Winning consecutive Grand Slams...

NoleFam said:
Yea it was a great moment and somewhat similar to Federer/Sampras but more similar to when 19 year old Sampras upset Lendl in the QF at the 1990 USO and went on to win his 1st Slam title.
Click to expand...
More similar in that aspect yeah. The similarity to me with Pete is that Federer and Sampras were the two GOATS at the time and Federer started his real dominance three years later like Djokovic did.
 
True Fanerer said:
More similar in that aspect yeah. The similarity to me with Pete is that Federer and Sampras were the two GOATS at the time and Federer started his real dominance three years later like Djokovic did.
Click to expand...

I guess so but it's more similar to Sampras because Lendl was the dominant player at that time like Federer was, and Djokovic and Sampras both went on to win their first Slam at a pretty young age. They also didn't win another Slam until 3 years later.
 
With Novk back to his self the situation over the next 4-6 GS for the Big 3 in my opinion is this;

Nadl is injured and if all good he may soon be back. If not, I guess he will be doing "warm ups" in Jan 19. Fedr having Nadl and Novk does not stand a chance as it is most likely he will need to play both if they all get to SF or F levels. Fedr will be lucky if he can pass Thiem or Del Potro if they stay at this level over the next 12 to 18 months. In the meantime Fedr may retire, we do not know.

If I had to bet on the chances of the Big 3 winning the forthcoming GS, I'd bet on it in the following way;

AO 19 Novk
French 19 - Novk or Nadl depending on the draw ( I think it will be Novk-Thiem F)
Wim 19 - Novk
USO - Novk
AO 20 - Nadl
French 20 - Nadl or Novk depending on the draw

If Novk does win A019, F19 he will be getting to a point where his CNS and mental state would be frying. If he pulls off Wim19 Nadl will challenge him at USO19 and AO20 and French 20.
 
dr325i said:
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.
Click to expand...
Clasdic hyperbole to over-hype old Fed.
 
Last edited:
EloQuent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm anything but a troll, and while I don't expect you to read through all my posts and come to that determination, I enjoy discussing tennis without all of the partisanship and hourly referendums on GOAThood. Confession: Many of us can't resist swimming in thse murky, shark-infested waters.

I made the list off the top of my head, as I've heard those excuses quite a few times (supposedly) on behalf of Fed, just as Nadal has his excuse-makers, and Djokovic as well. Me? I like and admire all members of The Big 3 (though prefer both Rafa and Novak to Roger) and have posted ad nauseum that I think they're the three best to ever do it - with no slight intended to Laver, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sampras, etc. I also think that Fed, currently, has the best case for "GOAT", but that it's really close among the three. I have posted that I don't necessarily think that his resume is 5 or 6 years better than his greatest rivals. At the same time, his almost freakish longevity at the top is certainly to his credit and he should be praised for that.

Just as you've, apparently, never heard anyone use the smaller racquet or OHB argument to excuse Fed's h2h record, I've never heard anyone advocate that Rafa was a better grass court player than Fed - which would be a ludicrous claim. I will say that - despite Darcis/Brown/Rosol/Kyrgios/Muller - that Rafa was good enough on grass to make it to 5 finals in a 6-year period (and he sat out the other year), winning two and also pushing Fed to 5 in 2007.

I guess many of these threads illustrate how singleplayer-centric arguments really are weak, and often transparently so. I'd prefer to not make them, as I have too much respect for the players, the record and the truth.
 
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...


There is something to the consecutive slams stat, and I couldn't have told you off the top of my head (without looking it up) that Fed hasn't done it since 2009 and Rafa hasn't since 2010, and Djokovic has now had three such streaks starting in 2011. I'm not sure what it all means in the never-ending GOAT talks, but in and of itself, it's impressive. (I'm less taken by the surface switch stats)
 
so, for the open era, the number of slams won after winning the previous one would be (if i didn't miss anything):

7 federer (2004, 2005, 2006x2, 2007x2, 2009)
6 djokovic (2011, 2012, 2015, 2016x2, 2018)
4 sampras (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997)
3 laver (1969x3), borg (1978, 1979, 1980), nadal (2008, 2010x2)
2 mcenroe (1981, 1984), connors (1974, 1982), agassi (1995, 2000), wilander (1985, 1988)
1 rosewall (1971), becker (1989), courier (1992)
(feel free to correct it !)

i don't think it means that much (especially in the skipping-slam days)... but my main surprise is to see how lendl somehow managed to be kept off the list despite his impressive (and often underestimated, in my opinion) dominance on the tour ! :eek:
(blame it on the grass slams that screwed his potential streaks !)
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...
 
