More Impressive: CYGS or NCYGS? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

More Impressive: CYGS or NCYGS?

Johnny Groove
06-09-2012, 03:30 PM
It was last week or so, and Federer was doing an interview, talking about Djoker trying to match Laver, holding all 4 majors at the same time.

And Roger basically said he thought it was MORE impressive doing it NCYGS, in reference to Djokovic. He said something like:

"Anybody can get hot for 6 months, 9 months, and win all 4. But to be consistently dominant for 12 months? That is tougher. Rafa had a chance, I had 2 chances, it is very tough."

Something like that he said. So the question, which is more impressive?

Also, what was Roger's motive for saying this? Trying to downgrade Laver's achievements? Trying to put more pressure on Djokovic? A little bit of both?

TigerTim
06-09-2012, 03:33 PM
I think Calender, to keep up such form over 9 months, and on the different surfaces is god like. Of course Laver only had to deal with 2 surfaces.

Looner
06-09-2012, 03:34 PM
As an achievement, CYGS is the hardest to achieve.

Johnny Groove
06-09-2012, 03:35 PM
I mean, the CYGS is so elusive. You HAVE to start in Australia, and only 1 man per year has the chance to win all 4.

With the NCYGS, anyone can start the streak of 4 anywhere.

Ben.
06-09-2012, 03:35 PM
Wasn't he comparing it to Djokovic's win streak last year?

Either way, it's CYGS.

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 03:35 PM
If you truly analyse Laver's achievements, as good as they were, they wouldn't be a patch on Novak winning RG and holding all four titles.

There's so many reasons why as well. From the number of competitors Novak faces nowadays, to the variety in the different surfaces etc.

I'm not sure why it matters at all that it's technically not in the same year. Just a cop-out for those who dislike Novak and want to try and discredit his achievements.

tyruk14
06-09-2012, 03:37 PM
If you truly analyse Laver's achievements, as good as they were, they wouldn't be a patch on Novak winning RG and holding all four titles.

There's so many reasons why as well. From the number of competitors Novak faces nowadays, to the variety in the different surfaces etc.

I'm not sure why it matters at all that it's technically not in the same year. Just a cop-out for those who dislike Novak and want to try and discredit his achievements.

Not at all. Djokovic with four majors in a row (potentially rising to five) and double digit slams at the end of his career is at least a third tier GOAT candidate.

Telegram Sam
06-09-2012, 03:39 PM
CYGS. Because you have THREE switches. Hard -> Clay -> Grass -> Hard

NCYGS is Clay -> Grass -> Hard & Hard (or Grass -> Hard & Hard -> Clay).

CYGS > NCYGS > Career GS

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 03:41 PM
Also, to win 4 titles in a NCY isn't actually any different from a CYS. You have to win each of the four slams a row regardless of whether it's a CYS or a NCYGS. If anything surely having to maintain your form over two seasons is MORE impressive that just the one?

When it's the off-season players have time to rest, train and come back better than ever, but once the season starts there's really not much time for that mid-season.

Allez
06-09-2012, 03:47 PM
It was last week or so, and Federer was doing an interview, talking about Djoker trying to match Laver, holding all 4 majors at the same time.

And Roger basically said he thought it was MORE impressive doing it NCYGS, in reference to Djokovic. He said something like:

"Anybody can get hot for 6 months, 9 months, and win all 4. But to be consistently dominant for 12 months? That is tougher. Rafa had a chance, I had 2 chances, it is very tough."

Something like that he said. So the question, which is more impressive?

Also, what was Roger's motive for saying this? Trying to downgrade Laver's achievements? Trying to put more pressure on Djokovic? A little bit of both?

Well no one has been that hot for 9 months since Laver, so I'm not sure what to make of Rogi's comments there. However a NCYGS is also quite impressive as Roger suggests because it basically means you've been the dominant player for a longer period than just the 9 months required to win a CYGS. I don't think there's a huge difference to be honest. Depending on how you look at it, both are incredibly impressive. Let's not forget there's hardly any break between WTF and the January swing, especially for those with DC commitments...which just adds more weight to Roger's argument... There's no easy answer.

rinnegan
06-09-2012, 03:47 PM
As long as the player wins four majors in a row, it doesn't matter if it was done within a calendar year or not. It's still extremely difficult to achieve.

ServeVolley
06-09-2012, 03:50 PM
CYGS. And I don't think anybody will repeat it...

Also, although Fed thinks 2006 & 2007 were his best chances at the CYGS, I actually think it was 2009 (the one year he didn't have to face Rafa at the French). If only he'd won those fifth sets at the AO and USO...

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 03:51 PM
NYGS

The Big Apple one.

70-68
06-09-2012, 03:55 PM
I think Federer was talking about Djokovic's winning streak in 2011 compared to holding all 4 GS.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 03:55 PM
CYGS. Because you have THREE switches. Hard -> Clay -> Grass -> Hard

NCYGS is Clay -> Grass -> Hard & Hard (or Grass -> Hard & Hard -> Clay).

CYGS > NCYGS > Career GS

I found this to be the best analysis. It's basically the same unless we account for the surface transitions. Then you can see why the CYGS is hardest to achieve.

Featherer
06-09-2012, 03:57 PM
So, the question is:
What is the tougher task?
Being dominant for 11 months,
or being dominant for just 8 months, but winning on clay + grass within one month ?

Looner
06-09-2012, 03:57 PM
You have less time between tournaments with a CYGS as well - from January to September whilst with NCYGS you can have from June till next June. Mind you, both are harder to achieve in this sense - staying consistent for 12 months has to be looked against staying "hot" for 9 months. Oh well, let's hope this is not a "if" only discussion and Djokovic actually does it. Otherwise it's quite pointless.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:00 PM
It's not really that much of a longer period (if at all). Deduct the off-season...

70-68
06-09-2012, 04:00 PM
BTW, CYGS is probably more impressive, because it contains the channel slam, and Djokovic didn't win RG and Wimbledon in the same year. But winning 4 majors in a row is still one of the most impressive achievement is tennis.

Looner
06-09-2012, 04:03 PM
It's not really that much of a longer period (if at all). Deduct the off-season...

It's about recovery time. You can't tell your body to deduct the off-season...

Chirag
06-09-2012, 04:05 PM
CYGS is the hardest achievement in tennis :shrug:

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:06 PM
It's about recovery time. You can't tell your body to deduct the off-season...

Uhm, so - one more reason that shows why NCYGS is easier? As I was already suggesting...

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 04:09 PM
Uhm, so - one more reason that shows why NCYGS is easier? As I was already suggesting...

But it's the same for everyone. Everyone has the opportunity to regroup, get over injuries, work on things that they need too, improve fitness etc.

It's not like it's an advantage for just Djokovic.

romismak
06-09-2012, 04:11 PM
Really i donīt see any difference winning calendar or Non-calendar, even if you win say Wimbledon-USO-AO-RG like Novak can you win 4 in row, just like in calendar, also this comparision to Laver i don īt like it... there were no HC back than, no man ever won 4 in row on 3 surfaces...

If Novak will win 4 in row i say it is far more impressive than Laver back than in 69 to win on grass and clay only.

But this is all for journalist and media, because really i think it shouldnīt matter if you win 4 in row starting with AO or 4 in row starting with USO for example, such achievement never happened in mensītennis history, if we would have 5-6 people who won 4 in row, than we can say Non-calendar is not so impressive, but because we have 0 people in history to win 4 in row on 3 surfaces i believe calendar- non - calendar there is no difference. 4 in row means you are champion during last 1 year on all slams thatīs what should have meaning.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:12 PM
But it's the same for everyone. Everyone has the opportunity to regroup, get over injuries, work on things that they need too, improve fitness etc.

It's not like it's an advantage for just Djokovic.

I wasn't aware that this thread was about Djokovic...

CYGS is more impressive than a NCYGS. History and stats also show it.

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 04:14 PM
I wasn't aware that this thread was about Djokovic...

CYGS is more impressive than a NCYGS. History and stats also show it.

