Winning consecutive Grand Slams...

S'in-net

S'in-net

Semi-Pro
Djokovic won consecutive slams, in 2018

Before that, the last player to win consecutive slams was...

Djokovic in 2015-16 (four in a row)...

Before that, the last player to win consecutive slams was...

Djokovic in 2011-12 (three in a row)

Nadal hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 24
Federer hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 27

Consecutive slams won is a good marker for an all round game, because of the switching of surfaces

1) Nadal is the only player, open era and pre-open era, who has won consecutive slams across Clay/Grass/Hardcourt. Treble switch across three different slams, with three different surfaces, winning them all

2) Djokovic-slam was a treble switch, across four slams (Laver's-slams were double switches)
3) Federer winning three in a row was a double switch, across three slams, with the caveat that he repeated it, in back-to-back years

1), 2) and 3), each individually, have not been repeated on the men's side, by any other players, any era else
 
S'in-net said:
Djokovic won consecutive slams, in 2018

Before that, the last player to win consecutive slams was...

Djokovic in 2015-16 (four in a row)...

Before that, the last player to win consecutive slams was...

Djokovic in 2011-12 (three in a row)

Nadal hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 24
Federer hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 27

Consecutive slams won is a good marker for an all round game, because of the switching of surfaces

1) Nadal is the only player, open era and pre-open era, who has won consecutive slams across Clay/Grass/Hardcourt. Treble switch across three different slams, with three different surfaces, winning them all

2) Djokovic-slam was a treble switch, across four slams (Laver's-slams were double switches)
3) Federer winning three in a row was a double switch, across three slams, with the caveat that he repeated it, in back-to-back years

1), 2) and 3), each individually, have not been repeated on the men's side, by any other players, any era else
Click to expand...

Not if you're going from the US Open to the AO. ;)

6 out of the last 8 slams have been split respectively between Federer and Nadal. I'd like to see Djokovic win a Major when he's 36.5 years of age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
Winning consecutive Majors is a good marker for all-round game, because of the switch between surfaces.

Checks Federer's AO-Wimbly combo.

Checks Nadal's RG - USO combo.

Scratches head.

8-)
 
Big_Dangerous said:
Not if you're going from the US Open to the AO. ;)

6 out of the last 8 slams have been split respectively between Federer and Nadal. I'd like to see Djokovic win a Major when he's 36.5 years of age.
Click to expand...
WHY? What is that going to do for your ego? RF at 37 is still better than 99% of existing and retired players when they were at their peaks. But that is contributed to his genes, nothing else.
Means nothing. In fact, Novak has won all of his slams in the era of the two of the best players ever, that means a lot. We have seen what happened when Novak is away, and now we see what is happening when he is back.
 
EloQuent said:
Classic. Of course this only works if you define "era of" to include age 37. In which case why not count say 2003 as era of Djokovic?
Click to expand...
Classic what???
Three people won slams (and most of the Masters events) in 2018 -- Nadal, Federer and Novak. It has been that way since 2007. It is their era.
2003 was not the era of Novak
 
dr325i said:
Classic what???
Three people won slams (and most of the Masters events) in 2018 -- Nadal, Federer and Novak. It has been that way since 2007. It is their era.
2003 was not the era of Novak
Click to expand...
This is pointless bc we're just going to talk past each other but I'll try.

Just because Fed won slams in 2017 - 2018 doesn't mean that Djokovic's wins in 2013-16 were more impressive because of the existence of a 32-35 year old Fed.
 
Federer's run from 2005-2009 will never be equalled. Nothing and I mean nothing that can be posted by a Djoko or Nad fan can trump these stats:

17/20 slams entered Federer made the Final winning 11 times.17/20 slams people! The other 3 you ask? All SF. Winning consecutive slams on different surfaces makes someone more complete? LMAO.

These numbers are the model of consistency on all surfaces. Djokovic and Nadal were never be able to do duplicate this kind of sheer dominance and all around prowess.
 
titoelcolombiano said:
Rafa - the only man with multiple slams on all three surfaces - legend! :D
Click to expand...
220px-Eurosport_Studio_Australian_Open_2014_007.jpg
 
True Fanerer said:
Federer's run from 2005-2009 will never be equalled. Nothing and I mean nothing that can be posted by a Djoko or Nad fan can trump these stats:

17/20 slams entered Federer made the Final winning 11 times.17/20 slams people! The other 3 you ask? All SF. Winning consecutive slams on different surfaces makes someone more complete? LMAO.