Last edited:
True Fanerer said:
IThe point is Federer had two chances instead of one but was stopped by Nadal. That would have been his four in a row.
Click to expand...

In Federer's two chances he was precisely + 1 in matches with Nadal, over that period; and + 1 in matches with Djokovic, but also lost twice to Nadal
For a grand total of 2 : 2 vs Nadal/Djokovic

In Nadal's three in a row he was precisely + 1 in matches with Djokovic, and 0/0 with Federer
For a grand total of + 1 vs Federer/Djokovic

In Djokovic's three in a row he was precisely + 3 in matches with Nadal, and he was + 1 in matches with Federer, but also lost once to Nadal
For a grand total of 4 : 1 vs Nadal/Federer

In Djokovic's four in a row he was precisely + 3 in matches with Federer, and 0/0 with Nadal
For a grand total of 3 : 0 vs Federer/Nadal

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...

We do know. What happened (in what turned out to be Djokovic's three in a row, was that he went 3/0 vs Nadal before Nadal pulled it back to 1/3, at the fourth attempt
 
NoleFam said:
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.
Click to expand...
Novak actually won 30 consecutive GS matches - absolute open era GS streak record. :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
S'in-net said:
Consecutive slams won is a good marker for an all round game, because of the switching of surfaces
Click to expand...

Guess what!? Sit down a put your learning cap on and listen to more tennis lore. You know what an even better marker is for an all around game? Ready!?

Winning 3/4 majors five times or more each.

Winning three slams in one year three different times.

Winning 20 slams.

Being ranked #1 at the age of 36.

But since Fed did all that and not Nole, these are all irrelevant stats in your world. :rolleyes:
 
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...

This poster was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, creating one thread after another with some stat that all, coincidentally, made Djokovic look good. He had disappeared for a long time...wonder why.
 
Only Fed and Nadal have won the channel slam since Borg. Probably the most coveted slam combo there is. That’s really remarkable.:)
 
mike danny said:
No. Not suggesting that. I'm just saying that losing to Nadal is more acceptable than losing to Stan because of their pedigree.
Click to expand...
Players can only beat the guy in front of them. If we start arguing that one player’s loss is more or less acceptable based on who they play we start another round of weak era arguments.
 
Incognito said:
Only Fed and Nadal have won the channel slam since Borg. Probably the most coveted slam combo there is. That’s really remarkable.:)
Click to expand...
There’s really no such thing as a coveted slam combo. If Nole had won RG and Wimbledon this year, instead of Wimbledon and the USO, no one would claim he had a better year.
 
Djokovic was the only one capable to win consecutive slams in 2011-18 strong big3 era.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Guess what!? Sit down a put your learning cap on and listen to more tennis lore. You know what an even better marker is for an all around game? Ready!?

Winning 3/4 majors five times or more each.

Winning three slams in one year three different times.

Winning 20 slams.

Being ranked #1 at the age of 36.

But since Fed did all that and not Nole, these are all irrelevant stats in your world. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You're completely right - Novak really never was ranked #1 at the age of 36.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
GabeT said:
Players can only beat the guy in front of them. If we start arguing that one player’s loss is more or less acceptable based on who they play we start another round of weak era arguments.
Click to expand...
I generally only say that when people start to say Fed is overrated and Novak's best is easily better than his. But that's only when idiotic debates ensue.

Overall, yeah, you can only play who is in front of you. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Lew said:
Djokovic was the only one capable to win consecutive slams in 2011-18 strong big3 era.
Click to expand...

So? Yet all he could manage was 1 major in the “weak” era. He never had multiple slam years prior to 2011.

Federer and Nadal managed to have multiple slam years prior to and post 2011. Which means they can have multiple slam years in all eras:D
 
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...
Agree on Rafa. Djoker’s runs of dominance have been pretty close. In so many ways he has been Fed’s successor it’s just that Fed refused to go away! That said, Djoker’s elbow/motivation swoon can’t be completely written off/excused and Fed clearly did a better job avoiding those dips during his dominance.
 
Incognito said:
So? Yet all he could manage was 1 major in the “weak” era. He never had multiple slam years prior to 2011.

