Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS. - MensTennisForums.com

 15Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:10 AM Thread Starter
Banned!
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 56
                     
Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Let's say Djokovic wins RG this year; this means that from end of June of last year to beginning of June of this year, Djokovic would have won 4 slams in a row. This is approximately 11 months of the year.

A CYGS however, lasts from mid-January to mid-September of that same year. This is approximately 8 months of the year.

It can be argued that to maintain one's slam winning form over a longer period of time is tougher, which would make the Djoker slam the ultimate accomplishment in tennis.
ObjectiveAnalyst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:22 AM
Banned!
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,034
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Non-calendar Grand Slam is easier to win, as you have off-season.
DinnerWarrior likes this.
nadalfan2007 is offline  
post #3 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:25 AM
Low Bouncing Clay Courts
 
zjtennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 16,392
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Days Grace View Post
Non-calendar Grand Slam is easier to win, as you have off-season.
Then again off-season is practically around 6 weeks or so, kinda like if Djokovic didn't play from AO to say IW.



--------------------------------------------------


zjtennis is offline  
post #4 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:34 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 331
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

It's also easier in the sense that it can start at any slam. To win CYGS, you need to win the Australian Open at the beginning of the year and finish with the US Open in early September. Theoretically, you can win 6 consecutive slams (starting with French Open in one year and finishing with Wimbledon the next year), and not get CYGS. So a non CYGS gives more flexibility in when your peak run starts and ends.
bjurra likes this.
patriotsfan1 is offline  
post #5 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:35 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 608
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

NCYGS is simpler to achieve mainly because of one reason: you have three opportunities to achieve it (from RG to AO, from Wim to RG, and from UO to Wim), while there is only one opportunity for CYGS. Whether one of these four possibilities is somewhat easier individually than the other three doesn't matter compared to this factor of 3:1.
blackwell and Slaughter_Nick like this.
Martin12 is offline  
post #6 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:45 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 331
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin12 View Post
NCYGS is simpler to achieve mainly because of one reason: you have three opportunities to achieve it (from RG to AO, from Wim to RG, and from UO to Wim), while there is only one opportunity for CYGS. Whether one of these four possibilities is somewhat easier individually than the other three doesn't matter compared to this factor of 3:1.
I don't think there is a significant difference in any of these possibilities. The only way one of them might possibly be easier is if the Australian Open was a player's toughest slam. Because it's the first tournament of the year, you could spend the whole offseason mentally preparing and training for it. The other slams all have Masters 1000's and notable 500's tournaments before them, so you can't exclusively focus only on the upcoming slam.
patriotsfan1 is offline  
post #7 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:46 AM Thread Starter
Banned!
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 56
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin12 View Post
NCYGS is simpler to achieve mainly because of one reason: you have three opportunities to achieve it (from RG to AO, from Wim to RG, and from UO to Wim), while there is only one opportunity for CYGS. Whether one of these four possibilities is somewhat easier individually than the other three doesn't matter compared to this factor of 3:1.
There's only one opportunity to win it across 11 months. All other versions are less than 11 months.
ObjectiveAnalyst is offline  
post #8 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:53 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 331
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst View Post
There's only one opportunity to win it across 11 months. All other versions are less than 11 months.
But I don't think the time is a factor. For a player capable of winning multiple slams, fatigue isn't really an issue. The possibility of injury can happen anytime, anywhere. I don't see a big difference in maintaining elite form for 8 months vs 11 months. The best players would cut down on their schedule if it was a severe issue.
patriotsfan1 is offline  
post #9 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 10:57 AM
Registered User
 
TCameron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Age: 20
Posts: 87
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

NCYGS is easier than CYGS in my opinion, simply because there would be more pressure on at the US Open to win the CYGS than there is now for Djokovic to win the NCYGS at the French
TCameron is offline  
post #10 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 11:10 AM
Reformed ex-troll
 
acacacacademy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Age: 26
Posts: 8,711
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

The NCYGS starting at Wimbledon is not more difficult. That sequence of wins does not include the Channel Slam, which is what stumped Federer's CYGS campaigns in all of his three-slam seasons. Only four players have managed to win the Channel Slam in the Open Era, and only one of those got the CYGS. Winning four in a row is obviously a landmark achievement regardless of which slam is first in the sequence, but it is more impressive if all four wins are contained within one season.
acacacacademy is offline  
post #11 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 11:12 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,430
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Analyst my ass.

You should change your nickname to ObjectiveRambler.
bjurra is offline  
post #12 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 11:47 AM
Registered User
 
Kyrgyros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Age: 21
Posts: 3,819
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Who cares? CYGS is so valuable because you have to win it all in 4 year with the pressure piling with the each slam, look at Serena last year. When you compare seasons of players you compare them in 1 calendar year, not from March in 1 year to March in next year.

Nick Kyrgios is the unbiased city reviewer. If your city has enough pokemons, you won't see him past the 3rd round, if he makes it further, your city is a complete shithole.
Kyrgyros is offline  
post #13 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 03:39 PM
Registered User
 
monfed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: weak era
Age: 30
Posts: 6,287
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

A "NCYGS" is a made up term. It's not an actual achievement like the Grand Slam. Back in Laver's time, there was no concept of winning "slams", it was either you won a grand slam(referred to CYGS now) or you won majors. A CYGS makes sense because we measure a player's performance from Jan to Dec.

To OP's point, a CYGS is difficult to achieve because a lot of things have to click/fall in place. I believe it has more to do with luck/fate than your actual tennis skills. One slipup and you're gone and you may only get one shot at it since you have a peak window.
Had Fed not have to deal with Nadal, a phenom on clay and a horrible matchup to boot, he would've won the CYGS in 2006.
It would've been fitting the most talented and graceful player ever taking over from the great Rod Laver.

Member of the "Federer to win everything in 2016 2017" club.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monfed View Post
If Paes made the RG final, he would legit beat DJ in straights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
Paes looks like he couldn't beat McDonalds and you're saying he would school a guy who refused to eat pizza to take his game to the next level


https://twitter.com/monfed74

Last edited by monfed; 02-27-2016 at 03:42 PM.
monfed is offline  
post #14 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 03:55 PM Thread Starter
Banned!
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 56
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

People on this site have a consistent issue with logic and common sense.
ObjectiveAnalyst is offline  
post #15 of 32 (permalink) Old 02-27-2016, 03:56 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Age: 22
Posts: 292
                     
Re: Non-calendar Grand Slam is in one way more difficult than CYGS.

Apart from strictly not being more difficult due to having four times the amount of possible starting points, it kind of misses the point because it's not exactly a round record. Winning exactly all 5 of W14, AO15, W15, USO15, AO16, when isolated, is harder than winning the CYGS on a specific yaer because it requires 1 more slam. Yet nobody talks about it because it's not a round record.

Goes to show that "arbitrarily chosen" records like the CYGS should have no special relevance for the record itself. In the bigger picture, winning 4 grand slams in two or more separate years should be considered an equal feat to winning 4 grand slams in the same year. All 8 of these slams hold the same value.

Last edited by Harmaoder; 02-27-2016 at 03:59 PM.
Harmaoder is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome