You overrate Djokovic Mr Laver

 

Alzheimer's is strong in this one, he just won it a few weeks ago.

 

Something I just noticed is that the last time a player got halfway towards the Grand Slam (Jim Courier '92) he also got upset in Wimbledon R3.

Courier '92: W W R3 SF

Djokovic '16: W W R3 ?

 

If we're talking about CYGS, he'll do it next year probably.

 

He could have won Wimbledon at least if he kept his emotion and played his normal tennis, he got upset that they screwed him with this court N1. At the same time Murray and Federer played all of theirs matches on centre court.

 

Obviously he could have won it, he won the first 2 GS, started as favourite for Wimbledon and will start as favourite for the USO assuming he's fit.

 

But he won the Grand Slam, no?

montard in ruins Lol :haha:

 

But he won the Gand Slam, no?

montard in ruins Lol :haha:

You should be a little more respectful to the opinion of an old man.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

The term Grand Slam also, and originally, refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships in a single calendar year within one of the five events: men's and women's singles; men's, women's, and mixed doubles. In doubles, one team may accomplish a Grand Slam playing together or one player may achieve it with different partners. The term "Grand Slam" without qualification refers to winning the four majors in a single calendar year.

There seems to be some confusion here...

 

It's behind the paywall, so nothing to be seen.

Laver is perhaps the most vocal supporter of Novak, among the legends of the game that is. They really are similar when you think about it (the quintessential tennis players), so no surprise Laver's feeling some sympathies towards Nole.

 

Why do you think that is?

 

Djokovic couldn't even win slams on 3 surfaces in a calendar year. No man has sever done that, apart from Nadal.
Remember when Nadal was going for The Rafa Slam and Laver said if he wins (the 2011 AO) it would be a "mini-slam" :lol:

 

Remember when Nadal was going for The Rafa Slam and Laver said if he wins (the 2011 AO) it would be a "mini-slam" :lol:

To be fair, although he does seem to admire Djokovic more than Nadal, he hasn't really changed his tune on what constitutes a true Grand Slam.

Before Australian Open 2011:

"There's a good chance he [Nadal] could pull it off. But it's not a grand slam, certainly," Laver said. "People will say, 'he's going for a grand slam' and I say, 'no, he's not doing that.' That wasn't the way this whole thing was set up. It starts in January and ends in September; starts with the Australian Open and ends with the US Open. Still, what he's trying to do is a great effort. It's not a grand slam, but it's a great effort."

After French Open 2016:

"I think he's got a good shot at pulling it off and I'd be happy seeing it. You don't own the territory. It's a feather in his cap if he can pull off a Grand Slam. He's got two [of the four] already." While Djokovic's four straight major titles aren't the ultimate slam, "owning the four at one time, it's one hell of an effort," Laver said.

So a more reverent tone when discussing Djokovic's achievement, but his view is the same (Grand Slam = 4 in one season).

 

This has nothing to do with what laver thinks of Djokovic. Laver will always predict Grand Slam winners because that's a way to keep himself relevant as the last one to do it, it's just legacy building PR

 

Laver's record speaks for itself. He has no need to resort to PR to build his legacy.

 

3 slams were played on grass in 1969.

IMO what djoker did was greater.

 

I think you're missing Laver's point.

An analogy i like to use for the grand slam is that of a bowling machine. With one throw, you have to take all 9 pins out. But you only get one throw. That's why it's difficult because a lot of things have to come together at the same time. A lot of variables that are potentially out of the player's control.(In dj's case I believe it ended up being 5 in a row was just too much)

But the key point is that when any top player enters a year, he wants to win all 4 slams in that year. If you did that, you had the best POSSIBLE year statistically.

With that being said, the question then becomes why is it a greater achievement if you won all 4 slams in a year rather than winning the 4 majors at different points in time? It just ties into winning all 4 majors in that year means that you had the best year statistically.

Also because the grand slam wasn't done since Laver's 69(no pun intended), it has added mystique and prestige to it just like the career slam a lot of prestige since only Agassi did it and another ATG like Sampras didn't and it wasn't till 2009 that Fed was the first to do it since Agassi.

 

The lack of hype surrounding Djokovic's 4 slams in a row indicates the 17 slams is still the biggest achievement in tennis according to the media.

 

The Grand Slam was first defined when Budge did it in 1938 and since then it has universally been seen as 4 in the one year. Which means there is more pressure on that feat, and therefore a greater achievement. Djoko's 4 is still fab of course, like Serena's.