Federer and Nadal managed to have multiple slam years prior to and post 2011. Which means they can have multiple slam years in all eras:D
Click to expand...
Djokovic was 19-23 in 2007-10 and he did quite good for his age.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Actually, I'm anything but a troll, and while I don't expect you to read through all my posts and come to that determination, I enjoy discussing tennis without all of the partisanship and hourly referendums on GOAThood. Confession: Many of us can't resist swimming in thse murky, shark-infested waters.

I made the list off the top of my head, as I've heard those excuses quite a few times (supposedly) on behalf of Fed, just as Nadal has his excuse-makers, and Djokovic as well. Me? I like and admire all members of The Big 3 (though prefer both Rafa and Novak to Roger) and have posted ad nauseum that I think they're the three best to ever do it - with no slight intended to Laver, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sampras, etc. I also think that Fed, currently, has the best case for "GOAT", but that it's really close among the three. I have posted that I don't necessarily think that his resume is 5 or 6 years better than his greatest rivals. At the same time, his almost freakish longevity at the top is certainly to his credit and he should be praised for that.

Just as you've, apparently, never heard anyone use the smaller racquet or OHB argument to excuse Fed's h2h record, I've never heard anyone advocate that Rafa was a better grass court player than Fed - which would be a ludicrous claim. I will say that - despite Darcis/Brown/Rosol/Kyrgios/Muller - that Rafa was good enough on grass to make it to 5 finals in a 6-year period (and he sat out the other year), winning two and also pushing Fed to 5 in 2007.

I guess many of these threads illustrate how singleplayer-centric arguments really are weak, and often transparently so. I'd prefer to not make them, as I have too much respect for the players, the record and the truth.
Click to expand...

It looks like I misjudged you.

The H2H is a lively debate, and I personally think that if you consider the timeline it's not meaningful. Other people just blame it on the matchup (the racket/ohbh) but point to the rest of their careers to show Fed is better. And of course VB think it means that Nadal is better.
 
EloQuent said:
It looks like I misjudged you.

The H2H is a lively debate, and I personally think that if you consider the timeline it's not meaningful. Other people just blame it on the matchup (the racket/ohbh) but point to the rest of their careers to show Fed is better. And of course VB think it means that Nadal is better.
Click to expand...

Me? I take my sports and other things seriously, although I'm mostly easygoing with a world-class sense of humor. I do try to only post ...everywhere...what I'd be willing to say in person. At times, my irreverence gets the best of me, but I try not to ever put others down. I do get impatient with the posts that seem as if people's self-esteem is dependent on their player winning, or being considered the best ever. I really try to get things right, and try not to give into tired talking points. Even if they appear to back my "side" because mostly, I want to be fair to all. I can be quite passionate, and I've also misjudged others in the process...

I never know how much importance to ascribe to H2H stats, although I don't think they should be completely overlooked. For the most famous one, for example, Rafa, even after Fed won their last 5 meetings, still has a sizable H2H advantage. But it never should be the primary argument in comparing the totality of careers. It is of some importance because they have met 38 times, often on the biggest stages, and they are two of the all-time greats.

You lost me at "VB" - who or what?
 
RaulRamirez said:
Me? I take my sports and other things seriously, although I'm mostly easygoing with a world-class sense of humor. I do try to only post ...everywhere...what I'd be willing to say in person. At times, my irreverence gets the best of me, but I try not to ever put others down. I do get impatient with the posts that seem as if people's self-esteem is dependent on their player winning, or being considered the best ever. I really try to get things right, and try not to give into tired talking points. Even if they appear to back my "side" because mostly, I want to be fair to all. I can be quite passionate, and I've also misjudged others in the process...

I never know how much importance to ascribe to H2H stats, although I don't think they should be completely overlooked. For the most famous one, for example, Rafa, even after Fed won their last 5 meetings, still has a sizable H2H advantage. But it never should be the primary argument in comparing the totality of careers. It is of some importance because they have met 38 times, often on the biggest stages, and they are two of the all-time greats.

You lost me at "VB" - who or what?
Click to expand...
That's due to playing Fed in 2013-early 2014, with Rafa not returning the favor in laye 2014 and 2015.
 
To be fair when Nadal was winning RG then Wimbledon like 2008 and 10, the surface speeds were much different to now. It was even more of an achievement if that had been done 10 years before that too.
Djokovic winning slams on different surfaces now isn't as big a deal, the court variables aren't super different as they have been in the past.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Guess what!? Sit down a put your learning cap on and listen to more tennis lore. You know what an even better marker is for an all around game? Ready!?

