Most impressive 3 slams in a calender year

Since Laver's Calender slam it has become incredibly difficult to win all 4 slams in a calender year and never repeated again. The new standard now has been 3 slams in a calender year starting from Mats Wilander in 1988. I have short-listed 3 of those to make people chose the most impressive. Eye-brows will be raised at some omissions but here's the top 3.

1. Mats Wilander
1988 - AO, FO, USO

2. Rafael Nadal
2010 - FO, Wimbledon, USO.

3. Novak Djokovic
2011 - AO, Wimbledon, USO.


Wilander's 3 slam was very impressive. Had to battle his great rivals along the way as well as beating home favourites in finals. He really dominated his main rivals in the slams that year.

Nadal's 2010 was brilliant in how he won the 3 slams on 3 surfaces.

Djokovic's 2011 is in there due to his dominance of his great rivals. For each of the 3 slams he played No.2 and 4 at AO, No.1 at Wimbledon, No.2 and 3 at USO.

All fantastic achievements, with Djokovic perhaps the best of those three.

As for the poll itself, I really can't for a minute think what the omissions might be.

And if the 'new standard' has become winning three Slams a year one can only imagine just how incredibly difficult it would be for a player to win three Slams a year in three different years.

Or to win the same two Slams back-to-back for four consecutive years

I wonder if anyone knows of a player who has actually done either of those things ; or maybe even .... both of them.....?

Most impressive.

Federer's 2006 came to mind but the short list was only going to be 3 so that was the omission. No one is saying it's not difficult to do. This is a short list of the most impressive of these feats. Feel free to add yours and give reasons why.

Going for Djoko as he had to play Murray once and Rafa twice as well as beating Fed in the semi at USO. Not sure anyone had ever had such difficult GS paths to finals and won, although it may have happened in the 1980s.
Can understand why Fed's three GS years were omitted as he probably didn't face quite the obstacles the others had to overcome.

I could be wrong but I think Simple Analyst is an anti Federer WUM and has done this article at least in part to try and wind up Federer fans like Bogbrush and Tenez.

Anyway, my vote is for Djokovic because of the players he had to play in semis and finals being a notch tougher. As stated in the above comment + Federer at AO semi.

Well done on on SA to finally acknowledge that Federer is in a class of his own and should not be mixed in with the others.

You wisdom is finally shining through. I don;t care what the others say.

I voted for Nadal because I know S_A wants his favourite player to be top of the poll and it's the season of goodwill. A sympathy vote, if you will.

Julius, good choice. You don't get a player winning 3 slams on 3 surfaces in same calender year often. Wilander and Djokovic due to quality of opposition makes it hard not to vote for too.

I await your poll on most impressive 16 slam winner - presumably no-one to vote for

Calendar, by the way.

Why are we doing a poll to decide 2nd best?

Because 1st best doesn't require a poll!

Lol why are Federer fans getting over emotional here. Blame the poor quality opposition during his 3 slam years: Marco and Co.
Like I said, he was consider after Nadal and Djokovic but there's no way any of his 3 slam years were impressive than Wilanders.

It's ok Simplistic, we've already decided what's what, Julius answered my question clearly.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol why are Federer fans getting over emotional here.

It's called having fun
Don't tell me the rules - oops, that was Federer!
Where's Boo?

Im a Federer fan and I (along with most) dont really give much value to your views, especially after you totally humiliated yourself on the final tie breaker thread, where you had no idea what you were talking about! Yet you come back for more! Bravo!

Naturally the fact you omitted the only person who's won 3 grand slams in a year on 3 separate occasions is no surprise. Trying to argue the opposition was weak is just boring, it's what you always say. The fact Federer had to beat Nadal and Djokovic in 2007 to win 2 of the 3 titles shows the opposition was hardly 'poor quality' unless of course Nadal and Djokovic are 'poor quality' opponents in grand slam finals? As you've named them above as contenders, I'm guessing not!

What was the final tie breaker thread?

I'm still jaughing at the Dr Seuss/Zeus fiasco!

bogbrush wrote:What was the final tie breaker thread?

I'm still jaughing at the Dr Seuss/Zeus fiasco!

Still jaughing?! Isn't that illegal in some states?