These numbers are the model of consistency on all surfaces. Djokovic and Nadal were never be able to do duplicate this kind of sheer dominance and all around prowess.
Click to expand...
If we are talking about streaks in slams (and not simply adding them up) then the first thing to look at are wins, not reaching finals or semifinals. And the greatest winning streak in slams post Laver is Nole’s four in a row.

After you look at winning streaks you can then move on to reaching finals streaks. And there Fed is the clear leader.

And if we are talking about overall dominance against the field Nole has the most points ever. Fed never reached a dominance peak like Nole’s 18 months in 2015/16 because he couldn’t win as many masters (or didn’t care)
 
GabeT said:
If we are talking about streaks in slams (and not simply adding them up) then the first thing to look at are wins, not reaching finals or semifinals. And the greatest winning streak in slams post Laver is Nole’s four in a row.

After you look at winning streaks you can then move on to reaching finals streaks. And there Fed is the clear leader.

And if we are talking about overall dominance against the field Nole has the most points ever. Fed never reached a dominance peak like Nole’s 18 months in 2015/16 because he couldn’t win as many masters (or didn’t care)
Click to expand...
OP states that the streaks are a good marker for an all around game because of the switching of the surfaces. This is true. It shows versatility, but it doesn't show a better example of long term consistency on all surfaces like the stats I gave. Federer is the most complete player.OP and yourself are contesting that with a random stat that occurs every few years by chance. Federer did all of that at once in succession over 5 years. Btw, it took Djokovic 6 years to win 11 slams while we're mentioning wins. Only took Fed 5.
 
GabeT said:
And if we are talking about overall dominance against the field Nole has the most points ever. Fed never reached a dominance peak like Nole’s 18 months in 2015/16 because he couldn’t win as many masters (or didn’t care)
Click to expand...
While technically accurate, this talking point isn't really meaningful in term of level of play. The main reason why Federer didn't win as many clay Masters is Rafa Nadal. Also, most were Bo5 finals and/or no byes, so it was harder.
 
True Fanerer said:
OP states that the streaks are a good marker for an all around game because of the switching of the surfaces. This is true. It shows versatility, but it doesn't show a better example of long term consistency on all surfaces like the stats I gave. Federer is the most complete player.OP and yourself are contesting that with a random stat that occurs every few years by chance. Federer did all of that at once in succession over 5 years. Btw, it took Djokovic 6 years to win 11 slams while we're mentioning wins. Only took Fed 5.
Click to expand...
I see your point but winning 4 slams in a row in three different surfaces is most certainly not something that occurs every few years by chance. Nole remains the only player in tennis history to have done so.
 
EloQuent said:
While technically accurate, this talking point isn't really meaningful in term of level of play. The main reason why Federer didn't win as many clay Masters is Rafa Nadal. Also, most were Bo5 finals and/or no byes, so it was harder.
Click to expand...
I was responding to posts about dominance. No one ever won as much as Nole in a short period (Fed won more over a longer period of time). And it wasn’t losing at clay masters that made the difference. Fed either skipped or lost many other masters.
 
EloQuent said:
I do wish nolefam would stop picking around to find obscure stats for their guy. He's a great player! He doesn't need excuses.
Click to expand...

None of these greats need any excuses, or in some cases, artificial distinctions to prop them up. I do think that the first part of the OP was interesting, though.
But you must admit that the Fed Kool-Aid drinkers trot out many excuses for their hero - unbecoming of someone who has been that great. To name a few talking points off the top:

  • his mono (nobody else has ever been ill)
  • his back (nobody else has ever been injured on tour)
  • he played with a smaller racquet frame all those years (I guess he couldn't afford anything else)
  • he was so good that he advanced to finals on clay when Rafa wouldn't advance on other surfaces (wayyyy overstated)
  • he uses a one-hand backhand and Rafa had the nerve to hit explosive topspin cross-court (How dare he!)
  • they slowed the surfaces down (because, of course, they were out to punish, arguably, the most popular player in history)
 
GabeT said:
I was responding to posts about dominance. No one ever won as much as Nole in a short period (Fed won more over a longer period of time). And it wasn’t losing at clay masters that made the difference. Fed either skipped or lost many other masters.
Click to expand...
ok maybe I lost track of the thread. Novak's 6 masters in a year is a well earned record, no doubt.