Winning 3/4 majors five times or more each.

Winning three slams in one year three different times.

Winning 20 slams.

Being ranked #1 at the age of 36.

But since Fed did all that and not Nole, these are all irrelevant stats in your world. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Federer's stubbornness isn't going anywhere, I see, as reflected by fans projecting tropes mirroring that stubborness

It's not hard to understand -- Federer hasn't won consecutive slams since he was 27. In the following twenty-six slams he failed to win two or more in a row, even though he was playing in all of them. Which happened to coincide with Djokovic excelling, in the 2010's decade, in this aspect. The only other player who won consecutive slams in this decade was Nadal, and that was at the start of the decade. This is not hard to understand if your agenda is not to derail the thread

Misdirecting away from a decade long stat doesn't cut the mustard. It means Djokovic was stronger in this decade, not Federer, with 13 slams to 5 against
 
RaulRamirez said:
Me? I take my sports and other things seriously, although I'm mostly easygoing with a world-class sense of humor. I do try to only post ...everywhere...what I'd be willing to say in person. At times, my irreverence gets the best of me, but I try not to ever put others down. I do get impatient with the posts that seem as if people's self-esteem is dependent on their player winning, or being considered the best ever. I really try to get things right, and try not to give into tired talking points. Even if they appear to back my "side" because mostly, I want to be fair to all. I can be quite passionate, and I've also misjudged others in the process...

I never know how much importance to ascribe to H2H stats, although I don't think they should be completely overlooked. For the most famous one, for example, Rafa, even after Fed won their last 5 meetings, still has a sizable H2H advantage. But it never should be the primary argument in comparing the totality of careers. It is of some importance because they have met 38 times, often on the biggest stages, and they are two of the all-time greats.

You lost me at "VB" - who or what?
Click to expand...
VB = v a m o s brigade (it's censored) aka Nadal fans.

Just a general H2H comment and then I'll leave it be: Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall played 201 times in 13 years. Gonzales and Kramer 140 times in five years. (The reason for this is that the pro tour in those days was basically the same small group playing against each other). Compared to that, these rivalries of 38-50 are nothing. Average fewer than 5 matches a year out of the 80 they play. And mostly not in either's prime.

Tennis today is about playing the field, you incidentally meet your rivals at random. I wish we had those kinds of rivalries today, with 20 matches a year spread throughout different surfaces evenly. But we don't.
 
EloQuent said:
220px-Eurosport_Studio_Australian_Open_2014_007.jpg
Click to expand...

Haha - sorry I should have specified that I meant out of Fedalovic
 
EloQuent said:
VB = v a m o s brigade (it's censored) aka Nadal fans.

Just a general H2H comment and then I'll leave it be: Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall played 201 times in 13 years. Gonzales and Kramer 140 times in five years. (The reason for this is that the pro tour in those days was basically the same small group playing against each other). Compared to that, these rivalries of 38-50 are nothing. Average fewer than 5 matches a year out of the 80 they play. And mostly not in either's prime.

Tennis today is about playing the field, you incidentally meet your rivals at random. I wish we had those kinds of rivalries today, with 20 matches a year spread throughout different surfaces evenly. But we don't.
Click to expand...

Got you on "VB"; I knew it was a compliment.

I know a little bit about the early, barnstorming days of the pro tour, and sure, Roger/Rafa haven't played H2H 100 or 200 times. Compared to other rivalries in the Modern Era, though, the 3 match-ups of The Big 3 are the most-played rivalries of this era: Rafa-Novak (52 times), Novak-Fed (46 times) and Roger/Rafa (38 times). And since they have often played at majors and/or in finals, they've played many significant matches versus one another. So, to be fair, these are more than just a few random matches.

As far as "prime", there are too many self-serving (or argument-serving) ways to define it. Bottom line: The record is the record, and H2H is part of the overall picture. It shouldn't be dismissed on the one hand, or held up as they key on the other.
 
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
1K
stringertom
stringertom
Djokodalerer31
Which achievement is more impressive in tennis?
Replies
3
Views
457
Spencer Gore
Spencer Gore
M
Is Federer’s 4 Consecutive Years of Winning at least 2 Grand Slams underrated?
Replies
48
Views
3K
CYGS
CYGS
M
Greater Career Achievement - Nadal 4 X 2 or Djokovic's 3 X 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
RaulRamirez
RaulRamirez
Back
Top