Well clearly it is, given that he's the only person capable of achieving the feat in question. When you have to resort to semantics, you know you're in trouble.

When was the last time a NCYGS was achieved? Please remind me.

BodyServe
06-09-2012, 04:14 PM
Also, what was Roger's motive for saying this? Trying to downgrade Laver's achievements? Trying to put more pressure on Djokovic? A little bit of both?

He was just being honest and saying his opinion.

For statistics and journos it's better to win CYGS but it's more demending to win NCYGS.

LeChuck
06-09-2012, 04:14 PM
There's more pressure to deal with during a calendar grand slam attempt as well.

For a player who is strong across all surfaces, the hype and media buzz about them potentially completing the grand slam starts in January/February after they've ccompleted the first step at the Australian Open. That was the case with Federer in 2006 and 2007 (and possibly in 2004 as well), and Nadal in 2009. After Agassi and Djokovic followed up their Australian Open titles in 2001 and 2011 with Indian Wells-Miami doubles, people were talking about them potentially winning all 4 slams in a year as well.

Even at just the second slam of the year at RG, there is quite a lot of talk about potentially moving half way towards a grand slam. I imagine when Borg was attempting to complete the 3rd stage of the grand slam in New York every year from 1978-1980, the excitement must have cranked up a notch.

With a non-calendar grand slam, the hype only really starts ahead of the final slam in that run, and even then it won't compare to that a player would face trying to complete the grand slam at the USO.

Think back to Nadal trying to complete the 'Rafa Slam' in Melbourne last year. Imagine how much more media coverage, excitement and pressure there would have been if he was trying to win his 4th slam in a row in New York instead. Likewise with Djokovic at the moment.

Of course any sequence of 4 slams in a row would be incredible.

xdrewitdajx
06-09-2012, 04:16 PM
mug CYGS era

BauerAlmeida
06-09-2012, 04:17 PM
It's the same. 4 in a row is 4 in a row and it doesn't matter where you start.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:19 PM
Really i donīt see any difference winning calendar or Non-calendar, even if you win say Wimbledon-USO-AO-RG like Novak can you win 4 in row, just like in calendar, also this comparision to Laver i don īt like it... there were no HC back than, no man ever won 4 in row on 3 surfaces...

If Novak will win 4 in row i say it is far more impressive than Laver back than in 69 to win on grass and clay only.

But this is all for journalist and media, because really i think it shouldnīt matter if you win 4 in row starting with AO or 4 in row starting with USO for example, such achievement never happened in mensītennis history, if we would have 5-6 people who won 4 in row, than we can say Non-calendar is not so impressive, but because we have 0 people in history to win 4 in row on 3 surfaces i believe calendar- non - calendar there is no difference. 4 in row means you are champion during last 1 year on all slams thatīs what should have meaning.

From a less strict point of view you could definitely say that.

As for the surfaces, grass and clay were probably a lot different then.

Very bored people could probably develop a point system to place Djokovic's 4-in-a-row (if it actually happens) on the tennis achievements scale.

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 04:20 PM
There's more pressure to deal with during a calendar grand slam attempt as well.

For a player who is strong across all surfaces, the hype and media buzz about them potentially completing the grand slam starts in January/February after they've ccompleted the first step at the Australian Open. That was the case with Federer in 2006 and 2007 (and possibly in 2004 as well), and Nadal in 2009. After Agassi and Djokovic followed up their Australian Open titles in 2001 and 2011 with Indian Wells-Miami doubles, people were talking about them potentially winning all 4 slams in a year as well.

Even at just the second slam of the year at RG, there is quite a lot of talk about potentially moving half way towards a grand slam. I imagine when Borg was attempting to complete the 3rd stage of the grand slam in New York every year from 1978-1980, the excitement must have cranked up a notch.

With a non-calendar grand slam, the hype only really starts ahead of the final slam in that run, and even then it won't compare to that a player would face trying to complete the grand slam at the USO.