Fed did skip masters and that's part of why his total is "only" 27, but in terms of dominance his eg 2006 season rivals or surpasses Novak's 2015 imo, when accounting for claydal. But this is entirely subjective so I guess I'll just leave it at agree to disagree
 
RaulRamirez said:
None of these greats need any excuses, or in some cases, artificial distinctions to prop them up. I do think that the first part of the OP was interesting, though.
But you must admit that the Fed Kool-Aid drinkers trot out many excuses for their hero - unbecoming of someone who has been that great. To name a few talking points off the top:

  • his mono (nobody else has ever been ill)
  • his back (nobody else has ever been injured on tour)
  • he played with a smaller racquet frame all those years (I guess he couldn't afford anything else)
  • he was so good that he advanced to finals on clay when Rafa wouldn't advance on other surfaces (wayyyy overstated)
  • he uses a one-hand backhand and Rafa had the nerve to hit explosive topspin cross-court (How dare he!)
  • they slowed the surfaces down (because, of course, they were out to punish, arguably, the most popular player in history)
Click to expand...
was gonna ignore this obvious troll but I'm bored so

  • mono - I mean, he did get mono, it's a medically documented thing. It's not an excuse for anything, but it does put his relatively weak 2008 in context and is a valid rebuttal to those who think Nadal is the better grass court player because of that one match.
  • he does have back issues. I'm not sure why this is relevant except perhaps to put an asterisk besides the H2H in 2013. He tends to just play through his injuries.
  • He did play with a smaller racket. I'm not aware of anyone who uses it as an excuse for anything.
  • He did in fact progress to the finals on clay more often than Nadal did on HC in their primes. This is why such a huge % of their matches were on clay, when it's a minor surface.
  • The ohbh/leftie topspin is an analysis of the match up. But as with rackets, who uses it as an excuse for anything?
  • Courts have in fact been slowed down. Are you denying this? I personally think the reason is because the tournaments think longer rallies makes for better TV.
 
GabeT said:
I see your point but winning 4 slams in a row in three different surfaces is most certainly not something that occurs every few years by chance. Nole remains the only player in tennis history to have done so.
Click to expand...
He didn't have to face Nadal in the FO final on his way to doing that though.

Nadal stopped Federer from having the CYGS twice. Wawrinka stopped Djokovic from doing it the one chance that he had. What Djokovic did was amazing, but stained by these facts.
 
True Fanerer said:
He didn't have to face Nadal in the FO final on his way to doing that though.

Nadal stopped Federer from having the CYGS twice. Wawrinka stopped Djokovic from doing it the one chance that he had. What Djokovic did was amazing, but stained by these facts.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t stained. At all. Let’s not open the weak era arguments otherwise we will start talking about who Fed beat to win all his slams in 2004-2007.

Players can only beat the guy in front of them. Weak era arguments are simply weak arguments.
 
GabeT said:
No, it wasn’t stained. At all. Let’s not open the weak era arguments otherwise we will start talking about who Fed beat to win all his slams in 2004-2007.

Players can only beat the guy in front of them. Weak era arguments are simply weak arguments.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention weak era. You did. I mentioned one match where Djokovic didn't face Nadal in a FO final.
 
S'in-net said:
Djokovic won consecutive slams, in 2018

Before that, the last player to win consecutive slams was...

Djokovic in 2015-16 (four in a row)...

Before that, the last player to win consecutive slams was...

Djokovic in 2011-12 (three in a row)

Nadal hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 24
Federer hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 27

Consecutive slams won is a good marker for an all round game, because of the switching of surfaces

1) Nadal is the only player, open era and pre-open era, who has won consecutive slams across Clay/Grass/Hardcourt. Treble switch across three different slams, with three different surfaces, winning them all

2) Djokovic-slam was a treble switch, across four slams (Laver's-slams were double switches)
3) Federer winning three in a row was a double switch, across three slams, with the caveat that he repeated it, in back-to-back years

1), 2) and 3), each individually, have not been repeated on the men's side, by any other players, any era else
Click to expand...
1) Is a double switch - 3 slams on 3 surfaces gives you 2 switches...
It was repeated by Nole's 4 in a row, by the very virtue of 4 being more the 3 in a row.

