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).
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 .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.
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?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.
Which several players have won Channel slam? Only 3 have done it since Rod Laver. Borg, Nadal, and Federer.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?
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.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.
"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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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).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.