Think back to Nadal trying to complete the 'Rafa Slam' in Melbourne last year. Imagine how much more media coverage, excitement and pressure there would have been if he was trying to win his 4th slam in a row in New York instead. Likewise with Djokovic at the moment.

Of course any sequence of 4 slams in a row would be incredible.

Don't disagree with anything you've said, that's a well written post. Might just add that it's possible that the hype for the 'Rafa Slam' was less because of its location? There seems to be a lot less interest in the Aussie Open in general imo. I'd imagine that's due to the time-zone etc.

That said, you're right with what you've said.

RIboy
06-09-2012, 04:21 PM
It was last week or so, and Federer was doing an interview, talking about Djoker trying to match Laver, holding all 4 majors at the same time.

And Roger basically said he thought it was MORE impressive doing it NCYGS, in reference to Djokovic. He said something like:

"Anybody can get hot for 6 months, 9 months, and win all 4. But to be consistently dominant for 12 months? That is tougher. Rafa had a chance, I had 2 chances, it is very tough."

Something like that he said. So the question, which is more impressive?

Also, what was Roger's motive for saying this? Trying to downgrade Laver's achievements? Trying to put more pressure on Djokovic? A little bit of both?

what are you talking about? this was the interview in Eurosport studio and Rogie was comparing Novak's 42-match winning streak (easier to get hot for 6 months) and NCYGS....i hate him but he didn't take a shot at Laver

Johnny Groove
06-09-2012, 04:22 PM
what are you talking about? this was the interview in Eurosport studio and Rogie was comparing Novak's 42-match winning streak (easier to get hot for 6 months) and NCYGS....i hate him but he didn't take a shot at Laver

Doubt it, mate, I was watching ESPN.

RIboy
06-09-2012, 04:23 PM
Doubt it, mate, I was watching ESPN.

maybe he said something different for ESPN...

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Well clearly it is, given that he's the only person capable of achieving the feat in question. When you have to resort to semantics, you know you're in trouble.

When was the last time a NCYGS was achieved? Please remind me.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was, at no time, diminishing Djokovic's achievement(s).

As for your question, people have been 1 Slam away from 4-in-a-row much more often than being 1 short of a CYGS. That's a fact.

Allez
06-09-2012, 04:24 PM
I wasn't aware that this thread was about Djokovic...

CYGS is more impressive than a NCYGS. History and stats also show it.

What history ? No one has won 4 Grand Slams (of any calibre) in a row since Laver won his CYGS. You speak as though we've had loads of NCYGs since Laver but that is not the case. That is why there is a huge buzz about the NoleSlam. It has not been done since the days of Laver. I'm not critiquing your opinion re which one is harder but I don't think history supports the view that a CYGS > NCYGS :cool:

BroTree123
06-09-2012, 04:30 PM
Hardest would be to achieve CYGS with Olympic Gold. That there is some hardcore shit.

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 04:30 PM
As for your question, people have been 1 Slam away from 4-in-a-row much more often than being 1 short of a CYGS. That's a fact.

That wasn't the question I asked.

Answer the question I asked.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:32 PM
What history ? No one has won 4 Grand Slams (of any calibre) in a row since Laver won his CYGS. You speak as though we've had loads of NCYGs since Laver but that is not the case. That is why there is a huge buzz about the NoleSlam. It has not been done since the days of Laver. I'm not critiquing your opinion re which one is harder but I don't think history supports the view that a CYGS > NCYGS :cool:

Federer won 3 in a row right? But not AO-RG-W or RG-W-USO. You get my point?

Granted, you could say it was Rafa ;)

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:33 PM
That wasn't the question I asked.

Answer the question I asked.

You're a complete clown, it was obvious at your first post. Therefore I won't answer your question.

This might not be relevant to the discussion but I think I said what a lot of people think.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:37 PM
Every CYGS itself is a 4-in-a-row.

But I guess if Federer said rain falls upwards, we'd get a thread for that too (even if he didn't actually say it).

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 04:39 PM
You're a complete clown, it was obvious at your first post. Therefore I won't answer your question.

This might not be relevant to the discussion but I think I said what a lot of people think.

Hahahahaha.

