Do you agree with McEnroe/Wilander on Nadal needing 15 slams to surpass Federer?

[NADAL2005RG]

Dedication breeds greatness. The less you dedicate, the less you deserve.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I wonder which is bigger, the Calendar Year Grand Slam or the Double Career Grand Slam.

The Calendar Grand Slam.

 

[Moxie]

The calendar year slam is the mighty feat in tennis. Furthermore, to do it now would be, in my belief, more significant than when Laver did it in 1962 and 1969, when three of the four slams were played on grass. Winning the career slam is second place and doing it two times over is an incredible feat. Frankly, since two of the slams are now outdoor hard court events, I believe you can argue that Nadal already has won all the slams (in terms of surface difference) twice in his career. Roger needs another French.

Interesting point that Nadal has 2 on each surface. But, anyway, I agree with you and others who say the Calendar Slam is the thing.

I'm not denying that its a great achievement, but I think it is over-emphasized as a hallmark of greatness and that A) as I said, it shouldn't be looked at devoid of context

In terms of context, even 17 slams requires that, brother.

The calendar year slam isn't over-rated in terms of greatness, and the proof of this being that nobody has been able to do it since Laver. If somebody achieved it now, it would shake up the record books. I know, "surfaces" and all that, which only serves to further emphasise its difficulty, and therefore its magnitude as the Holy Grail of tennis.

As for Borg, if he was chasing the calendar year Slam, why didn't he play the AO? I know it wasn't considered as legit back then, but it was still part of the calendar year Slam. So obviously he wasn't chasing that as much as the "Trifecta" of the French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open.

No, Borg wasn't chasing Oz for its own sake. Back then, the Australian Open was played in December, so he stated he'd only disrupt his Christmas if he already had the other three slams in the bag, which was reasonable, given the dates involved. Only when the Australian Open got their act together and moved to January did the top players get involved again.

Had they played it in January in Bjorn's day, he would have played it...

Very right ,kieran.
When AO was played in Dec. many top ones did not compete there. Borg certainly would have played many AOs if it was in january, and perhaps would have won few of them raising his slam records, who knows.

The Calendar Slam has a long history of being the Holy Grail of tennis, and I think Kieran is right that the career slam, or the "(player name here)"-Slam, i.e., one player holding all 4 at once is new. (I think the one that started it was the "Serena Slam," and she actually has it.) The other point, which Britbox made eons ago, is that a player only has one chance to set up the Calendar Slam. Either you win the first (whether the Oz now, or RG in years past,) or you wait another year. And even the best will only have a window of so many years. As great as this era is, it hasn't brought a calendar slam, even though we've been close a few times. Not even a Roger-, Rafa- or Nole-Slam.