Has the Career Slam been cheapened? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Has the Career Slam been cheapened?

green25814
05-27-2011, 01:50 AM
With the slam surfaces slowly but surely becoming homogenized, has it cheapened the career grand slam acheivement?

Simple question really.

Roddickominator
05-27-2011, 01:56 AM
Quite obviously. Though winning a Slam at all is a great achievement...especially 4 of them. But it's not as impressive anymore seeing as the surfaces are less different, therefore you need less of a diverse skill set to win them all.

Johnny Groove
05-27-2011, 01:58 AM
Because the career slam has occured so many times :rolleyes:

Here is a list:

Budge
Laver
Agassi
Federer
Nadal

Only time will tell. If in 30 years still just these 5 have achieved it, no way has it been cheapened.

Arakasi
05-27-2011, 01:59 AM
Yes.

SerialKillerToBe
05-27-2011, 02:07 AM
If anything, it was easier to get it in the 60s because everything was played on grass and clay.

green25814
05-27-2011, 02:10 AM
Because the career slam has occured so many times :rolleyes:

Here is a list:

Budge
Laver
Agassi
Federer
Nadal

Only time will tell. If in 30 years still just these 5 have achieved it, no way has it been cheapened.

Yeah, but things have definitely changed. In the 80s and 90s Sampras or JMac would be in the form of their lives but you'd still KNOW they'd struggle at RG, similar for the claycourters etc. These days it feels like the top player in the best form throughout the year will be enough to acheive it. Its more down to form than changing your style to fit the surface, which is what the challenge used to be.

Its still a great acheivement obviously, winning any slam is a great acheivement.

Sunset of Age
05-27-2011, 02:10 AM
Because the career slam has occured so many times :rolleyes:

Here is a list:

Budge
Laver
Agassi
Federer
Nadal

Only time will tell. If in 30 years still just these 5 have achieved it, no way has it been cheapened.

Uhm, sorry Jon, but your reasoning is flawed.
It took decades since Laver managed to do so, then suddenly Agassi managed to do it - and guess what, within yet that same decade (or pretty much near to it), TWO players managed to do it as well.
How convenient that all of that happened within (or near to) that same decade wherein the fast courts have been slowed down, as well as the slow courts have been speeded up.

So yep, it HAS been cheapened. Unless one indeed believes in 'coincidences'. I don't (for this particular matter).

Orka_n
05-27-2011, 02:11 AM
That would be a yes.

NoFroz
05-27-2011, 02:23 AM
Somehow it has but think about this:

McEnroe won both Wimbledon and USO, reached the final of RG once and didn't win AO, arguably, because he played it only twice during his prime.
Edberg: Won all but RG, where he reached the finals.
Lendl: Won all but Wimbledon, where he got to the finals twice.
Santana & Trabert: Never played AO, only one they didn't win

Nowadays the season structure (not only the homogenization of surfaces) makes more possible the ocurrence of the GS, Australian Open is played by all players not like before. Plus a player like Nadal who won his most difficult slam (USO and secondly AO) in his only chance -if he retired today- isn't that different from Lendl, Edberg or McEnroe who could have the honor if they'd won that elusive slam final :shrug:

Say Hey Kid
05-27-2011, 02:35 AM
It has to a certain degree, but still an unbelievably amazing feat.

Sunset of Age
05-27-2011, 02:38 AM
It has to a certain degree, but still an unbelievably amazing feat.

Of course! :)

guga2120
05-27-2011, 02:42 AM
Agassi was the most impressive b/c winning all in the 90's on 4 different surfaces.

Nathaliia
05-27-2011, 02:46 AM
There's something into it. I don't say Federer and Nadal don't deserve their slams, but I remember when Agassi was winning his, it was a sensation. You had different names being a threat on different surfaces, now you have them all the same.
Something surely changed and I don't think if for the good.

Silvester
05-27-2011, 02:47 AM
Uhm, sorry Jon, but your reasoning is flawed.
It took decades since Laver managed to do so, then suddenly Agassi managed to do it - and guess what, within yet that same decade (or pretty much near to it), TWO players managed to do it as well.
How convenient that all of that happened within (or near to) that same decade wherein the fast courts have been slowed down, as well as the slow courts have been speeded up.

So yep, it HAS been cheapened. Unless one indeed believes in 'coincidences'. I don't (for this particular matter).


understand your logic, however one could also argue that those 3 players are the GOAT, Nadal & Agassi, both players that are pretty high on the all time greats list.

oranges
05-27-2011, 02:53 AM
understand your logic, however one could also argue that those 3 players are the GOAT, Nadal & Agassi, both players that are pretty high on the all time greats list.

Such an argument doesn't really hold water because pretty much everyone is making same or similar rounds everywhere, not just those 'GOATs'. It's clearly easier to perform at similar level in different slams than it used to be.

It has to a certain degree, but still an unbelievably amazing feat.

Pretty much sumps it up.

Sunset of Age
05-27-2011, 02:55 AM
understand your logic, however one could also argue that those 3 players are the GOAT, Nadal & Agassi, both players that are pretty high on the all time greats list.

I won't argue against that at all, as you know! ;)
(uhm... Agassi... not sure about that, as it's common knowledge that he didn't achieve his feats on merely a gluten-free diet, so as to say. :angel:)

Snowwy
05-27-2011, 02:56 AM
Uhm, sorry Jon, but your reasoning is flawed.
It took decades since Laver managed to do so, then suddenly Agassi managed to do it - and guess what, within yet that same decade (or pretty much near to it), TWO players managed to do it as well.
How convenient that all of that happened within (or near to) that same decade wherein the fast courts have been slowed down, as well as the slow courts have been speeded up.

So yep, it HAS been cheapened. Unless one indeed believes in 'coincidences'. I don't (for this particular matter).

Agassi won his first in 1992, Nadal won his last in 2010, not the same decade.

Snowwy
05-27-2011, 02:57 AM
I won't argue against that at all, as you know! ;)
(uhm... Agassi... not sure about that, as it's common knowledge that he didn't achieve his feats on merely a gluten-free diet, so as to say. :angel:)

If you are going to imply steroid use, then have the guts to say it straight up, if you are talking about his other drug use, google the drugs he used and you will learn that they did not help him.

Sunset of Age
05-27-2011, 02:59 AM
Agassi won his first in 1992, Nadal won his last in 2010, not the same decade.

That's why I said 'near to' - only a 12-years gap, much larger than between Agassi's and Laver's achievement, which is over three decades.

Topspindoctor
05-27-2011, 02:59 AM
Yeah, it doesn't mean anything now that Nadal has won it. It was much easier to win when there were only 2 surfaces and a tour full of tennis juggernauts who didn't even break 180cm height barrier.

Ibracadabra
05-27-2011, 02:59 AM
This is the reason i rate agassi above kneedull

Snowwy
05-27-2011, 03:00 AM
That's why I said 'near to' - only a 12-years gap, much larger than between Agassi's and Laver's achievement, which is over three decades.

What if more top players played the Australian Open, would there be more 12 year gaps and less 25 year gaps? Most likely.

Sunset of Age
05-27-2011, 03:02 AM
What if more top players played the Australian Open, would there be more 12 year gaps and less 25 year gaps? Most likely.

Perhaps, we don't know. ifs buts woulds and coulds don't count.
Anyways, it's just my opinion.

Topspindoctor
05-27-2011, 03:06 AM
This is the reason i rate agassi above kneedull

Who the hell cares what who you rate above Nadal? You're just another internet forum loser, who has nothing but blind hate for Nadal :shrug:

abraxas21
05-27-2011, 03:20 AM
yes.

eduggs
05-27-2011, 03:32 AM
Yeah, but things have definitely changed. In the 80s and 90s Sampras or JMac would be in the form of their lives but you'd still KNOW they'd struggle at RG, similar for the claycourters etc. These days it feels like the top player in the best form throughout the year will be enough to acheive it. Its more down to form than changing your style to fit the surface, which is what the challenge used to be.

Its still a great acheivement obviously, winning any slam is a great acheivement.

I agree with this.

But one side point. Because there were far fewer televised matches back in those days (whereas today almost every match is streamed online), I think there is an impression that the top guys just steamrolled their way through most tournaments. I think old highlight reels contribute to this impression. But the truth is that guys like Sampras struggled through a lot of difficult early round matches, that almost nobody remembers. On the other hand, we watch every match played by today's players and over analyze each one to make conclusions about form, mental strength, and ability. So while I think it's very difficult to judge a player's "form" match to match today, it's almost impossible to make these assessments about players from previous decades.

guga2120
05-27-2011, 03:34 AM
I won't argue against that at all, as you know! ;)
(uhm... Agassi... not sure about that, as it's common knowledge that he didn't achieve his feats on merely a gluten-free diet, so as to say. :angel:)

The drugs Andre, did were not exactly performance enhancing, to say the least.

Roddickominator
05-27-2011, 03:35 AM
Who the hell cares what who you rate above Nadal? You're just another internet forum loser, who has nothing but blind hate for Nadal :shrug:

:lol: struck a nerve, did he?

Once the Nadal gloryhunter bandwagon finishes emptying, and all of the ridiculous hyperbolic analysis of Nadal has ceased, you'll see a bunch of people questioning various things about Nadal. Get used to that opinion and others like it around here.

2003
05-27-2011, 03:36 AM
Cheapened is the wrong word, but there are several factors that make the feat more attainable than in the past, though I dont know if it's "easier" per say.

The biggest one is actually the fact that most players didnt bother going to the AO in the old days. Nowadays, a slam is a slam, but back then, it was all about Wimbledon. Then the FO and USO. AO was like the WTF, not even.

Coincidingly, the "career grand slam" wasnt a factor. It wasnt something players strived for on their resume.

In short, the career grand slam is something that was made up by the Americans to bolster the resume of players like Aggassi.


You could say its easier now with the slower surfaces, but thats one dimensional.

I mean, back those days, if you were 5 foot 7, you could win a career grand slam.

Nowdays? Not a shit show in hell unless your at least 6'1. Heading forward anyway. Back in the old days, any one of any stature could play tennis and excel on some stage. Nowdays, if your under 5'8 and 80kgs, A David Ferrer type player is the absolute best you could hope to be.

Being a slam winner nowadays requires a very specific profile the way the game is played, a profile that is genetically beyond most of us, sadly my self included. Its a shame because ive never wanted to be so good, and sucked so much at a sport, as I do tennis.

abraxas21
05-27-2011, 03:37 AM
:lol: struck a nerve, did he?

