This article might come a bit early and might not be as valid when comes Sunday as it is based on Djokovic winning the Grand Slam. I would like to stress how important it is to read records, and achievements and that without paying attention to details, we might not draw the right conclusions.
DJoko is on the verge of holding the 4 slams at once, a feat not achieved in mens tennis since Rod Laver and only achieved another time by Don Budge just before the WW2. Simply an achievement made when times were simply easier in amateurish/pro tennis.
What does a GS really mean? It is in itself one of the greatest achievement of domination and consistency of tennis on all 4 available surfaces. Possibly different surfaces having specific characteristics such as fast grass, clay and HC.
Would Djoko’s achievement really represent that domination and consistency a GS will give him?
My answer is simply no. The main reason is that 2 of his 4 slams would have been won after having been MP down. A player dominating his peers (what a GS should reflect) doesn’t get to MP down in 2 of the 4 slams and even less 6 times altogether! It’s a great feat to get out of those close matches and it certainly shows composure under pressure, but domination? No. Not like Federer, Borg and Lendl have at times or even Nadal on clay where they would go an entire slam without dropping a set, or just one set as a blip of concentration. And Borg and Federer have done that year in year out…unlike Djoko, right on the run of his only good year so far.
Doing it on clay, grass and HC don’t mean that much anymore, we have discussed that in the past and I don’t think it’s worth spending too much time arguing but I would just like to mention that we know grass has been slowed down by bigger and softer balls and that more recently even the USO followed suit making all 4 surfaces particularly slow. This is simply proven by seeing the same 4/5 players reaching the business end of slams all with a counter puncher game and amazing fitness bar Federer who was really lucky to have WC, LL and injured Delpo on his draw.
So Djoko’s slam would certainly be an amazing effort for him to win the 4 in a row but I have to say, even if controversial, also a great share of belief, determination, special conditions and luck! When you realise that Federer won 5 USO and Wimby on the trot, including 4 AO but never made it, it would be ironic to see Djoko doing first time of asking.
I still want him to do it as each record bring something special that others haven’t…but I think a GS would not be a very fair reflexion of his domination on 4 different surfaces.
Interesting observation about Grand Slams
posted on 7/6/12
Comment Deleted by Article Creator
posted on 7/6/12
Tenez why are you deleting your own comments?
posted on 7/6/12
Very strange behaviour Ronaldinho. It's all started since he was proven wrong, he can't seem to handle that on an internet forum.
posted on 7/6/12
Federer has won Wimbledon on the fast grass (2003) and the slow grass.
In my opinion, I don't think Nadal, Djokovic or Murray would even get close to winning Wimbledon on the 2003 grass.
Agassi and Hewitt won from the back of the court, but they were fantastic returners that loved returning pace with pace, not grinding out 20 shot rallies every other point like Nadal, Djoko and Murray.
Even Agassi and Hewitt had their fair share of problems on the grass and only won in the transitional year between eras when the draws opened up considerably.
posted on 7/6/12
JT - Hewitt and Agassi were 2 great returners but Agassi's returns was done on fast grass and he had to stand close to the baseline as he was using natural guts. Very different than Hewitt who was returning in 2002 (one of the slowest year with the introduction of bigger balls) and using luxilon strings allowing him to stand back and swing at the return on a slower ball.
YOu are right that Wimby 2003 seemed faster. the AE learnt his lesson as Wimby 2002 and its bigger balls was a bit of boring tournament with 2 baseliners in the final, an easy destruction of Henman with lots of players complaining of the slow conds. I think that's the reason why they reverted to faster balls in 2003. But we know they gradually slowed it down after 2003 to give Federer a bit more of a challenge.
posted on 8/6/12
Tenez,
Thanks for the clarification about 2002, couldn't beleive Andre Sa getting to the quarters when he didn't seem a very good player at all on grass.
I remember Agassi taking the ball very early, standing well inside the baseline (one of the very few agressive baseline players). Wimbledon always tended to favour the more aggressive players, so sad what had happened recently.
It has definitely slowed down since 2003 (probably even before that). This clip comparing 2003 and 2008 says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw
posted on 8/6/12
Winning 4 majors is a huge achievement, but I don't rate very highly in this current era. Even for Laver's 1969 win, I wouldn't rate it very highly. I have already given my take on Laver's 1969 wins based on which his GOAT candidature is put forward. 4 slam, 3 played on grass.
If someone had achieved it in the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s, I would have really rated that very highly. Surfaces were very different from each other that time. There were "specialist" on certain surfaces. All majors gave chance to different skilled player to prevail. Surfaces demanded great adaptation.
But the situation now is just about the same as in 1969. Though the surfaces are different, they are all about the same pace wise. They all assist only one kind of play and if someone is better than the other in that play, he will keep winning easily. Pecentage low risk stamina-lung-busting iron-man game. Success of Nadal and Djo is a proof. Their failure on a bit different surface is another proof ( e.g. Madrid this year, Fast courts of Dubai this time, WTF- Low bouncing, no wind, no rain, slower but still not like Miami and AO.
So it will be good, but not great.
posted on 8/6/12
Which pops a question. Who is the late 80s 90s and early 2000s came close to getting this feat of holding 4 slams simultaneously?
posted on 8/6/12
If someone had achieved it in the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s, I would have really rated that very highly. Surfaces were very different from each other that time. There were "specialist" on certain surfaces. All majors gave chance to different skilled player to prevail. Surfaces demanded great adaptation.
--------------------------------------------
2 points:
1 - 3 grass one clay certainly but Laver still won on the 2 extreme surface: clay and Wimbledon. So that makes it a valid slam to me.
2 - You still have a point cause it's not the surface that made clay and grass extreme in the 80s-90s. it's the new larger racquet graphites which emphasised the differences between clay and grass. On one you could moonball a l Wilander, on the other you coudl Serve volley a la McEnroe or Sampras.
Winning the FO/Wimby double pre 1985 was not something rare as many did it up to Borg included. However none did it from 1981-2008 included with 2 types of games winning on both surfaces.
The slowing down of Wimbledon to ridiculous extremes finally allowed the king of clay to win on grass. As JT's clip shows, a slowing down of teh ball towards the baseline allowed him to get to balls he woudl have never got earlier years.
posted on 8/6/12
Winning the FO/Wimby double pre 1985 was not something rare as many did it up to Borg included. However none did it from 1981-2008 included with 2 types of games winning on both surfaces.
--------------------------------------
THis point is very relevant to the discussion of this thread. Agassi is another player I question the career GS as an amazing achievement. Because he is in effect the only player that won on 4 different surfaces including the extreme Wimby/FO (though not back to back). Simply because he only won one Wimbledon and one FO only. And that FO was won thanks to teh crowd descending on the cour and disrupted an in-the-zone Medvedev who was teaching him how to hit clean winners right and left.