Flibbertigibbet said:In the Open Era, no. There have been three players before Federer (Open Era) who have won three or more Slams in a year: Laver, Connors, and Wilander. None of them won a Slam the next year - so Federer has already gone one step further on that, and if he wins the US Open, it'll be even better.
Sampras also won two majors in 97.BigboyDan said:Sampras won at least two majors in each of these years:93, 94, and 95.
Llendl won at least two majors in each of these years: 86, 87.
Borg won at least two majors in each of these years:78, 79, and 80.
Interesting, his results in 86 are identical to 87.NYCtennisfan said:Lendl in the stretch of 85-87 was incredible
85: RG Runner up, Wimbledon 4th round, USO win, Australian Open SF
86: RG win, Wimbledon Runner up, USO win, Australian Open SF
87: Australian Open SF, RG win, Wimbledon Runner up, USO win,
Lendl was amazing and in all reality was pretty darn good on grass too. If the grass played like it does today, he probably could've won at least one. In any case, he had so many RU and SF finishes on grass that he was actually one of the best players on the surface. It's too bad he played in the era of JMAC, old Connors, Edberg and Becker.Interesting, his results in 86 are identical to 87.
That is actually an exceptional run. Sampras never achieved more than 3 grand slam semi-finals in a row because of his struggles at Roland Garros. But Lendl managed 8 semis in a row and wasn't the Aus Open played on grass back then? Lendl's least favoured surface yet he still did very well. I think this guy was a legend but he's underestimated purely because he never won Wimbledon.