Most impressive 3 slams in a calender year

First topic message reminder :

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.

Y I Man wrote:Now now BB, play nice.

That WAS me playing nice

Seriously, some threads should have a big sign on them saying "abandon hope all ye who enter here".

Willander, simply because him managing to win on two hard court surfaces, given the way the games was so serve / volley orientated in those days, was immense

A most underrated player and commentator!!

Henman Bill wrote: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.

Henman Bill

You're one of the more level headed debators, so why are you joining in the nonsense that just because Fed isn't in the list it must be an insult etc

Fed's 2006 feat, does not compare to the other three. Period. Simply because the other three's were more remarkable simply because of the quality of the opposition / the relative playing surfaces

Willander did his at the peak time of serve and volley and the new hard hitters

Nole's feat this year, has to be seen as one of the Top 2

We can argue about Nadal's 2010 wins - but then we'd have to compare to Fed's 2006 ones and any rational person, will see that Rafa had it harder.


Not that I'm saying that the GOAT's slams were easy, before I get the usual Fed knocking accusation


Incidentally, if Murray does the Grand Slam beating no-one in the Top 20 in any of the latter stages, then I (after coming back down to earth) will still decalare that the achievemnets of Nole, Nadal and Willander were far more 'worthy'

banbrotam wrote:

Henman Bill wrote: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.

Henman Bill

You're one of the more level headed debators, so why are you joining in the nonsense that just because Fed isn't in the list it must be an insult etc

Fed's 2006 feat, does not compare to the other three. Period. Simply because the other three's were more remarkable simply because of the quality of the opposition / the relative playing surfaces

The difference between you and SA is that the latter knows he is a wum. What do you know about being "level headed" after comments like that?

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Henman Bill wrote: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.

Henman Bill

You're one of the more level headed debators, so why are you joining in the nonsense that just because Fed isn't in the list it must be an insult etc

Fed's 2006 feat, does not compare to the other three. Period. Simply because the other three's were more remarkable simply because of the quality of the opposition / the relative playing surfaces

The difference between you and SA is that the latter knows he is a wum. What do you know about being "level headed" after comments like that?

A Merry Xmas to you as well Tenez I'm sorry, that not agreeing that a Fed feat is as good as someone else's is being a WUM - but there you have it

Not that anyone could ever accuse you being one

Stay tune. I'll expose soon the differences between between Federer's "weak" era and Murray's strongest era ever".

You may learn a thing or two....you level headed poster.

If you ever catch me suggesting that Murray's 20-odd match winning run in the Autumn was more impressive than Fed's end of season 17 match winning run, I'll look forward to it