Front242
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 22,544
- Reactions
- 3,464
- Points
- 113
huntingyou said:
Well according to Rafa himself he heard a loud crack in his knee while sitting on a hotel chair in Australia so stranger things have happened. His favourite song is probably Alice In Chains "Angry Chair".
No joke but I just got up off the chair I was sitting on and also heard a loud crack in my knee but I'm 100% fine so I guess it's a regular occurrence.
Nadal is enough to win. you know, before Nadal is a clay fun. and now back to me after Nadal not only in clay but also good in every field. I love him. and his new right is my idol.
Front242 said:
I've never had a knee injury in my life. Never had an injury of any kind anywhere actually. Yet I've still heard a loud crack in my knee, not even while sitting, just while walking.
honey1269 said:
Nadal lives like a king. He's from a rich family. He's probably cleaner than anyone in this entire forum. Certainly cleaner than Federer (Federer lives with babies sometimes).
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
^ Just saying, in response to the assertion that Nadal is unclean..... His living circumstances don't support such a claim.
Front242
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 22,544
- Reactions
- 3,464
- Points
- 113
NADAL2005RG said:
Never seen Fed pick his arse umpteen times during a match and then smell his fingers so you can at least be assured Fed's hands are cleaner. Fed's pretty vain, I'd say that makes him pretty clean personally.
El Dude
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,757
- Reactions
- 5,132
- Points
- 113
LOL, Front242.
This thread has obviously devolved, but one premise from the OP that I disagree with is that the Calendar Slam is the #1 definition of greatness. To me the Calendar Slam is a bit overrated - impressive, certainly, but only a bit more impressive than the Career Slam. They're different in that the Calendar Slam points to a very high level of greatness across all surfaces over a short span of time, but that also provides a limit to it in that it only refers to one year.
It also depends upon the competition. For instance, is Rod Laver's 1962 Calendar Slam more impressive than one of Roger Federer's near misses in 2004-07? (minus 2005). Rod Laver beat Roy Emerson three times and Marty Mulligan once, in the amateur period where the best players like Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales, not to mention Frank Sedgman, Pancho Segura, etc were playing pro. On the other hand, look at Federer's 2006 and 2007 - he didn't win the Calendar Slam in either year because he had to face (and lost to) the greatest clay courter in the history of the game.
We can make the same argument for Novak Djokovic's 2011. In the Slams he defeated Andy Murray once and Rafa Nadal twice, but lost to Roger Federer in the SF of the French Open. Is that less impressive than Laver's 1962?
(Just so you don't think I'm picking on Laver, his 1969 Calendar Slam was in credible; not only did he beat the best in the game to do it--Tony Roche, Andres Gimeno, Ken Rosewall, and John Newcombe--but but he did it at age 31.
As with any statistic or criterion, the Calendar Slam can't be taken in a vacuum (without context) or on its own (without looking at other stats). It certainly should be a factor, but I see it as more of a bonus if you did it rather than a subtraction if you didn't, and thus shouldn't be one of the definitions of greatness.
As for criteria for greatness, I'd look at a few factors, in no particular order:
- Weeks at #1
- Year-end rankings
- Slam wins
- Slam results overall
- Total titles, perhaps weighted towards more significant events
- Career Slam and Calendar Slam
- Peak level (which could include Calendar Slam)
- Plateau level - that is, how good the player was over the length of their career
- Head 2 Head against other top players
Etc
There are more, I'm sure. If I had to tease out what I feel are the most important ones, I'd look at Slam results (both wins and other results), overall titles (weighted), and rankings (#1 weeks and year-end). I think you start with those as the core of a player's greatness then add in the rest as "bonus points."
This thread has obviously devolved, but one premise from the OP that I disagree with is that the Calendar Slam is the #1 definition of greatness. To me the Calendar Slam is a bit overrated - impressive, certainly, but only a bit more impressive than the Career Slam. They're different in that the Calendar Slam points to a very high level of greatness across all surfaces over a short span of time, but that also provides a limit to it in that it only refers to one year.
It also depends upon the competition. For instance, is Rod Laver's 1962 Calendar Slam more impressive than one of Roger Federer's near misses in 2004-07? (minus 2005). Rod Laver beat Roy Emerson three times and Marty Mulligan once, in the amateur period where the best players like Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales, not to mention Frank Sedgman, Pancho Segura, etc were playing pro. On the other hand, look at Federer's 2006 and 2007 - he didn't win the Calendar Slam in either year because he had to face (and lost to) the greatest clay courter in the history of the game.
We can make the same argument for Novak Djokovic's 2011. In the Slams he defeated Andy Murray once and Rafa Nadal twice, but lost to Roger Federer in the SF of the French Open. Is that less impressive than Laver's 1962?
(Just so you don't think I'm picking on Laver, his 1969 Calendar Slam was in credible; not only did he beat the best in the game to do it--Tony Roche, Andres Gimeno, Ken Rosewall, and John Newcombe--but but he did it at age 31.
As with any statistic or criterion, the Calendar Slam can't be taken in a vacuum (without context) or on its own (without looking at other stats). It certainly should be a factor, but I see it as more of a bonus if you did it rather than a subtraction if you didn't, and thus shouldn't be one of the definitions of greatness.
As for criteria for greatness, I'd look at a few factors, in no particular order:
- Weeks at #1
- Year-end rankings
- Slam wins
- Slam results overall
- Total titles, perhaps weighted towards more significant events
- Career Slam and Calendar Slam
- Peak level (which could include Calendar Slam)
- Plateau level - that is, how good the player was over the length of their career
- Head 2 Head against other top players
Etc
There are more, I'm sure. If I had to tease out what I feel are the most important ones, I'd look at Slam results (both wins and other results), overall titles (weighted), and rankings (#1 weeks and year-end). I think you start with those as the core of a player's greatness then add in the rest as "bonus points."
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,080
- Points
- 113
El Dude,
The career slam isn't even remotely comparable to the holy grail of tennis, the calendar year slam. They're only related in passing, but one is the supreme achievement and the other is a statistical pleasantry.
By the way, I read Bjorn Borg's wiki entry the other day and his "place among the all time greats" was measured the modern way, which is bogus. Borg didn't chase the number of slams as a measure of greatness, but the calendar year slam, after Laver.
He wasn't even interested in the career slam, which is a more recent invention...
The career slam isn't even remotely comparable to the holy grail of tennis, the calendar year slam. They're only related in passing, but one is the supreme achievement and the other is a statistical pleasantry.
By the way, I read Bjorn Borg's wiki entry the other day and his "place among the all time greats" was measured the modern way, which is bogus. Borg didn't chase the number of slams as a measure of greatness, but the calendar year slam, after Laver.
He wasn't even interested in the career slam, which is a more recent invention...
El Dude
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,757
- Reactions
- 5,132
- Points
- 113
Kieran said:
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, and B) there are other, more important, defining qualities of greatness.
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.
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,080
- Points
- 113
El Dude said:
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.
El Dude said:
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...
shawnbm
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,410
- Reactions
- 1,103
- Points
- 113
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.
And Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on hard, clay and grass in a Calendar Year.
The Calendar Year Surface Slam. And it was done in succession too, 3 slam titles in a row in 2010.
Kieran said:El Dude said:
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.
El Dude said:
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.
