If Djokovic wins the AO he will be the fourth player in the Open era to win 3 slams in a row

At the 2006 Australian Open, Federer became the first man to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles since Sampras in 1993–94 (Nadal subsequently achieved this feat at the 2010 US Open). Federer repeated this feat at the 2007 Australian Open, making him the only man to achieve this feat twice in the open era.

I think Djokovic has a "shot" at the holy of holies - a calendar grand slam this year. He needs obviously to manage his schedule very carefully between slams so that he is in tip top conditions at the slams. The Olympics might be an unnecessary distraction - I think he should give it a skip if he has won all three slams of the year at that point (to focus on recovering for the US Open).

Nore Staat wrote:I think Djokovic has a "shot" at the holy of holies - a calendar grand slam this year.

I agree, but indeed he should really do it this year. The strange situation that only 3 players are gobbling up all the Slams won't last forever. Murray will continue to improve and at some point will manage to win one. Federer and Nadal are still contenders during the next 2 years, Del Potro will slowly reach his old level, and Tsonga might get "on a roll".
Having recently watched the highlights of Djokovic-Tomic at SW19, I think it won't be too long before Tomic could beat Novak.

Yes I agree the window of opportunity will probably close next year. The immediate target should be to defend his title here and then to focus on the French Open (and not "killing himself" between the AO and FO). If he wins the French Open I think that would be the first time that a man has held all four grand slam titles since a very long time and the first time in the modern era.

Nadal missed his opportunity last year to hold all four grand slam tournament trophies (AO 2011) when he killed himself at the Mubadala/ UAE and ExxonMobil/Doha Qatar tournaments "earning" a huge stack of cash rather than preparing properly for AO2011. Instead it gave an opportunity for Djokovic to win and develop an incredible self-belief and iron-will that swept Nadal away in the rest of the year.

I still don't see Djoko retaining Wimbledon.

Tenez wrote:I still don't see Djoko retaining Wimbledon.

Djoko is not the best grass court player for sure, but IF he would win both the AO and Roland Garros, he will be so full of confidence that he could win Wimbledon as well. It's a bit like Nadal winning the US Open in 2010...

prostaff85 wrote:

Tenez wrote:I still don't see Djoko retaining Wimbledon.

Djoko is not the best grass court player for sure, but IF he would win both the AO and Roland Garros, he will be so full of confidence that he could win Wimbledon as well. It's a bit like Nadal winning the US Open in 2010...

Or like Nadal and Federer before him, the nerves or providence might play up a bit.

Who was actually the last player winning the first two Slams of the year? Was it Wilander in '88?

prostaff85 wrote:Who was actually the last player winning the first two Slams of the year? Was it Wilander in '88?

Must have been!...unless Agassi win it the AO the year he won the FO...but I doubt cause he was on his way back...I believe.

Tenez wrote:

prostaff85 wrote:Who was actually the last player winning the first two Slams of the year? Was it Wilander in '88?

Must have been!...unless Agassi win it the AO the year he won the FO...but I doubt cause he was on his way back...I believe.

Jim Courier did it in 1992

Kafelnikov won the 1999 AO is me memory serves me right.

Tenez wrote:I still don't see Djoko retaining Wimbledon.

Why not? Who is going to stop him at Wimbledon? Fed can't even make it past the QF there anymore losing to the likes of Berdych and Tsonga in the past 2 years...

Target has to be the non calendar year grand slam at the moment, holding all four at the same time while simultaneously securing the career slam at the same moment.

Calendar year grand slam is always a very long shot until any player and doesn't really rate that serious consideration until after the French Open in my opinion.

Djokovic himself has said, in an interview shown at the BBC Sports Personality for instance, that "all four" is the target. Actually, although it wasn't clear, he seemed to mean all four in a year rather than a career. Maybe.

The last time 4 in a row was achieved in men's singles was actually1969, when it was the calendar slam by Laver and was the only such achievement in the open, professional era as many of you will know. Curiously, the last non calendar year grand slam was actually even further back in history. Before Laver's amateur slam in 1962, Don Budge achieved the last non calendar year grand slam as far as I can see, as far back as 1937-1938. For good measure he went on to acheive the calendar year grand slam in 1938 for a total of six in a row.

In fact, Budge was the only achiever of a non calendar year grand slam in the entire of tennis history.

Budge and Laver did it in a much kinder/gentler environment.

My concern would be Djokovic's health. He was knackered by Paris/WTF. Even USO was close to a sheer will power. It would be wonderful for Tennis if he can get the CYGS.

It is indeed a tough one.

HB... He did mention a CYGS not just a career slam. I will try and find a link.

laverfan wrote:Budge and Laver did it in a much kinder/gentler environment.

My concern would be Djokovic's health. He was knackered by Paris/WTF. Even USO was close to a sheer will power. It would be wonderful for Tennis if he can get the CYGS.

It is indeed a tough one.

HB... He did mention a CYGS not just a career slam. I will try and find a link.

"a kinder/gentler environment"

What where men smoked 20 Woodbines a day and signed up to go to war and die in their thousands?

