Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Only Borg (x3), Dal (x2), Rogie (x1) and Rod Laver (x1) did it. Borg and Laver are the most impressive since the transition was from grass to clay, instead of a mere change in color (e.g. green to red).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Borg was certainly the most impressive , since he managed to do it 3 times and in an era of grass specialists. Laver was impressive as well. Nadal's time was due to surface homogenisation where the clay was faster and the grass was slower. Also an era of weak grass specialists.

Achieving a channel slam is certainly helpful for boosting one's career stats and any candidate in contention for GOAThood must have achieved it or come close to achieving it as it showcases the transition in playing style and adjusting to the speed of the courts in less than a month's time. Djokovic despite the lack of competition and surface homogenisation , hasn't managed to achieve it yet. Which is a hole in his resume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
The Big 2 member and the BOAT candidate doesn't have the Channel Slam, but he does have 4 slams in a row. So no, it's not necessary. Unlike the Olympics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
The Big 2 member and the BOAT candidate doesn't have the Channel Slam, but he does have 4 slams in a row. So no, it's not necessary. Unlike the Olympics.
It is necessary as it highlights the transition between surfaces in 3 weeks. Unlike the other slams where you essentially play on the same surface for most of the year, or in the case of clay you have a month and a half of training for clay events to prepare for RG and not to mention the 4 month break between AO and FO .

Channel slam is the most difficult thing to achieve .

Olympics only became relevant this century whereas the channel slam has been there since the beginning, so it is a major hole in DJs resume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
It is necessary as it highlights the transition between surfaces in 3 weeks. Unlike the other slams where you essentially play on the same surface for most of the year, or in the case of clay you have a month and a half of training for clay events to prepare for RG and not to mention the 4 month break between AO and FO .

Channel slam is the most difficult thing to achieve .

Olympics only became relevant this century whereas the channel slam has been there since the beginning, so it is a major hole in DJs resume.
Is this why only Novak has 4 in a row since Rod Laver, while several players have won the Channel Slam during the same time span?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
The 'Channel Slam' is so difficult to achieve, that a few players have done it, but nobody had done what Djokovic achieved since Rod Laver: win four slams in succession. What Djokovic had achieved is even more necessary for GOAThood, since it is a much rarer feat.

Unbiased already said it nicely and killed the premise of the thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Is this why only Novak has 4 in a row since Rod Laver, while several players have won the Channel Slam during the same time span?
Which several players have won Channel slam? Only 3 have done it since Rod Laver. Borg, Nadal, and Federer.

As for winning 4 in a row. Several players have come close , so it's not as if it was never even close to being done. Federer almost did it 3 times , despite being in a weaker era and in the era of surface homogenisation. Plus the only reason Djokovic did it is again the same reason as to why Federer was almost able to do it: 2015-16 was a weaker era in the 10s decade, with Federer declined and ageing, suffering from injuries, similarly for Nadal as well, Murray, a lesser , not confident version of Djokovic himself being his biggest competition and the occasional Peaking Wawrinka who goes missing most of the time. The rest of the competition was weak with Generation useless being useless as always, and Next Gen still in baby years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,193 Posts
no not necessary, but back when Borg did it, that was a damn fine achievement when the surfaces were very different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
The 'Channel Slam' is so difficult to achieve, that a few players have done it, but nobody had done what Djokovic achieved since Rod Laver: win four slams in succession. What Djokovic had achieved is even more necessary for GOAThood, since it is a much rarer feat.

Unbiased already said it nicely and killed the premise of the thread.
Read the above reply to Unbiased, I have already explained why and how Djokovic did it. As for why nobody else was able to do it. Prior to 00s, surface variety was high, and court speeds were varied as well, it was almost impossible to play and adapt well so quickly to all the tournaments throughout the year. The slams had very different surface speeds as well. The clay of today would've been like grass or HC compared to the clay of 90s, similarly the HC of today had different speeds compared to the 90s, the grass was much faster then, today's grass is almost equivalent of green clay. So it was difficult for players to achieve the NCYGS, I highly doubt Djokovic would've been able to achieve it during the 90s, especially on Grass with the likes of Sampras lurking around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
Which several players have won Channel slam? Only 3 have done it since Rod Laver. Borg, Nadal, and Federer.

As for winning 4 in a row. Several players have come close , so it's not as if it was never even close to being done. Federer almost did it 3 times , despite being in a weaker era and in the era of surface homogenisation. Plus the only reason Djokovic did it is again the same reason as to why Federer was almost able to do it: 2015-16 was a weaker era in the 10s decade, with Federer declined and ageing, suffering from injuries, similarly for Nadal as well, Murray, a lesser , not confident version of Djokovic himself being his biggest competition and the occasional Peaking Wawrinka who goes missing most of the time. The rest of the competition was weak with Generation useless being useless as always, and Next Gen still in baby years.
"Only 3 players" won CS 3+2+1 times, while only 1 player won 4 in a row - once. You can objectively calculate how many times 4 in a row is harder to win than CS. The rest of your story is objectively nothing but biased BS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Federer achieved his 'Channel Slam' against the Titans Soderling and Roddick. Nadal achieved one of his 'Channel Slams' against Titans like Berdych and Soderling. Give Djokovic that competition, he would replicate it in a hurry and without being pushed to the brink like Federer was.

