Is Winning A Grand Slam Just Too Tricky?- So Close And Yet So Far

Arguably this is a golden age in tennis with two all time greats dominating. Two all time greats who are talented enough to win on all surfaces as they have a career slam to prove it. Not only that but both have won three of the slams at least twice and both have managed to win three consecutive slams. They have also mastered the tricky channel slam a feat not seen since the days of Borg. We also have a third player versatile enough to have won three of the slams and got to the final of the fourth. All three of these players have been so close to a grand slam... and yet by failing at the last hurdle so far.

For Federer the big obstacle has probably been Nadal and for Nadal it has probably been his knees or maybe even a badly timed Olympics. And for Djokovic maybe it was Federer? So even in an age when the top three players have won over 90% of the slams winning a Grand slam has just proved too tricky for all of them.

Is it one of the few records that Laver will hold onto once Federer, Nadal and Djokovic hang up their raquets?

Also does it really matter what order the slams are won in? ie is a Grand Slam < a Calender Grand Slam. IMO they are more or less the same. Perhaps with one qualification... the inclusion of a channel slam in the set would makes a Grand Slam even more sparkly.

A calendar slam to me, doesnt neecssarily require more skill, but it does require a pretty big slice of luck, say nadal got injured at the 2007 french, and not the 2009 for example. Winning all 4 is huge, doesnt mater much to me how long it takes

I agree being able to win all four whatever the time scale proves a player has the skill to win a Grand Slam. I would also say being able to put in a run of wins in one season is perhaps another skill required. So winning three or winning the channel slam adds to this? But maybe the difference is just a bit of luck?