Once the Nadal gloryhunter bandwagon finishes emptying, and all of the ridiculous hyperbolic analysis of Nadal has ceased, you'll see a bunch of people questioning various things about Nadal. Get used to that opinion and others like it around here.

i for one question a lot of things about nadal, some of which could get me banned -as they have in the past, i might add.

Snowwy
05-27-2011, 03:38 AM
Perhaps, we don't know. ifs buts woulds and coulds don't count.
Anyways, it's just my opinion.

Why don't they count? They are 100% valid to any real discussion. If you are just having this discussion to bash Nadal or Federer than I can see why you wouldn't want to think about things like this but otherwise you have to consider that the top players didn't play there when wondering why there was such a big gap.

guga2120
05-27-2011, 03:39 AM
Once the Nadal gloryhunter bandwagon finishes emptying, and all of the ridiculous hyperbolic analysis of Nadal has ceased, you'll see a bunch of people questioning various things about Nadal. Get used to that opinion and others like it around here.

:lol:

2003
05-27-2011, 03:40 AM
The drugs Andre, did were not exactly performance enhancing, to say the least.

Recreational drugs can be. I have done MDMA myself, and it gave me an incredible endurance boost at times. Residual effects can make you more coherant. I know he spoke of doing Meth, but still, it can have some beneficial effects.

But thats not really the point.

He cheated. It doesnt matter if it enhanced him or not.

He broke the rules. The rules of tennis prohibit recreational drugs being in your system. Therefore his feats are as suspect as if he had done steroids or match fixed.

Its as simple as that.

Topspindoctor
05-27-2011, 03:42 AM
:lol: struck a nerve, did he?

Once the Nadal gloryhunter bandwagon finishes emptying, and all of the ridiculous hyperbolic analysis of Nadal has ceased, you'll see a bunch of people questioning various things about Nadal. Get used to that opinion and others like it around here.

So says the fan of Rodmug. :rolleyes: The guy who was supposed to be the future of American tennis and all he achieved was being Olderer's biggest bitch :lol: Couldn't even beat Declinerer at Wimby 2009. lol.

Roddickominator
05-27-2011, 03:43 AM
Recreational drugs can be. I have done MDMA myself, and it gave me an incredible endurance boost at times. Residual effects can make you more coherant. I know he spoke of doing Meth, but still, it can have some beneficial effects.

But thats not really the point.

He cheated. It doesnt matter if it enhanced him or not.

He broke the rules. The rules of tennis prohibit recreational drugs being in your system. Therefore his feats are as suspect as if he had done steroids or match fixed.

Its as simple as that.

He broke the rules, no doubt. But "cheating" implies that he did something illegal to gain an advantage. He surely wasn't using meth for that reason....it's pretty obvious that it was terrible for his game seeing his ranking drop like that during that time. Not comparable to match fixing or steroids.

guga2120
05-27-2011, 03:44 AM
He broke the rules. The rules of tennis prohibit recreational drugs being in your system. Therefore his feats are as suspect as if he had done steroids or match fixed.



No they are not. What he did cost him a few years of prime tennis and hurt his performance very much. The fact that he started hanging out Hollywood actors and partying for a year does not take away from the fact that he won Wimbldedon in 92, and Roland Garros in 1999. He did one with pure skill, and one with hard work.

SerialKillerToBe
05-27-2011, 03:45 AM
Yeah, it doesn't mean anything now that Nadal has won it. It was much easier to win when there were only 2 surfaces and a tour full of tennis juggernauts who didn't even break 180cm height barrier.

Agree. Players are more athletic. Try to win a slam when you're 34 these days and you'll get laughed out of the courts.

Roddickominator
05-27-2011, 03:47 AM
So says the fan of Rodmug. :rolleyes: The guy who was supposed to be the future of American tennis and all he achieved was being Olderer's biggest bitch :lol: Couldn't even beat Declinerer at Wimby 2009. lol.

My post really caused this upset off-topic reaction from you?:lol: I was only giving friendly advice, get used to reality now that the high of your hero's days of glory is finished.

I'm sure your response has some relevance on some thread somewhere on this forum, but this isn't that thread.

rocketassist
05-27-2011, 03:49 AM
Agree. Players are more athletic. Try to win a slam when you're 34 these days and you'll get laughed out of the courts.

Agassi won slams at 34 due to tennis ability, whereas now whoever's the fastest at running down balls wins the slams.

guga2120
05-27-2011, 03:49 AM
My post really caused this upset reaction from you?:lol: I was only giving friendly advice, get used to reality now that the high of your hero's days of glory is finished.



Yeah he is sucking right now, but people were saying the same thing in 2009 when he got hurt, and then look what he did 2010. Rafa, is far from done, he just needs a long break.

SerialKillerToBe
05-27-2011, 04:45 AM
Agassi won slams at 34 due to tennis ability, whereas now whoever's the fastest at running down balls wins the slams.

Yeah, I guess we should switch to 3 set grand slams then. :dog:

Pirata.
05-27-2011, 05:54 AM
Yeah, it doesn't mean anything now that Nadal has won it. It was much easier to win when there were only 2 surfaces and a tour full of tennis juggernauts who didn't even break 180cm height barrier.

You do realize that Federer only won his in 2009 so it would include him as well?

Nadull_tard
05-27-2011, 06:53 AM
Maybe there were 2 surfaces in the past, but won we have a single one for all slams. It's called surface founded for Nadal and other moonballers.

Mechlan
05-27-2011, 07:55 AM
It's not the same achievement it used to be for sure.

romismak
05-27-2011, 01:28 PM
It is obvious that today to accomplishe a career slam is much easier - we have now 2 players that achieve that in year and a half after the other - 2009 RG Federer acommplished that and 2010 US open Nadal won his last GS. So in 1year and half 2 great players achieve something that only Agassi did before in 1999 and before Laver many many years ago. But most important thing why it is not so superhard to achieve today is homogenezation of surfaces - we have slow Wimbledon, fast RG, and US, AO are pretty similar HC surfaces right now - US still faster but it is not so huge difference in speed of the courts anymore. Also in 60s, 70s and before Open era career slam was not important for players, they don´t even play AO - or many of top guys don´t play there and we had 3 grass and 1 clay slams - so it wasn´t so special either. So hardest years for career slam - were 80s - 90´s - early 2000s - when it was VERY DIFFERENT - every slam - surfaces were from true slowest clay RG to really fast HC surface at US open and really fast Wimbledon - with low bounce and pretty slow HC with high bounce in Australia. 4 totally different surfaces - different styles for winning matches there. Since 1978 US open has Decoturf and since 1988 AO had Rebound ace until 2007 - so in period of 88 to 2001 i think it was the most difficult to win all 4 slams. In 2001 Wimbledon slowed down grass, US open was also slowed down and RG is faster too and AO switched surfaces to similar one to US open. Many great players in history didn´t win RG - Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Sampras - Roger also had tough time to do it - clay was too slow with too much rallies for great players with serve and volley skills, Connors won on clay Us open but not in Paris. Then Wimbledon was too fast for baseline players like - Lendl,Wilander. Borg never won US open. So there was always for great players difficulty to beat other great players on their weaker surface. Nowadays they play all from baseline no matter what tournament they play.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-27-2011, 01:44 PM
agassi's achievement stands alone

to win on super slow clay against strong clay opposition and real grass against the 90s power serve brigade

and then to win the AO and the US OPEN during sampras's era

i mean... i wouldn't compare nadal's joke of a draw to win the US OPEN against Agassi's win.

SerialKillerToBe
05-27-2011, 01:49 PM
:stupid: Grass and clay were completely different back then. You couldn't win Wimbledon without proper volleying skills, and now look at last year's final...

That's more a result of racket technology.

chenx15
05-27-2011, 01:49 PM
agree. nadal winning wimbledon just gets to show you how things are changing

romismak
05-27-2011, 01:52 PM
agassi's achievement stands alone

to win on super slow clay against strong clay opposition and real grass against the 90s power serve brigade

and then to win the AO and the US OPEN during sampras's era

i mean... i wouldn't compare nadal's joke of a draw to win the US OPEN against Agassi's win.

This, What Agassi did is much higher than RAfa, Roger or Laver in old days - Rafa, Roger did it on homogenized surfaces and Laver did when 3/4 where grass and also for me won all 4 in period of many years is higher than did in in 1 year - in 1 year it can mean you have super form but in many years mean you work hard and it is not only about form

LawrenceOfTennis
05-27-2011, 01:52 PM
It has cheapened. The fact that Nadal won Wimbledon twice, indicates that grass slowed down dramatically and same with USO. Back in the days that was a wonder that the fast court specialist Edberg reached FO final.Now it seems like Djokovic is on his way to make it to the final of the FO this year. I'd prefer tennis with more variation, more options when we predict winner at a slam.

ballbasher101
05-27-2011, 01:56 PM
The answer is yes and no. Courts are slower so u don't get grass specialists at Wimbledon. There are also no clay court specialists. On the other hand players can play well on every surface so it is not easy to continue dominating for long periods.

SerialKillerToBe
05-27-2011, 01:57 PM
It has cheapened. The fact that Nadal won Wimbledon twice, indicates that grass slowed down dramatically and same with USO. Back in the days that was a wonder that the fast court specialist Edberg reached FO final.Now it seems like Djokovic is on his way to make it to the final of the FO this year. I'd prefer tennis with more variation, more options when we predict winner at a slam.

Why can some people not accept Djokovic as a claycourter? I mean he has the right game for it.

LawrenceOfTennis
05-27-2011, 02:00 PM
Why can some people not accept Djokovic as a claycourter? I mean he has the right game for it.

I'm not saying he's a bad clay courter. But he's not a specialist the way Muster or Nadal. For me tennis with specialists would be better than this homogenized field.

sexybeast
05-27-2011, 02:01 PM
Grass has become slower, I cant find faults on other surfaces.

Tennis is dominated by europeans and not americans, this makes a huge differense because this means the world nr1-3 all grew up playing on clay.

The 90s is the only decade that lacked an alltime great who could dominate on clay, ofcourse that leaved alot of room for specialist to conquer the vacuum left by serve and volleyers and americans who didnt care about clay.

If Roland Garros was made even slower Nadal would still dominate and Federer/Djokovic would still be the 2 greatest claycourters behind Nadal.

LawrenceOfTennis
05-27-2011, 02:02 PM
Grass has become slower, I cant find faults on other surfaces.

Tennis is dominated by europeans and not americans, this makes a huge differense because this means the world nr1-3 all grew up playing on clay.