2) 4 in a row is only 2 surfaces switches, when it starts at Wimby.

3) Fed's 3 in row started at W, so only 1 surface switch.

I consider a "switch" whan you change the surface...

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 
GabeT said:
You argued that Nole’s wins were “stained” because of the quality of the players he faced. That’s a weak era argument.
Click to expand...
I only mentioned Wawrinka for namesake purposes. No one was beating Wawrinka that day except a healthy Nadal maybe because of the matchup. The point is Federer had two chances instead of one but was stopped by Nadal. That would have been his four in a row. Djokovic got his four in a row by not facing Nadal. I won't drag the name into it.
 
True Fanerer said:
I only mentioned Wawrinka for namesake purposes. No one was beating Wawrinka that day except a healthy Nadal maybe because of the matchup. The point is Federer had two chances instead of one but was stopped by Nadal. That would have been his four in a row. Djokovic got his four in a row by not facing Nadal. I won't drag the name into it.
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda. I’m just focusing on what actually happened, not what could have happened in an alternative reality. We have no way of knowing that.
 
GabeT said:
That’s a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda. I’m just focusing on what actually happened, not what could have happened in an alternative reality. We have no way of knowing that.
Click to expand...

Djokovic does not do well in hypothetical matches and loses to everyone. He is good only in real life matches.
 
GabeT said:
That’s a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda. I’m just focusing on what actually happened, not what could have happened in an alternative reality. We have no way of knowing that.
Click to expand...
Who else was going to beat Federer at RG back then besides Nadal? Also, who else was going to beat Djokovic at RG besides Nadal? Only an on fire Wawrinka who fell to Murray with Andy having the best claycourt match of his life.
 
True Fanerer said:
He didn't have to face Nadal in the FO final on his way to doing that though.

Nadal stopped Federer from having the CYGS twice. Wawrinka stopped Djokovic from doing it the one chance that he had. What Djokovic did was amazing, but stained by these facts.
Click to expand...

So what? He is only one of two men to even defeat Nadal at RG after all and only one of two to even push him to 5 sets at RG. The only reason Isner pushed him to 5 in the 1st round in 2011 was because of the new lighter balls favoring his heavy serving and Nadal not being accustomed to the conditions.

Djokovic was scheduled to play Nadal in the SF in 2016 before Nadal pulled out with injury and based on how the tournament progressed with the muddy, rainy and heavy conditions and the way Djokovic was playing, he would have been the favorite in that match. Djokovic won 28 Slam matches and 4 Slams in a row and beat everyone that stood in his way. That's all that matters.
 
NoleFam said:
beat everyone that stood in his way. That's all that matters.
Click to expand...
As long as that rule applies to Federer too then I will agree it's fair. Can't have double standards can we? Not saying that you do. Just curious where you stand on that since it goes both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex
True Fanerer said:
As long as that rule applies to Federer too then I will agree it's fair. Can't have double standards can we? Not saying that you do. Just curious where you stand on that since it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Didn't Federer beat everyone that stood in his way? Who is saying otherwise?
 
Nadal_Django said:
Wow, one Federer win in the last 20 meaningful matches between them. :eek: :D
The fact that the Federer fans have only this match as a some sort of an argument for the Federer BOATness over Djokovic makes me really sad:(.
Anyway it was big fluke, as history teach us afterwards.;)
Click to expand...
Streak Enderer
Dream Shatterer
Clayerer
Fingerer
Reminderer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Most consecutive sets won at Grand Slams
Replies
0
Views
1K
McEnroeisanartist
M
M
Realized how incredible Federer's 5 Consecutive Wins at 2 Slams was
Replies
6
Views
917
stringertom
stringertom
Djokodalerer31
Which achievement is more impressive in tennis?
Replies
3
Views
314
Spencer Gore
Spencer Gore
M
Is Federer’s 4 Consecutive Years of Winning at least 2 Grand Slams underrated?
Replies
48
Views
2K
CYGS
CYGS
M
Greater Career Achievement - Nadal 4 X 2 or Djokovic's 3 X 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
RaulRamirez
RaulRamirez
Back
Top