Luciusmann seems hurt by the poll's short list. If any of Federer's 3 slam years were more impressive, it will be there. Unfortunately, it was not good enough. Please get over it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:What was the final tie breaker thread?

I'm still jaughing at the Dr Seuss/Zeus fiasco!

Still jaughing?! Isn't that illegal in some states?

Now I have a dilemma. Do I confess that I mistyped and take the hit, or do I emulate Simplistic and spend the next three days trawling the web to find any kind of reference to something called jaughing and then insist that's what I meant all along?

Or spend a week trying to get over a blunder.

Lucius, by the way, just an choice though. All you have to do is wear a Federer rose-tinted glass and request his 2007 to replace Wilander's 1988 no matter how shamefully laughable such a suggestion would be.

Then stop, Simple. A week is enough, let it go, man!

Don't worry about the Zeus mistake S_A - there's no need to Apollo-gise.

Can't believe it took me a week to think of that joke.

I'm sure you'll get over it by next week. I do understand Dr Seuss is you hero though. You are allowed to have childhood memories of your hero. Julius can make it a better experience by giving you tv listings for Dr Seuss christmas stories.

I have voted for MW. I am old enough to remember that fantastic year. Wish a certain RF, referred to by some honourable posters was there too. But what to expect from our dear friend SA. Consistency is what he represents. Wish I had such conviction of thought and purpose.

You have put my thoughts very succinctly lags72.

SA, I'm far from hurt, but I do find it funny how you seem to assume you know me (otherwise how can you tell us what I'm feeling).

You accuse nearly anyone who challenges you of your rabid Federer hatred of wearing 'Federer rose-tinited glass[es]'. You could easily have included Federer and let others decide, as most who come to this forum, especially to the tennis section are highly knowledgeable about tennis.

Mentioning Wilander is mute to be honest, you specifically said you omitted Federer because he beat weak opponents when he won 3 slams and I pointed out in 2007 he beat both Djokovic and Nadal to win 2/3 slams. Again, are you calling Nadal and Djokovic weak opponents (the two guys who've contested 3/4 of the grand slam finals this year)?

You make rather a lot of blunders, but it's all good, all adds to the laughs you give us!

Lol if you know the history of 07, you won't mention it as a choice.
The repercussion of not including Federer in the poll is his rabid fans will come and cry about it. However, Luciusmann has now admitted to wearing a Federer rose-tinted glass asking for his inclusion so I might consider. This will give Federer fans a chance to vote for him.

By the way, I'd have preferred Mats Wilander to feature, I mean I was never a fan of his brother Matt.

* now watch as Simplistic googles for Matt Wilander and spends the next week maintaining that he never meant Mats at all *

Bogbrush with a cheap low jab to the ribs!
Score!
But, I think most of you just fell into the WUM trap there! Have to say, I thought it was all too obvious but apparently you can't resist.

Judging by some of the comments, SA does bring (albeit mostly unwittingly...!) a lot of humour to the forum, it must be said.

Admittedly, the still fresh-in-the-memory Dr Seuss/Zeus fiasco was pretty good - although it was as nothing when compared to the unholy mess he has sometimes got himself into on various contributions ....... Who could forget the infamous 'Deciding Set Tiebreaks and Mental Toughness' ?? An SA thread surely deserving of a special place in 606 folklore

Henman Bill wrote:Bogbrush with a cheap low jab to the ribs!
Score!
But, I think most of you just fell into the WUM trap there! Have to say, I thought it was all too obvious but apparently you can't resist.

I assume you don't understand the game.

SA, again you seem to have issues with grammar:

a) I said you accuse Federer fans of wearing such glasses (there was no admission by me or anyone else that I or we wear such glasses).

b) Correct me if I'm wrong but the title of the thread is the most impressive win of 3 slams, not what else happened during the year. Successfully defending his titles @ the Aussie Open, Wimbledon and USO Open is very impressive not to mention he reached the final of the only one he didn't win. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal have reached all finals in a calendar year. To boot, Federer beat both of those said players in two of the 3 finals.

c) 'lol' doesn't deflect from 2007 being excellent year for Federer in terms of the slams he won (which is what this thread purports to be about).