The 90s is the only decade that lacked an alltime great who could dominate on clay, ofcourse that leaved alot of room for specialist to conquer the vacuum left by serve and volleyers and americans who didnt care about clay.

Agassi has always been a great clay courter altough he grew up playing on hard courts.

sexybeast
05-27-2011, 02:05 PM
Agassi has always been a great clay courter altough he grew up playing on hard courts.

Agassi was a good claycourter, but he never dominated claycourt season like Nadal/Federer/Djokovic has been doing. He didnt care much about clay, he played less claycourt tournaments than even Sampras!

MaxPower
05-27-2011, 02:15 PM
Tennis went on life support when a player like Nadal won Wimbledon. Supposed to be a freaking grass tournament where moonballing baseliners aren't supposed to win.

Truth is entire tour benefits skilled clay players when they changed grass and many hc courts to slower and more high bouncing. Why do ppl think we see so many Spanish players in the top30?

In fact it likely became harder to win a career grand slam because taking the RG needed something spectacular to get past the lord of moonballs/claygoat or whatever. Federer could easily have gone his entire career without the RG win....

BUT IF YOU DO WIN RG then you are excellent on clay which means excellent on all other slow surfaces so you will likely be world nr1 and complete the career grand slam. As we have seen with Nadul.

Federer, the current GOAT, could have gone his entire career without ever winning RG. That is a bit shocking in a thread where ppl say it's easy to complete the career GS now :)

Byrd
05-27-2011, 02:16 PM
It cheapeaned as soon as Nadal won it.

romismak
05-27-2011, 02:21 PM
Tennis went on life support when a player like Nadal won Wimbledon. Supposed to be a freaking grass tournament where moonballing baseliners aren't supposed to win.

Truth is entire tour benefits skilled clay players when they changed grass and many hc courts to slower and more high bouncing. Why do ppl think we see so many Spanish players in the top30?

In fact it likely became harder to win a career grand slam because taking the RG needed something spectacular to get past the lord of moonballs/claygoat or whatever. Federer could easily have gone his entire career without the RG win....

BUT IF YOU DO WIN RG then you are excellent on clay which means excellent on all other slow surfaces so you will likely be world nr1 and complete the career grand slam. As we have seen with Nadul.

Federer, the current GOAT, could have gone his entire career without ever winning RG. That is a bit shocking in a thread where ppl say it's easy to complete the career GS now :)

Yes he could have career without winning RG, but he won. But that doesn´t mean anything. Federer as GOAT not winning RG is because of Nadal, it has nothing to do with difficulty of achieving career slam. It is definetely easier now, than it was in 90s and only difficulty always in PAris was Nadal for Federer. So i can say without Nadal Roger could have multiple tittles from Paris and will make it even look so much easier than it already is.

ossie
05-27-2011, 02:59 PM
if anything it has only become more difficult, you actually have to win it on 3 different surfaces now and combine that with e strongest era in tennis and you get one of the most difficult challenges in sports. thats why rafas 2008 channel slam was such an amazing achievement.

rocketassist
05-27-2011, 03:00 PM
if anything it has only become more difficult, you actually have to win it on 3 different surfaces now and combine that with e strongest era in tennis and you get one of the most difficult challenges in sports. thats why rafas 2008 channel slam was such an amazing achievement.

You had to in the 90s and this isn't the strongest era in tennis so stop trolling.

BK123
05-27-2011, 03:00 PM
I'm not saying he's a bad clay courter. But he's not a specialist the way Muster or Nadal. For me tennis with specialists would be better than this homogenized field.


To be the best, you have to be an all-rounder. Specialists won't get anywhere.

Action Jackson
05-27-2011, 03:05 PM
Agassi was a good claycourter, but he never dominated claycourt season like Nadal/Federer/Djokovic has been doing. He didnt care much about clay, he played less claycourt tournaments than even Sampras!

Agassi was very good for a guy who couldn't move on the surface and didn't play that much on it.

rafa_maniac
05-27-2011, 03:07 PM
I think it's lost some of its lustre now that it has been achieved 3 times in little over a decade, but does that mean it is easier these days to accomplish? I doubt it. No doubt there are periods throughout history where the competition has been weaker or stronger and the surfaces have come and gone, but overall I think it's pretty much the same. People make a deal of two players completing it pretty much back to back, but look at who those two players are and the number of other remarkable and unlikely thinks they've accomplished and it seems almost inevitable.

Roadmap
05-27-2011, 03:28 PM
Nadull's CGS cheapens the achievement because of his shit style of play and his links with that contreversal Spanish doctor who's name I won't mention. However we are still talking about 4 different speeds of court and 3 different surfaces with varying movement needed for those said surfaces. You can't fluke it. If people really do believe this era is weaker in terms of overrall depth then by definition the achievement is not the same.

Sophocles
05-27-2011, 04:42 PM
The history of the career slam is that Perry & Budge did it in the 1930s, Laver & Emerson did it in the 1960s, Agassi did it in the 1990s, Federer in the 2000s, & Nadal in the 2010s. To me, it's more interesting why some decades went without a career slam. 1940s there were fewer opportunities because many slams were cancelled. 1950s the best players went pro as soon as they'd won a couple (Rosewall & Hoad - Kramer & Gonzales were already on the pro tour as the decade started). 1970s the top players played some but not all slams, so guys like Kodes could win a couple slams but would be stopped when the big boys turned up, while the big boys missed enough slams to lower their chances of getting the CGS (e.g., Connors missed F.O. from 1974-8). 1980s you still had a few top players missing the A.O. at the start of the decade, but Borg & Mac always said they'd play it if they'd won the 1st 3 slams, & I think the main reason there was no CGS is that the best candidates to achieve it - Borg, Mac, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg - were always stopped on their weakest surface by a great player who loved the surface. So actually I'm inclined to say it was only in the 1980s the career slam was significantly harder to achieve as a result of the competition in the game - the other decades it wasn't done there were extrinsic factors preventing it.

zcess81
05-27-2011, 05:09 PM
Quite obviously. Though winning a Slam at all is a great achievement...especially 4 of them. But it's not as impressive anymore seeing as the surfaces are less different, therefore you need less of a diverse skill set to win them all.

Sure, you need less diverse skill set now then before, but now you have to be MUCH MUCH better athlete to win all 4, so it's equally impressive imo. You really need to be superhuman, freak of nature to win grand slam these days.

Action Jackson
05-27-2011, 05:11 PM
Sure, you need less diverse skill set now then before, but now you have to be MUCH MUCH better athlete to win all 4 now, so it's equally impressive imo. You really need to be superhuman, freak of nature to win grand slam these days.

No, it's not decathlon.

zcess81
05-27-2011, 05:16 PM
Negative,,to be successfull today u need a "gluten-free" diet.:D

hehe maybe that's it.

peribsen
05-27-2011, 05:32 PM
If anything, it was easier to get it in the 60s because everything was played on grass and clay.

Very true, thanks for bringing up a point which is often ignored in this forum.

i for one question a lot of things about nadal, some of which could get me banned -as they have in the past, i might add.

Funny how you always manage to bring up the point you insist you are not bringing up, but only in relation with Nadal, while Djokovic's very obvious sudden metamorphosis seems to have failed to strike the same cord with you...

(I don't for a moment think Nole is doing anything illegal, but if you are given to that sort of suspicions, it's kind of funny you ignore a case that is objectively much more symptomatic of something funny going on. Your obsession with Nadal always shines through in the end).

sexybeast
05-27-2011, 05:33 PM
Agassi's CYGS is the most difficult one to understand really, I really cant understand how Agassi won on fast grass in a time of serve and volleyers. IN the whole 90s and 80s no baseliners came anywhere close to win Wimbledon, I cant quite understand how Agassi was able to do it.

Agassi's Roland Garros is less surprising if we dont take into consideration that he was almost 30 by the time he finally made it and not even among the top 10 favorites that year, in the early 90s he should have won it and I do belive he was a greater claycourter than grasscourter. In the end his age made his Roland Garros as impressive as his Wimbledon title.

Laver's career grand slam is less impressive because 3 slams was played on grass and in his time not many could play the classical claycourt game that was later developped in the 70s by Nastasse, Borg and Vilas. Laver-Rosewall final was more a battle between allcourters, with slice duels and approaches to the net and few rallies longer than 6 shots. It is incredible how different claycourt tennis looked only some years later when Borg was playing Vilas with moonball shots from both sides in endless rallies that could last minutes.

Nadal's career slam is impressive mostly because of his Usopen title which still doesnt make much sense to me, out of nowhere he started serving harder than both Djokovic and Federer and with great placement aswell, then just to go back with his normal serving after the Usopen. I dont think Nadal's titles on slow grasscourts in Wimbledon are very impressive besides the fact that he defeated Federer in the 2008 final.

I dont have much to say about Federer's career slam, I really belive it would happen in any era and he would win Roland Garros on any kind of clay and with any kind of balls, he plays his best claycourt game on slow claycourts with low bounces like in Hamburg but also plays great on fast claycourts like the one in Madrid or Rome. I think only thing that would be unfair is to let Federer play on indoor clay in Roland Garros which hasnt happened.

peribsen
05-27-2011, 05:34 PM
The history of the career slam is that Perry & Budge did it in the 1930s, Laver & Emerson did it in the 1960s, Agassi did it in the 1990s, Federer in the 2000s, & Nadal in the 2010s. To me, it's more interesting why some decades went without a career slam. 1940s there were fewer opportunities because many slams were cancelled. 1950s the best players went pro as soon as they'd won a couple (Rosewall & Hoad - Kramer & Gonzales were already on the pro tour as the decade started). 1970s the top players played some but not all slams, so guys like Kodes could win a couple slams but would be stopped when the big boys turned up, while the big boys missed enough slams to lower their chances of getting the CGS (e.g., Connors missed F.O. from 1974-8). 1980s you still had a few top players missing the A.O. at the start of the decade, but Borg & Mac always said they'd play it if they'd won the 1st 3 slams, & I think the main reason there was no CGS is that the best candidates to achieve it - Borg, Mac, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg - were always stopped on their weakest surface by a great player who loved the surface. So actually I'm inclined to say it was only in the 1980s the career slam was significantly harder to achieve as a result of the competition in the game - the other decades it wasn't done there were extrinsic factors preventing it.

Interesting input, thanks.