You've made yourself look like a fool so you've had to resort to insults.

CYGS is more impressive than a NCYGS. History and stats also show it.

Please explain your point and provide evidence.

This should be fun.

finishingmove
06-09-2012, 04:42 PM
Hahahahaha.

You've made yourself look like a fool

Nope, that was you in your opening post.

You thought I was bashing Djokovic when I didn't even mention him. Where is the retard smiley ? :lol:

you've had to resort to insults

I definitely didn't have to, but it's just a thing I enjoy when dealing with people like you.

Please explain your point and provide evidence.

This should be fun.

More than enough of it already in this thread. But I guess you see only 'Djokovic' whatever you read.

It is indeed amusing and somewhat unbelievable, even for MTF standards.

TigerTim
06-09-2012, 04:46 PM
Hardest would be to achieve CYGS with Olympic Gold. That there is some hardcore shit.

Sure is, only one...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0806/tennis.grand.slams/images/steffi-graf.jpg

Wing Man Frank
06-09-2012, 04:48 PM
finishingmove is officially my new favourite poster. He's making hian look like a genius. A difficult achievement, but he's somehow managed it.

Fair play to you son, you've entertained me for a while. Be a good boy and go and get your carer to get you back inside.

Chirag
06-09-2012, 05:17 PM
I say this because to do the grand slam

1. You need to win Australia . You only get 1 shot at that .If you dont win that ,then its over for the year for you .You cant achieve until the next year . In contrast if you lose in the Australia you can still start your streak from Paris .So stastically its 3 times easier to achieve the NCYGS .

2. The transition for the CYGS is hard-> clay-> grass-> hard .So you need to adjust for a different surface in consecutive slams .That is not the case in the NCYGS where 2 consecutive slams are on the same surface

3. What finishingmove means by historically its easier is the fact that there were 5 chances since 1969 where the players had a chance to win the NCYGS and only needed 1 slam to get it .They had completed 3/4th of the hurdle .On the contrary with the CYGS nobody has ever won the first 3 slams in a year or that is no one has completed 3/4th of the hurdle .Players have done half the hurdle but not more than that

4. The pressure will be enormous when a player is attempting the 4 in a year .Imagine hat would happen if a person won the first 3 slams in the year and went for the set in New York , the pressure he will face will be ten times more than the pressure Roger/Novak/Rafa when they went for the NCYGS

masterclass
06-09-2012, 05:24 PM
Doubt it, mate, I was watching ESPN.

Mr. Groove, were you watching this or something different?

Check about 2:55 to 3:20. Though he kind of stumbles a bit, I think here he is comparing the streak last year to the Novak Slam.
But maybe he said something different elsewhere. Could be the cause of the confusion.. I tried locating other video but haven't found anything yet.

Y25v2Nysd6g

Respectfully,
masterclass

LeChuck
06-09-2012, 05:39 PM
Don't disagree with anything you've said, that's a well written post. Might just add that it's possible that the hype for the 'Rafa Slam' was less because of its location? There seems to be a lot less interest in the Aussie Open in general imo. I'd imagine that's due to the time-zone etc.

That said, you're right with what you've said.

That's certainly an interesting point you've raised, but I'm not so sure. The Australian Open is very eagerly anticipated every year both locally and internationally, and as the first slam of the year attracts a lot of excitement. RG, Wimbledon, US Open all take place in such a short time period, but the Aussie Open is the first grand slam for a quite a while so that interest builds.

I'm using women's examples here but when Hingis had the opportunity to win 4 in a row at RG 1998 there wasn't that much hype about it, even though she had a great chance of pulling it off. When Capriati won both the AO and RG in 2001, there was quite a lot of talk about her potentially completing stage 3 of the calendar slam at Wimbledon.

As far as winning 3 slams in a row goes, regardless of the surface homogenisation, I don't think we can underestimate Nadal's achievement of completing the RG-Wimbledon-US Open triple on clay, grass and hard within a 15 week period in 2010.

bouncer7
06-09-2012, 06:00 PM
Still 0 NC vs 1 C ...its obvious