It was last week or so, and Federer was doing an interview, talking about Djoker trying to match Laver, holding all 4 majors at the same time.
And Roger basically said he thought it was MORE impressive doing it NCYGS, in reference to Djokovic. He said something like:
"Anybody can get hot for 6 months, 9 months, and win all 4. But to be consistently dominant for 12 months? That is tougher. Rafa had a chance, I had 2 chances, it is very tough."
Something like that he said. So the question, which is more impressive?
Also, what was Roger's motive for saying this? Trying to downgrade Laver's achievements? Trying to put more pressure on Djokovic? A little bit of both?
Well no one has been that hot for 9 months since Laver, so I'm not sure what to make of Rogi's comments there. However a NCYGS is also quite impressive as Roger suggests because it basically means you've been the dominant player for a longer period than just the 9 months required to win a CYGS. I don't think there's a huge difference to be honest. Depending on how you look at it, both are incredibly impressive. Let's not forget there's hardly any break between WTF and the January swing, especially for those with DC commitments...which just adds more weight to Roger's argument... There's no easy answer.