Topspindoctor
05-28-2011, 03:20 AM
Nadull's CGS cheapens the achievement because of his shit style of play and his links with that contreversal Spanish doctor who's name I won't mention. However we are still talking about 4 different speeds of court and 3 different surfaces with varying movement needed for those said surfaces. You can't fluke it. If people really do believe this era is weaker in terms of overrall depth then by definition the achievement is not the same.

Why are mods allowing GlennMirniy to make another account? Get banned already, clown.

abraxas21
05-28-2011, 04:02 AM
Why are mods allowing GlennMirniy to make another account? Get banned already, clown.

thats not glenn. trust me, i know.

he's right on the money, though.

abraxas21
05-28-2011, 04:05 AM
Funny how you always manage to bring up the point you insist you are not bringing up, but only in relation with Nadal, while Djokovic's very obvious sudden metamorphosis seems to have failed to strike the same cord with you...

(I don't for a moment think Nole is doing anything illegal, but if you are given to that sort of suspicions, it's kind of funny you ignore a case that is objectively much more symptomatic of something funny going on. Your obsession with Nadal always shines through in the end).

i have stated my suspicions regarding djokovic's 'diet' in other threads before

Clydey
05-28-2011, 04:32 AM
With the slam surfaces slowly but surely becoming homogenized, has it cheapened the career grand slam acheivement?

Simple question really.

Nope.

The surfaces are nowhere near as similar as some people suggest.

There's a reason why someone like Del Potro does well on clay and sucks on grass.

Clydey
05-28-2011, 04:35 AM
Uhm, sorry Jon, but your reasoning is flawed.
It took decades since Laver managed to do so, then suddenly Agassi managed to do it - and guess what, within yet that same decade (or pretty much near to it), TWO players managed to do it as well.
How convenient that all of that happened within (or near to) that same decade wherein the fast courts have been slowed down, as well as the slow courts have been speeded up.

So yep, it HAS been cheapened. Unless one indeed believes in 'coincidences'. I don't (for this particular matter).

It's not a huge coincidence. It's not as if a whole host of players suddenly started winning the CYGS.

Sure, the surfaces are more alike than they once were. That does not mean that they are similar, however. Look at how Federer struggled to win RG, yet he couldn't stop winning on faster surfaces.

oranges
05-28-2011, 05:31 AM
Nope.

The surfaces are nowhere near as similar as some people suggest.

There's a reason why someone like Del Potro does well on clay and sucks on grass.

There is, he can't move on grass. Aside from him, there's Kolya on grass, Roddick on clay and that's pretty much it. The rest performs comparably on all surfaces.

TennisLurker
05-28-2011, 05:46 AM
Clydey is right.
Lendl wasn't that far from a Career Slam, Edberg would have a Career Slam had he beaten Chang. Funnily, Edberg defeated Chang at the French Open when Edberg was past his prime and almost retired and Chang number 2 in the rankings.

Action Jackson
05-28-2011, 06:37 AM
Nope.

The surfaces are nowhere near as similar as some people suggest.

There's a reason why someone like Del Potro does well on clay and sucks on grass.

Movement that's the word you need, it's the same on all surfaces these days but specific movement skills are still needed.

Clydey
05-28-2011, 06:42 AM
Movement that's the word you need, it's the same on all surfaces these days but specific movement skills are still needed.

Indeed.

I actually think grass and hard are the two surfaces that have become a lot more similar these days, certainly in terms of speed. However, I think the distinctive bounce on each surface has been retained to a large extent.

Action Jackson
05-28-2011, 06:45 AM
Indeed.

I actually think grass and hard are the two surfaces that have become a lot more similar these days, certainly in terms of speed. However, I think the distinctive bounce on each surface has been retained to a large extent.

That's the only thing that's has stayed the same. The set of skills have been homogonised to such an extent it's irrelevant what surface the match is played on as for game style, but movement or lack of it will exposed.

Clydey
05-28-2011, 06:49 AM
There is, he can't move on grass. Aside from him, there's Kolya on grass, Roddick on clay and that's pretty much it. The rest performs comparably on all surfaces.

It's also the bounce. The respective speed of each is the biggest similarity, but other differences have been largely retained.

Don't forget players like Almagro. You would also have to throw Murray in there too.

Infinity
05-28-2011, 07:33 AM
Yes, it has.

The Magician
05-28-2011, 07:42 AM
Here's a post from a friends facebook:
I kind of want djokovic to win the calendar slam just so he can hang his hat on that. That'll make it really the big 3
If that doesn't show that the grand slam has been cheapened to an expected achievement for a top player (as it might as well be since every top player is good on all surfaces) than I don't know what.

born_on_clay
05-28-2011, 09:59 AM
No, it hasn't

oranges
05-28-2011, 10:23 AM
It's also the bounce. The respective speed of each is the biggest similarity, but other differences have been largely retained.

Don't forget players like Almagro. You would also have to throw Murray in there too.

It is, but the bounce varies from hard to hard significantly as well. Most importantly, the grass bounce is no longer as specific, not as irregular and not as low as it used to be. The first being a major factor in enabling success with the one-style-to-rule-them-all.

Murray supposedly sucks on clay for across-surfaces standards of this generation. He still has QF. It's not the Roddick/Kolya/Pony category IMO. Almagro is well Almagro :lol:

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever it's easier to play across surfaces today. It's still a huge achievement though. For those mentioning Edberg and a few others, they managed it once and were always huge underdogs against the best claycourters of th time. Not so today. It's really very simple. Different surfaces required completely different skill sets and most were better at one than the other. There is absolutely no pressing need and no particular upside for it today.

MacTheKnife
05-28-2011, 03:56 PM
Yes of course it has.

finishingmove
05-28-2011, 04:01 PM
golden slam is the goal now

sexybeast
05-29-2011, 10:22 PM
It is, but the bounce varies from hard to hard significantly as well. Most importantly, the grass bounce is no longer as specific, not as irregular and not as low as it used to be. The first being a major factor in enabling success with the one-style-to-rule-them-all.

Murray supposedly sucks on clay for across-surfaces standards of this generation. He still has QF. It's not the Roddick/Kolya/Pony category IMO. Almagro is well Almagro :lol:

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever it's easier to play across surfaces today. It's still a huge achievement though. For those mentioning Edberg and a few others, they managed it once and were always huge underdogs against the best claycourters of th time. Not so today. It's really very simple. Different surfaces required completely different skill sets and most were better at one than the other. There is absolutely no pressing need and no particular upside for it today.

Edberg was a serve and volleyer, today all top players are baseliners and not americans. In lets say in 1994 the top 10 looked like this:

1.Sampras S and V
2.Stich Allcourter
3.Edberg S and V
4.Bruguera claycourter
5.Ivanisevic S and V
6.Medvedev claycourter
7.Courier american baseliner
8.Chang american baseliner
9.Todd Martin S and V
10.Becker S and V

Ofcourse in an era where we have 5 serve and volleyers in the top 10, 4 americans and 1 allcourter there will be space left for specialists to conquer the vacuum left on clay.

The question asked is often are "where are the clayspecialists?", but never is the question asked "how good does the top players game transition to clay?".

If we look in 94, I think most would agree with me when I say this top 10 is better on clay than in 94:

1.Djokovic
2.Nadal
3.Federer
4.Murray
5.Soderling
6.Ferrer
7.Berdych
8.Meltzer
9.Fish
10.Monfils

9 europeans, all except Fish and Murray has a game that transitions well to the surface, all baseliners and almost all grew up on red clay.

Now, take the reverse question: Which top 10 is greater on grasscourts?

We have 1 allcourter and no serve and volleyers in this top 10 list!

94 should easily win that contest, it is not claycourt tennis that is dead even if it often has felt dead because of Nadal's boring and predictable domination, it is grasscourt tennis that has died.

Roadmap
05-29-2011, 11:13 PM
Edberg was a serve and volleyer, today all top players are baseliners and not americans. In lets say in 1994 the top 10 looked like this:

1.Sampras S and V
2.Stich Allcourter
3.Edberg S and V
4.Bruguera claycourter
5.Ivanisevic S and V
6.Medvedev claycourter
7.Courier american baseliner
8.Chang american baseliner
9.Todd Martin S and V
10.Becker S and V

Ofcourse in an era where we have 5 serve and volleyers in the top 10, 4 americans and 1 allcourter there will be space left for specialists to conquer the vacuum left on clay.

The question asked is often are "where are the clayspecialists?", but never is the question asked "how good does the top players game transition to clay?".

If we look in 94, I think most would agree with me when I say this top 10 is better on clay than in 94:

1.Djokovic
2.Nadal
3.Federer
4.Murray
5.Soderling
6.Ferrer
7.Berdych
8.Meltzer
9.Fish
10.Monfils

9 europeans, all except Fish and Murray has a game that transitions well to the surface, all baseliners and almost all grew up on red clay.

Now, take the reverse question: Which top 10 is greater on grasscourts?

We have 1 allcourter and no serve and volleyers in this top 10 list!

94 should easily win that contest, it is not claycourt tennis that is dead even if it often has felt dead because of Nadal's boring and predictable domination, it is grasscourt tennis that has died.

I think this is one of the most enlightened posts that MTF has seen. Kudos.

Super Djoker
05-29-2011, 11:39 PM
Maybe! Federer never won at Wimbledon on REAL GRASS ! It is much slowed down know! The Only way the French is Different is with the faster balls now, but it is no excuse! How damn slow do you guys want Clay? The way I see it Clay Is Clay until u start putting grass roots down underneath the Clay! Not to mention the French is on Red Clay! Not Green! Not Purple! Not Blue! The best there is! We here the same crap about the balls being faster every year at the French! I don,t really buy into it!

GSMnadal
05-29-2011, 11:44 PM
Maybe! Federer never won at Wimbledon on REAL GRASS ! It is much slowed down know! The Only way the French is Different is with the faster balls now, but it is no excuse! How damn slow do you guys want Clay? The way I see it Clay Is Clay until u start putting grass roots down underneath the Clay! Not to mention the French is on Red Clay! Not Green! Not Purple! Not Blue! The best there is! We here the same crap about the balls being faster every year at the French! I don,t really buy into it!

All the players are saying it, and you don't buy it? Do you have any reasons not to?

sexybeast
05-31-2011, 01:16 AM
Maybe! Federer never won at Wimbledon on REAL GRASS ! It is much slowed down know! The Only way the French is Different is with the faster balls now, but it is no excuse! How damn slow do you guys want Clay? The way I see it Clay Is Clay until u start putting grass roots down underneath the Clay! Not to mention the French is on Red Clay! Not Green! Not Purple! Not Blue! The best there is! We here the same crap about the balls being faster every year at the French! I don,t really buy into it!

