[green25814]

Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

With the slam surfaces slowly but surely becoming homogenized, has it cheapened the career grand slam acheivement?

Simple question really.

 

[Roddickominator]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

Because the career slam has occured so many times

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.

 

[Ulysses92]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

Yes.

 

[SerialKillerToBe]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

If anything, it was easier to get it in the 60s because everything was played on grass and clay.

 

[green25814]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

Because the career slam has occured so many times

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

Because the career slam has occured so many times

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

That would be a yes.

 

[NoFroz]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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

 

[Sunset of Age]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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

Of course!

 

[guga2120]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

Agassi was the most impressive b/c winning all in the 90's on 4 different surfaces.

 

[Nathaliia]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam 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).

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam 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).

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

 

[Snowwy]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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]

Re: Has the career grand slam been cheapened?

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.