We already seen with the infamous thread lags72 mentioned that there does appear to be issues with grasping English (as you admitted it's not your first language), in fact, wait, that was related not to understanding the information you use as 'evidence'!

Anyway, welcome back SA, we do like the comic relief you provide us with, especially as it's Christmas!

I have voted for Wilander. A very impressive AO win, for example, beating unseeded Reneberg (R1), unseeded Youl (R2), unseeded Gustafsson (R3), unseeded Saceanu (R4), Jarryd (#6 in QF), Edberg (#2, first set 6-0 in SF), Cash (#4).

Fantastic.

Even more impressive was the fact that he did not win a single tournament in 1990 and lost in the first round of 1990 USO. He never won another slam.

At least Nadal won FO 2011. Let us see how Djokovic fares.

SA... very good article. Do not let the wums like BB, Tenez, JHM, LM, Lags72, HB, MC and PM deter you from your quest.

SA ... The Tennis Educator.

"At least Nadal won FO 2011. Let us see how Djokovic fares."

I hope you don't get too disappointed if he wins at least RG 2012....Nole, that is, of course

noleisthebest wrote:"At least Nadal won FO 2011. Let us see how Djokovic fares."

I hope you don't get too disappointed if he wins at least RG 2012....Nole, that is, of course

It would be fantastic for Djokovic to win RG 2012. First, and foremost, he needs to stay healthy.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"At least Nadal won FO 2011. Let us see how Djokovic fares."

I hope you don't get too disappointed if he wins at least RG 2012....Nole, that is, of course

It would be fantastic for Djokovic to win RG 2012. First, and foremost, he needs to stay healthy.

Well, if things go pearshape, he can always blame it on the boogie

bogbrush wrote:Why are we doing a poll to decide 2nd best?

ooh laverfan ...... you are naughty. But I like you !!

One can't help wonder why SA/UE sticks around on 606, when his articles/posts continue to attract such widespread ridicule.

Then again, I suspect that in a perverse way (and in true WUM tradition) he actually quite enjoys it .............

Lol Laverfan, stop trolling. What has has the proceeding year got to do with the 3 slam year of Wilander? As for the opposition at AO, need I remind you of the stiff competition Federer faced from households names Nicolas Kiefer in the semi finals before taking on Hall of Fame bound Marco Baghdatis in 2006 for example?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol Laverfan, stop trolling. What has has the proceeding year got to do with the 3 slam year of Wilander? As for the opposition at AO, need I remind you of the stiff competition Federer faced from households names Nicolas Kiefer in the semi finals before taking on Hall of Fame bound Marco Baghdatis in 2006 for example?

Please shed some light on Marion Puerta, Thomas Berdych and Soderling?
And on Youzhny, Blake, Davydenko and Ivo Karlovic?

lags72 wrote:you are naughty. But I like you !!

I like you too. Apologies for branding you (and many others as WUMs ).

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol Laverfan, stop trolling.

Calling you the most erudite Tennis Teacher on 606v2 is trolling? You are educating the minions on what true Tennis is when it comes to 3-slams-a-year. I am just complementing you on your knowledge extraordinaire and the abyss of Tennis history from which you are fishing such important pearls of wisdom. The Simplicity of your analysis is astounding (a la Enistein's Special Theory of Relativity). It will stand the test of Time for the next thousand years when Tennis reaches the outer rings of Jupiter.

Y I Man wrote:For obvious reasons, the adult stuff from this thread has been removed.
If you require a refresher on our site rules, drop me a pm and I will point you in their direction, otherwise, just stick to tennis please as this is a family forum.

I was wondering where you were last night....thought I'd even try you out by mentioning THAT website, but decided to against it

Was a bit busy last night NITB, but I get there eventually.

p.s. did my review on Nole do him justice? (In the awards thread)

Y I Man wrote:Was a bit busy last night NITB, but I get there eventually.

p.s. did my review on Nole do him justice? (In the awards thread)

it'll do for the masses

Y I Man wrote:For obvious reasons, the adult stuff from this thread has been removed.
If you require a refresher on our site rules, drop me a pm and I will point you in their direction, otherwise, just stick to tennis please as this is a family forum.

Thankfully that won't impact on any of Simplistics contributions.

Now now BB, play nice.