It has hardly been to Federer's advantage to play Wimbledon on slow grass when he is the only top player who actually got an idea of how to play on REAL GRASS. I would think he would be rather unbeatable on faster low bouncing grasscourts in this era even now with old age.

Anyway, back to clay I dont understand what people complain about. What kind of clay and balls would they have to see anyone else than Nadal dominating clay and having Federer and Djokovic as clear nr2 and 3 on the surface? Just look at their record, it doesnt matter if they played on really slow clay in Monte Carlo and Hamburg or super fast claycourts in Madrid, always Nadal dominates and Federer/Djokovic is there to challenge Nadal in semifinal and finals. To Federer what matters is that the ball doesnt bounce up too high and that the courts are protected from wind, so he would like heavier balls and conditions like in Hamburg or indoor like fast courts like Madrid. Nadal would like slow conditions where the ball still jumps up like in Monte Carlo. Djokovic probably prefers fast clay like in Madrid and Rome. All of them can really play good tennis on any kind of conditions and they are top 3 with any kind of balls or speed on the courts.

No conditions would change the fact that Nadal would always be nr1 for 2005-2010 and Federer distant nr2 and Djokovic clearly nr3, so I dont know what people are dreaming about on clay. It is okay to not like the current state of clay tennis, but you cant say just changing the balls would really make a huge differense on the hierarchy on clay.

sco
05-31-2011, 01:35 AM
Of course it has - it's far easier to win with the same type of game at FO and Wimbledon now than when grass was really fast and clay was really slow. Borg's accomplishment of winning FO and Wimbledon 3 years in a row is amazing. The grass was fast, slick, low-bouncing - players had to go to the net. The early rounds of Wimbledon was like a minefield where anyone with a big serve could upset the top seeds. Matches turned on (un)lucky bounces and a few points here or there.

Today one can't even tell the difference between Wimbledon and French Open as the players play the same way regardless of the surface. Now, going to the net even on grass is suicidal unless you've set up the point and have your opponent on a string.

FairWeatherFan
05-31-2011, 12:06 PM
The obvious answer is yes. But the clueless fanboys of this era will say no.

peribsen
05-31-2011, 03:14 PM
it is grasscourt tennis that has died.

I like your post, kudos, you repeatedly prove yourself to be one one the worthiest posters here.

Only wanted to add that the death of grasscourt tennis has nothing to do with either clay, nor new technology, nor players like Nadal, as many here would suggest, but was only to be expected after HC invaded the tennis world from the late 70s onwards. Clay at least has managed to survive, while grass, that until 1977 was the surface on which 3 out of 4 slams was played on, has been pushed out of the picture. Without WB's historical appeal, it would be dead by now.

Just another side effect of US's love affair with parking lot tennis.

rocketassist
05-31-2011, 03:19 PM
sexybeast, you're missing something about 94. That's that the good clay courters are lower ranked than 10 because they could only pick up points there due to surface diversion and specialism to that particular surface.

sexybeast
05-31-2011, 06:33 PM
sexybeast, you're missing something about 94. That's that the good clay courters are lower ranked than 10 because they could only pick up points there due to surface diversion and specialism to that particular surface.

But I wasnt trying to make an argument about this era beeing stronger than 94 on clay, I am asking questions that are rarely asked. Everyone knows that clay specialists dominated the 90s on clay, but what kind of top players were there to stop the specialist domination?

So it kind of becomes the story of the hen and the egg, were clay specialists much greater than specialists today or were top players worse than top players today on clay?

Both seems to be true. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are much greater on clay than Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi. At the same time Bruguera and Muster are alot better than anyone we can call "clay specialist" today.

But I really question if the fact that top players today are so good playing on both clay and hardcourts neglects a chanse for young clay specialists to grow and appear on the big events.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 06:40 PM
But I wasnt trying to make an argument about this era beeing stronger than 94 on clay, I am asking questions that are rarely asked. Everyone knows that clay specialists dominated the 90s on clay, but what kind of top players were there to stop the specialist domination?

So it kind of becomes the story of the hen and the egg, were clay specialists much greater than specialists today or were top players worse than top players today on clay?

Both seems to be true. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are much greater on clay than Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi. At the same time Bruguera and Muster are alot better than anyone we can call "clay specialist" today.

But I really question if the fact that top players today are so good playing on both clay and hardcourts neglects a chanse for young clay specialists to grow and appear on the big events.

Yes, the clay players were much better than the tripe around today. Don't forget they needed to be in the top 16 to be seeded unlike today. If you can't see that they play hardcourt tennis all year round bar movement, then there isn't much more to be said.

sexybeast
05-31-2011, 11:55 PM
Yes, the clay players were much better than the tripe around today. Don't forget they needed to be in the top 16 to be seeded unlike today. If you can't see that they play hardcourt tennis all year round bar movement, then there isn't much more to be said.

Here you have some hardcourt tennis on clay:

PcAxS7lqrHs

BCeXFXwUAz0

The differense between playing hardcourt tennis from the baseline and claycourt tennis from the baseline is kind of blurry. Anyway if we take someone like Courier who dominated claycourts in the beginning of the 90s I would say he hits flatter than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and he was far from as good hiting dropshots compared to Federer and probably Djokovic too, also he moves alot worse than both of them on claycourts (wouldnt dare to even compare him to Nadal). He also played very close to the baseline, closer than both Djokovic and Nadal.

Action Jackson
06-01-2011, 10:18 AM
Here you have some hardcourt tennis on clay:

PcAxS7lqrHs

BCeXFXwUAz0

The differense between playing hardcourt tennis from the baseline and claycourt tennis from the baseline is kind of blurry. Anyway if we take someone like Courier who dominated claycourts in the beginning of the 90s I would say he hits flatter than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and he was far from as good hiting dropshots compared to Federer and probably Djokovic too, also he moves alot worse than both of them on claycourts (wouldnt dare to even compare him to Nadal). He also played very close to the baseline, closer than both Djokovic and Nadal.

Never saw Courier play Chesnokov, Muster or Bruguera on clay then did you? Or do you want me to upload them and see there are clear differences to Those links highlight a match up issue.

Courier's inside out forehand was very heavy which dominated his 2 years in the game. Not flatter than Djokovic on clay you're seeing things. Muster didn't hit many dropshots but he played clay tennis.

Vida
06-01-2011, 11:13 AM
golden slam is the goal now

every year.

sexybeast
06-01-2011, 11:22 AM
Never saw Courier play Chesnokov, Muster or Bruguera on clay then did you? Or do you want me to upload them and see there are clear differences to Those links highlight a match up issue.

Courier's inside out forehand was very heavy which dominated his 2 years in the game. Not flatter than Djokovic on clay you're seeing things. Muster didn't hit many dropshots but he played clay tennis.

I think you are seeing things if you think Federer and Djokovic plays hardcourt tennis and Courier claycourt tennis. Courier barely played on clay at all, he just dominated hardcourt and then went to Europe with his american hardcourt game and won Rome and Roland Garros every year. He didnt care for Monte Carlo, Hamburg or any small clay tournaments. Courier's domination of clay in the early 90s is just really a great archilles heel to the whole idea that this was the golden age of claycourt tennis, he really dominated the likes of Muster and Bruguera. Ofcourse 30 year old Andres Gomez winning the title 1990, the Chang-Edberg final 89 and young Agassi beeing in 4 straight SFs and 2 finals while (like Courier) ignoring the rest of the claycourt season doesnt make things better.

2003
12-27-2011, 03:57 AM
Excluding of course the CYGS, the career slam seems to be happening faster and faster.

Fed took just under 6 years.

Nadal took less than 5 and a half.

Novak has 2 more shots at RG to do his if he does it, and he will have done it quicker than Nadal even if you take into acount basically a 3 year hiatus between his best form. Similarly it only really took Nadal 2 years to wrap up the remaining 3 slams after he became a genuine top 2 in the world on those surfaces (grass and hardcourt).

No doubt the next person to come along will probably do it faster as a lot of the greats of this era will be winding down and there might be another transitional window of a few years like there was in 2000-2003, except of course with much more homo genized surfaces.

The facts are the facts, but do you feel that the career grand slam wont be seen as such a great achievement the more and more time goes on?

Saberq
12-27-2011, 04:18 AM
of course not .........

2003
12-27-2011, 04:26 AM
Well put it this way I remember a few years ago when it looked like Fedal would never get it, people were putting it on a pedestool making it sound like If Nadal got the Career slam but maybe only fell 2 slams short of Pete he would be better.

Similarly people were putting Agassi much nearer Pete than the six slam gulf between them.

Now it seems like Nadal will definately need to at least get to 13 or 14 before he eclipses Pete.

I feel it is being seen as lesser, along with the RG Wimbledon double.

Imperfect Angel
12-27-2011, 04:58 AM
don't think its significance will be lessened just because it seems like it's much easier to do it nowadays. don't forget these players who did it paid as much effort as the others and the field is no less weaker than before. plus it's not like they just focus on the slams and not win any other titles.:shrug:

rocketassist
12-27-2011, 05:28 AM
All the surfaces are super similar. It's much easier. Aggressive players can't overpower strong defence on any court in the world bar exceptional circumstances.

Chirag
12-27-2011, 05:31 AM
All the surfaces are super similar. It's much easier. Aggressive players can't overpower strong defence on any court in the world bar exceptional circumstances.

agreed :)

To me this was really cheapening of the true Holy Grail of tennis

Mountaindewslave
12-27-2011, 05:46 AM
depends on if the ATP keeps acting like fools. if they continue to make all of the surfaces similar to one another and players no longer have to adjust their styles to surfaces as the season progresses, then of course the Career Grand Slam will be very much diminished.

I mean let's face facts. a great grass court player like Federer has no problem winning four Wimbledon's, Rafael Nadal no problem with four Roland Garros's, Djokovic four Australian Opens... my point is if all of the Grand Slams end up playing practically the same, as far as surface speed, then there will be no difficulty inwinning the 4 seperate slams as the 4 seperate slams will all be basically the same even with different names and court colors. the difficulty used to be in that a player's style would suit one slam over another, but now with most tennis players adopting defensive stances on the baseline or resorting to ballbashing and S/V dissapearing, the ATP has become the top of the games bitch and have begin to change the surfaces accordingly. slow slow slow.

it already has been diminished some but hopefully the ATP decides to keep the US OPEN fast and stop this nonsense with their shitty grass at Wimbledon. defensive baseliners should not be dominating Wimbledon as they are, which says a lot.

as Ivo Karlovic has stated, soon Roland Garros will be his best surface!

it still means a lot though and no matter what it will, because it is hard to win the very biggest tournaments consistently with the amount of competition that exists in tennis today. just won't mean as much as it once did.