Seriously though, I don't buy the argument that it's necessarily harder now. OK, there's more strength in depth and more variety in playing surfaces but you still have to beat the very best in the draw whichever era you're in. It's all relatively speaking (i.e. deciding which era is better than another) and bloody difficult whenever it 's been done historically , at present and anytime into the future.

newballs wrote:Seriously though, I don't buy the argument that it's necessarily harder now.

Seriously, it is!

Imagine having to train to become the best player of your county....and then train to become the best player in the world. That's roughly what separate those guys then from those top guys now.

Tenez you can only ever be the best in your own era. Of course the game has become more physically demanding but you can't therefore just say the best of the past isn't as good. it was a different game but the mental side was the same and the skills required to win equivalent to now.

newballs wrote:Tenez you can only ever be the best in your own era. Of course the game has become more physically demanding but you can't therefore just say the best of the past isn't as good. it was a different game but the mental side was the same and the skills required to win equivalent to now.

Well yes...cause in the past only a handful or maybe 20 players (at he very most) were training hard all year round. They were all playing against each other and creating a big gap with the players who could not dedicate as much time or simply could not afford to enter that small circle of players who could make a living.

As I said for a given player the difference is like winning a county tournament v winning a slam. Different worlds I woudl say.

I was the best of my era I remember it well as if it was yesterday. It was 1997, 17th January, between the hours of 3 and 4 in the afternoon, just outside Neasden Common.

Tenez moving this discussion on a bit it's also the fact that there are so many different players who are considered clay court or grass court specialists that also makes things more difficult.

For the likes of Federer and Nadal to ever achieve a slam (for example winning the other 3 slams is the easy part beating Nadal and all the other clay court specialists at the french the hard part). That's probably why it hasn 't been done since the days of Laver.

Three slams in the same calendar year for the men almost therefore seems to be the achievable limit.

Newballs....I am not sure I understand your last post.

But Nadal won 3 slams on all 3 surfaces. Laver never did that. Not his fault though so can't be used against him. They only had 2 surfaces then.

Now we have only one surface: slow court!

Do yuo really believe Nadal woudl have won Wimbledon in the 90s!

Well i don't know. Just know Federer didn't.

Don't agree with "achievable limit". The margins are fine. Federer has been within 1 match of winning the calendar year slam 3 times (04, 06, 07) and certainly would have done so had Nadal chosen to take up final and even in 2009 was within 2 sets of it. Likewise Djokovic only last year was almost as close.
It's impossible to draw any conclusions from the tiny sample size of when it's actually been done, I'd say it's more random chance than anything that it hasn't been done in the last decade.
I think 1969 Laver lost about 18 matches that year and didn't win any slams in 1970 if I recall. He just happened to do well in those tournaments to some extent, I'm being slightly unfair to hsi great achievement, but you get what I mean.
By the way, what's with Djokovic. Apart from a brief interlude to win the US Open, he was tired for about 4 months from Cincinatti onwards! I know he had a tough Spring, but how long do you need to get over it!

Good point SA about the surfaces. Federer and Nadal's achievement is a tremendous one, but it was even harder in the 90s. That's why Agassi's career slam is an impressive one.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well i don't know. Just know Federer didn't.

Shame on him. Surely in 1999 as a 17 year old he should have walking off with the title. What a disgrace from the Swiss shanking machine, salutations and good night all!

Are we talking about Boris Becker? I saw 17 and won why i'm asking.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well i don't know. Just know Federer didn't.

You know at 19 he beat Pete Sampras the greatest player on grass of the 90s on his own garden with Pete's racquet.

Pete was going for 5 in a row on grass...so keen to equal Borg.

I am sure you remember that....not that I needed to remind you.

Of course i do especially when Henman gave him Serve and Volley lessons on slow grass next round.

You mean that slow grass that saw Goran and Rafter 2 great SVers disputing the title? No bruguera, Muster or Guga to be seen at SW19 at that time...

Ouf I am glad you do remember. Sometimes we tend to forget painful memories. That how we can survive and move forward.

I know. Why i'm thinking of burning my FO 2008 final DVD.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I know. Why i'm thinking of burning my FO 2008 final DVD.

Don't! that's your only moment of grace of the last decade and with Nadal going down tamely recently, you may have more painful moments ahead of you.

But i also have a framed picture of Federer crying while holding the AO 2009 runner up trophy. Any suggestion what i should do with that? Thinking of burning it too.

I guess you'll have to burn the whole 2011 DVD collection

https://2img.net/h/oi41.tinypic.com/24v8doj.jpg

Melbourne Massacre

Good grief S_A and his extreme views again.

Burning DVDs, books and Federer effigies next I imagine.

if Novak Djokovic does the Calendar Slam this year and thereby winning 7 Slams on the trot, will he be annointed as the GOAT?

Yes, but only by a few people who'll call it prematurely to get in first.

A Golden Grand Slam has only ever happened once in tennis & it wasn't achieved by a man. That said, it could have only happened pre-1924 and from 1988 onwards as tennis wasn't an Olympic sport in those intervening 64 years.

It's a special thing & therefore is very hard to achieve & rare to happen.

I believe it will happen again, maybe even on the men's side. It will take a mixture of skill, timing & luck.

I hope I get to see it again in my lifetime!