When Djokovic achieved the 'Novak Slam', he went through Federer and Murray. Federer and Murray>>>Soderling and Berdych>Soderling and Roddick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Let's not forget that Federer is a part of two pieces of history: Nadal's first 'Channel Slam', and Djokovic's 'Novak Slam'. That is not something to be proud of. While none of Federer's two main rivals were a part of his 'Channel Slam' - it was the loser Roddick. And that was all made possible because of Nadal losing early at Roland Garros and his withdrawal at Wimbledon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
@bhdtl

Djokovic barely won RG 16, he had to go through Murray who's weakest surface was clay, and still he dropped a set. Murray didn't even try to further the momentum after winning the first set. And the same year he lost to Querrey in round 3 of Wimbledon. You can say all you want about Soderling, Berdych, Roddick etc, but a GOAT candidate shouldn't be losing to a journeyman choker in R3 after winning 4 slams in a row. You cannot claim Djokovic would've feasted on Soderling and Berdych when he himself lost to Berdych at Wimbledon twice(second time was because of an injury but still). Also, Soderling beat both Federer and Rafa at RG when they were the two best clay players of that period. Saying Djokvoic could've handled Soderling easily is just fan bias. Soderling would've beat Djokovic as well if he was in his best form. 2016 was Djokovic's best chance at a channel slam and he blew it. 2015 was as well, but he got taken down by Wawrinka. Which is why I stand by my earlier statement that 15-17 was quite weak in the 10s decade . Similarly, 01-07 was as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Dropping a set is barely winning now? How many games did Murray win?

If you followed tennis, you would know that Djokovic entered his two-year injury period after winning Roland Garros. It took an elbow surgery to finally fix the issue, which is why he dominating again and won five of the past seven slams.

Soderling is another weak era loser. 1-16 against Federer. 1-6 against pre-2011 Djokovic. 2-6 against Nadal. 4-28 is not something to be proud of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Dropping a set is barely winning now? How many games did Murray win?

If you followed tennis, you would know that Djokovic entered his two-year injury period after winning Roland Garros. It took an elbow surgery to finally fix the issue, which is why he dominating again and won five of the past seven slams.

Soderling is another weak era loser. 1-16 against Federer. 1-6 against pre-2011 Djokovic. 2-6 against Nadal. 4-28 is not something to be proud of.
You're alsi forgetting that he was lucky Nadal withdrew from RG 16 from a wrist injury. 16 Nole was nowhere near as good a clay form as 15 Nole. That was his beat clay form ever. And he still lost that. He was lucky Nadal wasn't there, and that Murray took care of Wawrinka in the SF. Federer was lucky Soderling took care of Nadal as well.

Yes Soderling has a poor record against the big 3, but it's the RG matches that counts and he has beaten two of them. Especially one considered as the Clay GOAT. Probably the only legit 5 setter on clay that Nadal lost. Yes, the one he lost to DJ was the worst version of Nadal there was, he was dropping sets to Jack Sock for crying out loud, even Wawrinka , Murray, Ferrer, and Federer would've beaten him. So Soderling would have had quite a decent chance of beating Djokovic at Roland Garros at least once as well .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
I didn't know that we have some Borgtard trolls on this forum. Borg is not more complete than Murray or Federer, let alone the Big 2.
Lol Borg could've won the entire Calendar GS multiple times had he played on. He was close to doing it by completing the channel slam and finishing runner up at USO, he just never played AO. He was never weak at HC, he could've won them. He won titles on carpet and wood as well. He was as complete as you can get. Not to mention having the greatest mental strength in tennis history. They don't call him ice cold Borg for nothing. He could play serve and volley, aggressive baseline tennis, as well as defensive baseline as well. This was unheard of in that era , and even today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Nadal's withdrawal only spared himself an 8th consecutive loss to Djokovic. Let's be serious: Nadal could not even win a set on the clay against Djokovic during Djokovic's peak. Also, given the anti-Nadal, rainy conditions throughout the tournament, it is a good thing Nadal did not play.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Soderling is a loser against the Big 3. He was even dominated by Djokovic prior to 2011. One can only imagine what he would have done against prime Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Nadal's withdrawal only spared himself an 8th consecutive loss to Djokovic. Let's be serious: Nadal could not even win a set on the clay against Djokovic during Djokovic's peak. Also, given the anti-Nadal, rainy conditions throughout the tournament, it is a good thing Nadal did not play.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Soderling is a loser against the Big 3. He was even dominated by Djokovic prior to 2011. One can only imagine what he would have done against prime Djokovic.
No matter how many times Nadal loses ro Djokovic on clay, at RG court PC he is a different beast altogether. 2012-14 speaks for itself. 2015 being the lone anamoly or outlier. Nadal was in much better for in 16, winning two decent clay tournaments. Nadal would've fancied his chances. There's a reason why he has won 100+ 5 set matches on clay and lost only 2. And Djokovic hasn't even beaten Nadal on clay since 2016(a narrow 7-5, 7-6 win).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
When Djokovic peaks, Nadal can hardly win a set on any surface. And given the conditions at RG 16 - no sun and constant rain - Nadal's chances would have been slim to none.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top