Mystique
12-27-2011, 06:24 AM
Homogenisation of the surfaces is the reason the Career Slam has become apparently easier to win today. But no it is not a mean feat by any stretch of imagination and will remain an important GOAT stat(whatever that is)!

Nathaliia
12-27-2011, 06:39 AM
Yes, I agree. I'd like to see someone to win them all in one season.

I'm not a big fan of surface homogenization and I think to win them all, every top tennis player in his generation (a few of those) will be doing it now.

Having that said, I still doubt Sampras would win RG even in these conditions (against opponents of today)

Lurking
12-27-2011, 06:50 AM
Can we wait till Djokovic actually wins a CGS before cheapening it?

Surface diversity wasn't the only reason for the lack of CGS post Laver.

2003
12-27-2011, 07:21 AM
I think if a RG 2009 situation occured, you had 2 weeks of very sunny weather, and Sampras was very, very good, he could win RG nowadays with a bit of luck.

Hell, he reached a semi in a much better clay era (but without a giant like Nadal).

When you look at what Isner did to Nadal this year, Sampy could get lucky at modern RG. He would have to be very good though and his dicky heart condition or blood thingy would have to stay away.

Nadal is voulnerable to serve and volley game, look what Tsonga did to him in 2008 AO.

SerialKillerToBe
12-27-2011, 07:42 AM
I find it easier to stomach when thinking that Fed should never have won French Open and Nadal should never have won USO.

MaxPower
12-27-2011, 09:08 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=183446

But yeah basically:


Tennis is more physical and more defensive. The worst freak (or the guy with the best egg/oxygen tent) will likely be the favorite in every tournament he plays unless he is injured/sick. Including slams of course.

For example it was clear that Djokovic could have gone 10-0 vs Nadal this year. He could even grind it out with him in long rallies if he liked to. Out-Nadal Nadal you could say. Djokovic had the superior defense and if things get tight he got no reason to get nervous. He knows that no matter if the rallies are long or short, no matter if the match is long or short, he had the defensive edge.

Usually past rivalries had more risk and uncertainty involved between the #1 and his closest rival(s). Didn't feel like that in 2011. It felt like one guy had barely nothing to hurt the other because he had no physical edge anymore and as a tennis player he was clearly worse.

The less risk and uncertainty the more career slams and long streaks. And also for the first time in a long time a golden slam is possible. Not saying Djokovic will get one but the current trend is that you can be successful with the same style everywhere and the current best style is to have a freak defense and except that some good tennis, but weapons like a killer serve, booming forehand or deadly volleys/net feel are actually optional. They are just bonuses and not the bread and butter to get a career slam. Such players would struggle winning RG/AO while it is proven that a good RG/AO player can win the supposedly fast slams like Wimbledon/USO. It's basically a clay tour where you could argue that the best player(s) during clay season likely will be the ones racking up most masters and slams until indoor season when defensive tennis is less efficient.

bleu_cheese
12-27-2011, 09:09 AM
Yes. Soon enough more than one player will win the CYGS in the same year. It's an exponential process.

2003
12-27-2011, 11:42 AM
Mods feel free to merge my thread with this one

2003
12-27-2011, 08:04 PM
Yes. Soon enough more than one player will win the CYGS in the same year. It's an exponential process.

Singles, doubles, mixed doubles, and WTA singles all in the same year in 2021?

emotion
12-27-2011, 08:05 PM
fix the surface differences

EddieNero
12-27-2011, 08:08 PM
Since all slams are played on medium-slow high bounce surfaces it's like basically winning the same slam 4 times in a year.
CYGS has absolutely lost his value as an effort in recent years since the process of homogenization has started off.

Saberq
12-28-2011, 12:56 AM
Since all slams are played on medium-slow high bounce surfaces it's like basically winning the same slam 4 times in a year.
CYGS has absolutely lost his value as an effort in recent years since the process of homogenization has started off.

yeah clay and hard are the same...........you mug

rocketassist
12-28-2011, 12:57 AM
yeah clay and hard are the same...........you mug

Similar speed. Only movement differs. Nothing tennis-wise.

leng jai
12-28-2011, 01:11 AM
Similar speed. Only movement differs. Nothing tennis-wise.

Don't forget bounce and ball trajectory.

Saberq
12-28-2011, 01:30 AM
Similar speed. Only movement differs. Nothing tennis-wise.

still you can see the difference in Nadal when he is on clay and when he is on hard....therefore it it's not the same ...even if the speed is

MIMIC
12-28-2011, 01:50 AM
Was this thread around in 2009? :scratch:

Yolita
12-28-2011, 02:14 AM
Of course it's being cheapend if Novak has a decent probability of achieving it! :haha: :haha:

Everything has changed sooo much since 2009, the sport is unrecognisable! :devil:

And let's not even talk about a CYGS! Quick, people, find reasons why a CYGS won't count from now on. You have 9 months to find them, they don't have to be reasonable (but you already knew that, didn't you? ;) ). Novak might just do it next year, who knows? And then you'll be in a pickle. :lol: :lol:

And don't worry, we already know that the only two titles worth winning these days are the 2 new majors: Basel and the WTF! :wavey:

zlaja777
12-28-2011, 02:15 AM
Similar speed. Only movement differs. Nothing tennis-wise.

o861UewFWSc

How is it possible that there is so many people claiming that the speed is the same on all surfaces nowadays? That's practically impossible. You base this on what? Llodra's sarcastic comment on RG being faster than Wimbledon? Ok maybe the speed difference between clay and grass is not the same as it used to be but there is still BIG difference between these surfaces speed-wise.

On topic - after Djokovic (if he wins RG) I obviously can't see anyone doing it in next 10 years or so.

2003
12-28-2011, 02:17 AM
Del Pot Smoke could do it if he got back to his 09 form.

Saberq
12-28-2011, 03:29 AM
When Fed won career slam in 2009 surfaces were so much different huh Fedtards? LOL you fucking losers

Chirag
12-28-2011, 03:52 AM
Was this thread around in 2009? :scratch:

it was :)

Chirag
12-28-2011, 03:54 AM
When Fed won career slam in 2009 surfaces were so much different huh Fedtards? LOL you fucking losers

Surfaces were still similar then too :o

Saberq
12-28-2011, 04:30 AM
Surfaces were still similar then too :o

then who gives a fuck...if Fed's career grand slam is valid so will be Novak's if he wins French Open.....it will carry the same weight

Bobby
12-28-2011, 04:42 AM
then who gives a fuck...if Fed's career grand slam is valid so will be Novak's if he wins French Open.....it will carry the same weight

This is not about comparing Federer and Djokovic.

Saberq
12-28-2011, 04:49 AM
This is not about comparing Federer and Djokovic.

I know just saying to those Fed fans that are now saying how all surfaces are the same and all

Yolita
12-28-2011, 05:19 AM
This is not about comparing Federer and Djokovic.
Really? You could have fooled me. :lol:

Chirag
12-28-2011, 05:49 AM
A CGS is valid obviously to anyone who does it .Personally I find it a cheapened version of the true holy grail of tennis .I find Agassis the best because he did it on polar opposite surfaces

EddieNero
12-28-2011, 08:32 AM
Agassi is the only legit CYGS winner. Fed and Nadal's achievement are great but nowhere near what Andre did.

Chirag
12-28-2011, 08:34 AM
Agassi is the only legit CYGS winner. Fed and Nadal's achievement are great but nowhere near what Andre did.

all the CGS (not CYGS) are legit .Of course Andre's was the toughest since clay and grass were polar opposites then :)

Egreen
12-28-2011, 02:33 PM
Agassi is the only legit CYGS winner. Fed and Nadal's achievement are great but nowhere near what Andre did.

Ditto.

If Nole wins the FO and we see 3 players completing the Career Slam in only 3 or 4 years, it will become a joke.:o

Between Laver in 1969 and Agassi in 1999 there was a 30 year span.

Now in the span of 3-4 years we see 3 Career Slams. That would be hilarious. Says a lot about the homogenization of the surfaces.





On topic - after Djokovic (if he wins RG) I obviously can't see anyone doing it in next 10 years or so.

Why? You think Novak will be the last multiple slam winner for the next 10 years? As things stand, most future #1s of the sport will be able to complete the career slam, heck, the CYGS looks very possible. All a player needs is one year to get hot, dominate and win all the slams.




Since all slams are played on medium-slow high bounce surfaces it's like basically winning the same slam 4 times in a year.
CYGS has absolutely lost his value as an effort in recent years since the process of homogenization has started off.


Exactly.

rocketassist
12-28-2011, 03:11 PM
I know just saying to those Fed fans that are now saying how all surfaces are the same and all

No one said it in 2009 as it was only the second time it had been done since Laver did it. People expected Federer's CGS to be an anomaly but the surface speeds have allowed one, probably two more through the door.

Saberq
12-28-2011, 04:21 PM
No one said it in 2009 as it was only the second time it had been done since Laver did it. People expected Federer's CGS to be an anomaly but the surface speeds have allowed one, probably two more through the door.

Look I man I agree with you but Novak is still an all surface player.....he is great everywhere...maybe winning Wimbledon was weird a bit but he would win HC Slams in the 90s too ....and probably RG

Action Jackson
12-28-2011, 04:30 PM
Depends on how long the surface homogenisation lasts, of course it will if current conditions aren't adjusted.

Boris Franz Ecker
12-28-2011, 05:53 PM
career slam thin is only relevant for some years.
earlier players didn't even try and they didn't even know what it is.
So it's nothing in historical dimensions.

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-28-2011, 06:36 PM
Yes homogenized surfaces. Medium paced high bounce courts. All exactly or around those definition. Agassi's is the biggest accomplishment. Winning on Mid paced Aussie, Slow French, Fast fast fast grass, fast hard court

SetSampras
12-28-2011, 07:13 PM
Fed's is still KIND OF legit. He won wimbledon on a bit faster grass in 2003. Certainly not the slow trash we have today, but not as fast as it was when Andre won it. Nadal's is probably the most cheapened. However, one can make an argument they sped clay up at the French Open which may have helped Fed's chances? If you watch matches from the French now compared to the 90s-early 00's. You can see its a faster clay now. Clay used to play how the Davis Cup was playing at the end of this year

MaxPower
12-28-2011, 09:23 PM
Fed's is still KIND OF legit. He won wimbledon on a bit faster grass in 2003. Certainly not the slow trash we have today, but not as fast as it was when Andre won it. Nadal's is probably the most cheapened. However, one can make an argument they sped clay up at the French Open which may have helped Fed's chances? If you watch matches from the French now compared to the 90s-early 00's. You can see its a faster clay now. Clay used to play how the Davis Cup was playing at the end of this year

Not so sure about that. RG has always been a bit faster than "normal clay" for some reason. In some 90s matches it simply looks slower because they didn't hit the ball as hard. This year when the rain stayed away it played pretty fast and high bouncing. Federer would probably rather have it fast and low bouncing so topspin doesn't get so much bite vs his backhand.

