

Is there anyone on this forum (without looking on the internet) who can list the 56 players Rod Laver beat in 62 and 69? And what was their ranking?

How many here remember the name of Graf's opponent in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 88 and 3rd round of AO? And what was their ranking? I bet nobody knows and cares.

I bet more than 50% on this forum don't even remember Djokovic beat Cuevas and Berankis in RG and Chardy and Tiafoe in Australia.
 

tex123

Professional
Stick around to remind people about it ;)
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. People just remember winners. Keen tennis observers may argue about how that win was achieved. None of that matters. At the end of the day, it is that win that matters and the winner is immortalised.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
Record books don't care about that stuff. If he wins it then it's one for the record books. There will be no asterisk. End of story.
 
Top