I think in 2009 if Soderling had less long matches and it wasn't his very first GS Final (he was like #20 in the world at that time lol) he would maybe have beaten Federer and prevented the career slam. RG suits Soderling much better than other clay events for the same reason mentioned. He gets ridiculous bounces with his FH. They became very hard if not impossible to take early like Federer wants. That showed very clearly in 2010 when they met again. And a guy like Del Potro was 2-0 up on Federer in 2009 also. Easy to forget that.

But 2009 RG was probably what put a fire inside Nadal for his 2010 season and coming career slam too. That tournament is probably guilty of 2 career slams in some sense.

tektonac
12-28-2011, 09:33 PM
If Nole wins the FO and we see 3 players completing the Career Slam in only 3 or 4 years, it will become a joke.:o


:bs:


Between Laver in 1969 and Agassi in 1999 there was a 30 year span.

Now in the span of 3-4 years we see 3 Career Slams. That would be hilarious. Says a lot about the homogenization of the surfaces.


just tells you how great these 3 players are. lot of players will never win their 1st GS or some will struggle to win one, even in the "surface homogenization" scenario!

rocketassist
12-28-2011, 09:51 PM
just tells you how great these 3 players are. lot of players will never win their 1st GS or some will struggle to win one, even in the "surface homogenization" scenario!

They can't win one BECAUSE of it! Djokovic winning Wimbledon, Murray making semis of Roland Garros, what proof do you need?

tektonac
12-28-2011, 10:35 PM
They can't win one BECAUSE of it! Djokovic winning Wimbledon, Murray making semis of Roland Garros, what proof do you need?

it just shows you how versatile top players are. whats wrong with Novak winning W and Murray reaching RG SF??

Saberq
12-28-2011, 10:47 PM
They can't win one BECAUSE of it! Djokovic winning Wimbledon, Murray making semis of Roland Garros, what proof do you need?

GOAT stuff huh? :cool:

zlaja777
12-28-2011, 11:40 PM
They can't win one BECAUSE of it! Djokovic winning Wimbledon, Murray making semis of Roland Garros, what proof do you need?

Just out of curiosity, name me some new players who would have won a slam since 2003 if the surfaces were the same as they were in 90's?

nadalwon2012
12-29-2011, 12:20 AM
With the slam surfaces slowly but surely becoming homogenized, has it cheapened the career grand slam acheivement?

Simple question really.

Who else is going to win the Career Grand Slam? I doubt anyone will in the near future unless Tomic quickly improves. He's the next big gun.

But I think it has been cheapened by Federer and Nadal both having it within a couple of years of each other. The rarest of achievements is now the Calendar Year Grand Slam, and the "Win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in Calendar Year" which nobody had done for 41 years until Nadal did the impossible in 2010.

MIMIC
12-29-2011, 12:27 AM
They can't win one BECAUSE of it! Djokovic winning Wimbledon, Murray making semis of Roland Garros, what proof do you need?

What the hell kind of sense is this? So everyone else was just SOOO good that if the surfaces were untouched, Nadal and Djokovic would be without slams while people like Soderling, Ferrer, Isner, or whoever the hell you're talking about would be untouched slam kings? WTF :stupid:

And Murray made the semis of Rome, played supposedly on "real" clay. Do you not remember?

GlennMirnyi
12-29-2011, 01:09 AM
Obviously.

Pirata.
12-29-2011, 01:35 AM
However, one can make an argument they sped clay up at the French Open which may have helped Fed's chances?

Nah, the only thing that helped Roger was that Rafa lost early.

EDIT: Gu is back? :speakles:

tommyg6
12-29-2011, 01:40 AM
Had Wimbledon been played like it was in the 90s and same with the US Open and Aussie Open, Rafa Nadal wouldn't have had the career grand slam.

Action Jackson
12-29-2011, 01:41 AM
Fed's is still KIND OF legit. He won wimbledon on a bit faster grass in 2003. Certainly not the slow trash we have today, but not as fast as it was when Andre won it. Nadal's is probably the most cheapened. However, one can make an argument they sped clay up at the French Open which may have helped Fed's chances? If you watch matches from the French now compared to the 90s-early 00's. You can see its a faster clay now. Clay used to play how the Davis Cup was playing at the end of this year

Federer actually liked playing on very slow clay, as the heaviness of the court didn't allow the ball to get to this backhand look at his record at Hamburg, that shows his love of the heavy clay. The year he won RG it wasn't quick due to the conditions.

Söderling was able to hit through the court in 2010, plus it helped he didn't play Nadal in the final.

The major factor you are overlooking is not the surface so much, it's more the games they played on clay at that time was proper claycourt tennis, not so much now.

Agassi's career Slam is legit, the others less so. Nadal and Djokovic winning on a fast low bouncing grass, keep dreaming but they have been able to win Wimbledon so it can't be taken away.

Saberq
12-29-2011, 01:51 AM
Federer actually liked playing on very slow clay, as the heaviness of the court didn't allow the ball to get to this backhand look at his record at Hamburg, that shows his love of the heavy clay. The year he won RG it wasn't quick due to the conditions.

Söderling was able to hit through the court in 2010, plus it helped he didn't play Nadal in the final.

The major factor you are overlooking is not the surface so much, it's more the games they played on clay at that time was proper claycourt tennis, not so much now.

Agassi's career Slam is legit, the others less so. Nadal and Djokovic winning on a fast low bouncing grass, keep dreaming but they have been able to win Wimbledon so it can't be taken away.

he won because Nadal was hurt ....still counts

TennisGrandSlam
12-29-2011, 07:43 AM
No, 2 Greater 1980 superstars Lendl and Edberg were chasing for it, but failed.

Win is win

Edberg lost to Chang (Edberg in clay was not very good), Lendl lost to Becker and Cash (Lendl was also good in Grass, but many people was better)

This is fate!

rocketassist
12-29-2011, 02:30 PM
What the hell kind of sense is this? So everyone else was just SOOO good that if the surfaces were untouched, Nadal and Djokovic would be without slams while people like Soderling, Ferrer, Isner, or whoever the hell you're talking about would be untouched slam kings? WTF :stupid:

And Murray made the semis of Rome, played supposedly on "real" clay. Do you not remember?

:stupid: x 100000000000000000.

Nadal's slams would be restricted to clay with a solitary AO maybe, and Djokovic's would be restricted to AOs and USOs.

On non-homog surfaces, there'd be FAST courts, so the likes of Soderling would actually be able to overpower them without every ball coming back.

rocketassist
12-29-2011, 02:32 PM
it just shows you how versatile top players are. whats wrong with Novak winning W and Murray reaching RG SF??

Novak has no grass versatility- just the same game he plays on the hardcourts. Worked on his movement and that's all he needed to improve on.

Murray plays the same game on clay too and doesn't look great on it.

Versatile my arse.

Saberq
12-29-2011, 02:51 PM
:stupid: x 100000000000000000.

Nadal's slams would be restricted to clay with a solitary AO maybe, and Djokovic's would be restricted to AOs and USOs.

On non-homog surfaces, there'd be FAST courts, so the likes of Soderling would actually be able to overpower them without every ball coming back.

Novak would win RG in the 90s

LeChuck
12-29-2011, 02:52 PM
I do think that with the ever increasing surface homogenisation, any future dominant player will have a strong chance of winning all 4 slams.

Tournament directors must love this surface homogenisation, as it increases the chances of all or most of the big name players reaching the latter stages of their event, putting more casual fans on seats, and increasing revenue.

Nothing against Djokovic but I would prefer that he didn't win the RG title, as I don't want to see 3 players completing the career grand slam in such a short space of time.

As a question to any poster here who followed tennis in the 70s or 80s, was the career grand slam as significant back then as it is now. It is an incredibly impressive achievement of course, but I would be interested to see how priorites, coverage etc have changed over the years. Maybe it only became hyped up a lot and was considered important when Agassi completed it.

I'm aware that before Sampras's era, barely anyone gave a shit about the grand slam count, and the calendar grand slam was the holy grail. It's hard to imagine Borg retiring so early when he was one slam short of Emerson's record if it was considered significant at the time.

Action Jackson
12-29-2011, 03:03 PM
No, the career Slam wasn't hyped up, it was more about winning the Grand Slam in a calendar year. Just like year end number 1 wasn't relevant when Lendl was dominating, only became something Worthless and Bozo were pushing when it came to Sampras.

Surface homogenisation is perfect for tournament directors, makes them more money as they are more than likely to get the same players at the finals all the time.

There will be someone who makes the next breakthrough and changes the game, always happens. It was impressive when Agassi did.

Some don't realise tennis didn't start in 2005, 2007 o 2010.

TennisOnWood
12-29-2011, 03:07 PM
No, the career Slam wasn't hyped up, it was more about winning the Grand Slam in a calendar year. Just like year end number 1 wasn't relevant when Lendl was dominating, only became something Worthless and Bozo were pushing when it came to Sampras.

Surface homogenisation is perfect for tournament directors, makes them more money as they are more than likely to get the same players at the finals all the time.

There will be someone who makes the next breakthrough and changes the game, always happens. It was impressive when Agassi did.

Some don't realise tennis didn't start in 2005, 2007 o 2010.

Well, in 2nd part of 1986. Becker talked only about Number 1 spot

True that tournaments directors like bloody 4 players winning everything against each other

Action Jackson
12-29-2011, 03:18 PM
Well, in 2nd part of 1986. Becker talked only about Number 1 spot

True that tournaments directors like bloody 4 players winning everything against each other

Number 1 is all about consecutive weeks, but Becker isn't very bright.

TennisOnWood
12-29-2011, 03:39 PM
Number 1 is all about consecutive weeks, but Becker isn't very bright.

Grande Lendl achieved 154-12 in ATP tournaments (29 1/2's from 32 events played) during 1985/86 and it was really crazy to even talk about someone else as a world best player.. Boris wasn't bright (I think that came in big part 'cause his age and that great strike of 21 consecutive wins, which he never repeated again) and he talked that 1986 Masters Cup final will decide who is the best player in the world!! Ivan all ready was thinking about January and Australia but still he puts kid in his place in that MSG final

Egreen
12-29-2011, 03:54 PM
Agassi's career Slam is legit, the others less so. Nadal and Djokovic winning on a fast low bouncing grass, keep dreaming but they have been able to win Wimbledon so it can't be taken away.

Ditto.

Johnny Groove
12-29-2011, 04:41 PM
I am still of the opinion that if Djokovic even gets it, it won't happen again for 20-30 years. Fedal are all time GOATS, and Djokovic will probably be up there in the top 15-20 at least at the end of his career.

Tell me, people, who is going to win the next CGS? Murray? Tsonga? Delpo? Berdych? :lol:

Mystique
12-29-2011, 04:55 PM
I agree that Agassi's CGS is perhaps the most impresive, he won it when the surfaces were truer. But the two guys who did it after him have earned it too. Federer is perhaps the finest all court player I have personally seen, and his game works everywhere really and its not surprising or undeserving that he has won all four Slams. He can play and win on both very fast and very slow surfaces and he has done it. Nadal may have benefitted heavily from homogenisation of surfaces in the late noughties, but that wasnt the only reason really. When I first saw that kid, I thought "No way this guy does jack on fast HCs and Grass". And I am sure I was not alone in thinking this. He still had to make a lot of adjustments to his natural game, put in the yards and loads of effort to win his first Wimbledon and Australian Open. He proved most people wrong by doing so, I would say he was highly deserving of it too, though perhaps his CGS was the least dramatic and involving for the neutrals.

rocketassist
12-29-2011, 05:45 PM
I am still of the opinion that if Djokovic even gets it, it won't happen again for 20-30 years. Fedal are all time GOATS, and Djokovic will probably be up there in the top 15-20 at least at the end of his career.

Tell me, people, who is going to win the next CGS? Murray? Tsonga? Delpo? Berdych? :lol:

If it wasn't for Fedalovic, Murray would have won it this year! If they all retired now I've no doubts he'd win a CGS.

SetSampras
12-29-2011, 05:57 PM
Ehh.. I bet we see a whole HOST of guys in the next 15-20 years (if conditions stay the same) winning the career slam.. The conditions are such you can dominate on every surface from the baseline at every slam. You don't have to TRULY change your game up one bit from slam to slam anymore. I bet Murray stand a chance of getting a career slam for sure when the nadal and fed old guard stand down. I bet alot of younger guys coming stand a chance under these conditions. Its something like 5 out of the last 8 years or something guys have won 3 of the 4 slams in just ONE YEAR. Obviously do to the conditions, the game is being dumbed down in a sense making it easier to dominate all across the board

I think these guys are very fortunate to be coming up into today's game. If there was a better chance to win all 4 slams, its now

Saberq
12-29-2011, 06:04 PM
If it wasn't for Fedalovic, Murray would have won it this year! If they all retired now I've no doubts he'd win a CGS.

Maybe but who knows?Would Nole win all 4 if Murray,Rafa and Fed retire today.....I dont know ....maybe ....you cant predict those things

fran70
12-30-2011, 12:24 AM
Totally agree with the OP. Players like Lendl would had achieved a couple of Wimbledon titles on these days. Everything is pretty much the same in all surfaces which was totally different before the early/mid 90ties.

Action Jackson
12-30-2011, 12:34 AM
If it wasn't for Fedalovic, Murray would have won it this year! If they all retired now I've no doubts he'd win a CGS.

That alone would be problematic.

Mjau!
12-30-2011, 12:37 AM
Number 1 is all about consecutive weeks, but Becker isn't very bright.

What is "not bright" about valueing being the best player in a calendar year? :rolleyes:

fran70
12-30-2011, 12:49 AM
If it wasn't for Fedalovic, Murray would have won it this year! If they all retired now I've no doubts he'd win a CGS.

Murray would had found other rivalries that wouldnt had helped him to win his first GS though. ;)

fran70
12-30-2011, 12:55 AM
I am still of the opinion that if Djokovic even gets it, it won't happen again for 20-30 years. Fedal are all time GOATS, and Djokovic will probably be up there in the top 15-20 at least at the end of his career.

Tell me, people, who is going to win the next CGS? Murray? Tsonga? Delpo? Berdych? :lol:

Definitely sooner or later Djokovic is going to win it with these court conditions. Credit for him after all. But.. with this conditions more than one player is going to win the 4 GS in the next 20/30 years. Fortunately I would be alive to see that not happening and taking my hat off to see a real champion doing it again :)

scoobs
12-30-2011, 01:01 AM
Yes I think so - I find it very hard to believe Novak won't pull in the French at some point soon and then he'll be the third in - what - 5 or 6 years - after hardly any since the late 1960s. It's not conclusive but it suggests that playing condition homogenisation has reduce the amount of ingrained playing condition variation that a player must adapt to and beat to be able to win at all these majors now.

TennisOnWood
12-30-2011, 01:22 AM
Totally agree with the OP. Players like Lendl would had achieved a couple of Wimbledon titles on these days. Everything is pretty much the same in all surfaces which was totally different before the early/mid 90ties.

You for sure remember how hard he prepared for Wimbledons and for last Australian Open on Grass in 1987! Against Boris in 1986 Wimbledon final he lost 3-0, even he scored just 9 points less than German (bloody break points) and in that great 1/2 of 1987 AO against Cash he was on the net 150 times in 4 hours clash of titans

He changed a lot his basic game in that few years and worked like lunatic with Roche. Today you don't need to change anything to be good on both clay and grass

Benny_Maths
12-30-2011, 01:51 AM
Fed and Nadal earned the CGS just as much as anyone else who has achieved it. With the surfaces being homogenised there are more players who are genuine contenders for each of the slams than in the past. Similar reasoning applies when considering the difficulty of achieving the CGS.

leng jai
12-30-2011, 01:56 AM
When Fakervic does it it will be a worthless achievement in its original sense.

fran70
12-30-2011, 02:23 AM
You for sure remember how hard he prepared for Wimbledons and for last Australian Open on Grass in 1987! Against Boris in 1986 Wimbledon final he lost 3-0, even he scored just 9 points less than German (bloody break points) and in that great 1/2 of 1987 AO against Cash he was on the net 150 times in 4 hours clash of titans

He changed a lot his basic game in that few years and worked like lunatic with Roche. Today you don't need to change anything to be good on both clay and grass

Definitely I do. Not only I believe that Cash clearly deserved that Wimbledon trophy but proved me one more time that Lendl was a different sort of player inspite of that defeat and that he was not a natural grass court player. He improved a lot his serve and volley game in order to win Wimbledon but it was not even enough to beat a player like Cash on grass (not even to mention Becker who had even better qualities for grass on those days and whose serve and volleyer skills were totally noticeable)

Action Jackson
12-30-2011, 02:37 AM
Sort the movement issues out between the surfaces, then most of the solution has been found.

Arakasi
12-30-2011, 07:34 AM
Yes it has. I don't think it will happen every other year but the thing is that from now on I think pretty much every 6+ slam champion will win all four whereas in the past, so many greats missed out - Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Connors etc.

To put it succinctly, before being a tennis great wasn't enough. Now it is.

green25814
12-30-2011, 08:01 AM
You basically need to look at whose making the semis - and even quarters of slams these days. Its the same 4-8 guys for the most part. We don't have court specialists anymore, because a simple allcourt baseline game can dominate on any surface.

As long as the courts play like this I expect every top player to achieve the career slam.

Egreen
12-30-2011, 12:41 PM
You basically need to look at whose making the semis - and even quarters of slams these days. Its the same 4-8 guys for the most part. We don't have court specialists anymore, because a simple allcourt baseline game can dominate on any surface.

As long as the courts play like this I expect every top player to achieve the career slam.

+1.

Corey Feldman
12-30-2011, 01:52 PM
dont see how its cheapened

in the old days they only had grass slams + french open

era right now has Fed, Nadull and Nole - 3 of the all time GOATS

the real holy grail is calender year GS and no one can do that since 40 years ago, so it cant be that much easier

Fed 4 times was one match away from holding all the four

Saberq
12-30-2011, 01:57 PM
dont see how its cheapened

in the old days they only had grass slams + french open

era right now has Fed, Nadull and Nole - 3 of the all time GOATS

the real holy grail is calender year GS and no one can do that since 40 years ago, so it cant be that much easier

Fed 4 times was one match away from holding all the four

Corey is back :worship:

LeChuck
12-30-2011, 02:00 PM
The grass at the Australian Open and Wimbledon played far more differently to each other than the hard courts in Australia and Flushing Meadows currently do. I have no idea what the grass at Forest Hills played like though.

That's why Becker and Navratilova were formidable on the Wimbledon grass but far more vulnerable on the Kooyong grass, Wilander and Vilas won multiple titles on the Kooyong grass but never reached the semi-finals at Wimbledon, and Lendl serve-volleyed at Wimbledon but stayed back in Australia.

Not to the mention that the difference between the RG clay and Wimbledon grass used to be far more polarised. Borg would take part in gruelling wars of attrition in RG (even in matches he won easily), and then serve-volley in 100% of his 1st serves and even some of his 2nd serves in many of his matches at Wimbledon.

The players should adjust to the different surfaces, but unfortunately the surfaces have adjusted to the players.

green25814
12-30-2011, 02:04 PM
Truth is every grass court plays somewhat differently, thats why its such an awesome surface and why its being gradually phased out of the sport.

Corey Feldman
12-30-2011, 02:05 PM
Hey Saberq mate

Saberq
12-30-2011, 02:11 PM
Hey Saberq mate

hey man glad you back .... :D

Action Jackson
12-30-2011, 02:23 PM
Truth is every grass court plays somewhat differently, thats why its such an awesome surface and why its being gradually phased out of the sport.

Kooyong was warmer and the courts bounced more than at Wimbledon. Not all grass courts play the same, which is the same thing for clay since they're natural surfaces more prone to specific weather

It's pretty obvious the people who are arguing against the cheapening of the Career Slam are either being deliberately obtuse in ignoring specific conditions previously, which made it much harder to win it when there were greater surface specialists and differentials.

This plus the classic "everything stands still" argument what happened now, must have been the same before, trying to apply modern standards to what happened previously, when the only thing constant is the shape of the ball.