Who had the most impressive Career Slam?

Vote.

In theory Agassi. He had to do it on true 4 different surfaces. Practically he was helped by 2 great chokers: Ivanisevic and Medvedev.....and as he won only one Wimbledon and one FO, his CS could be seeen as a kind of lucky occurence.

Federer as the alternative of course.

Nadal by quite a margin. Never struggled to complete his career slam and did so by 24. Others toiled on for years and when it came to complete it, had a slice of luck.

I've gone for Agassi, basically for the reasons Tenez gave, in that there were more differences in the surfaces those days. I think all three had an element of luck with their slams, Fed benefitted from Nadal being knocked out of RG to win it, Agassi as Tenez said had a couple of chokes to help him along, Nadal had pretty easy run-ins to his two hard-court slams etc.

Rafa, for the speed of it and cause it includes an olympic gold singles medal as well as multiple DC wins. Also Rafa had to beat Federer in a number of slams to do it.

That will be who had the most impressive "Golden Slam" vote. The Golden Slam is the complete achievement in tennis. London 2012 is going to be contested like a fierce war.

But when considering it all, Federer if anything has been very unlucky to get only one career slam.

5 USO, 6 Wimbies, 4 AO, 5 FO finals..including one win.

THat surpasses his peers by quite some margins so I do not agree that there is a part of luck in his CS...quite the opposite if anything.

Also considering that Federer was a couple of TBs away (that is a 3 or 4 points away) from getting the calendar GS.

It's not close if anything. However Agassi certainly did it when surfaces were very different.

1. Agassi, because of surface difference.

2. Federer, because he'd knocked on the door so many times, making so many RG finals and being on the verge of Grand Slams so often.

3. Nadal, because it's a massive achievement and coming 3rd on this isn't any sort of criticism.

Tenez wrote:But when considering it all, Federer if anything has been very unlucky to get only one career slam.

5 USO, 6 Wimbies, 4 AO, 5 FO finals..including one win.

THat surpasses his peers by quite some margins so I do not agree that there is a part of luck in his CS...quite the opposite if anything.

Also considering that Federer was a couple of TBs away (that is a 3 or 4 points away) from getting the calendar GS.

It's not close if anything. However Agassi certainly did it when surfaces were very different.

I get what you're saying, in that throughout Federer's career there has only been one better clay-courter than him, but dress it up as you like, the one who beat Fed in all of his other finals at RG went out early in the one he won, hence there was an element of luck in it. This is not to detract from his achievements, which are amazing.

Agassi for surface difference , being the first to do it since ATP was introduced.

Federer the most unlucky considering how many FO finals he made, Nadal's on CS is as bigger as any achivement in Tennis coz he had to bead Federer [GOAT] on most occasions.

So I would say all 4 including Laver's deserve equal merit.

But if I had to pick just one, I will have to go with Agassi.

As the question is regarding the career slam not the number of slams someone has won or been runner up in (where Federer would be the undisputed winner) I've gone for Nadal. The reason being that in three legs of the career slam (AO, FO and Wimbledon) he has beaten the best player of the last ten years, Federer, in a final.

I think it could be said that if it hadn't have been for Nadal's injury Federer wouldn't have obtained the 2009 French slam.

Or it could simply be said Federer did obtain the 2009 French (Open). I'm fairly sure you could put an 'if' or a 'lucky' against 95% of GS wins, if you wanted to - but there's little point in doing so.

When trying to assess the most "impressive" Career Slam there has to be some ifs and butts.

Nore Staat wrote:I think it could be said that if it hadn't have been for Nadal's injury Federer wouldn't have obtained the 2009 French slam.

Disagree with that.

1 - I have never been convinced by the injury.

2 - Federer himself played Wimbledon 2008 with GF and 2010 with clear injuries.

It took the following years to complete it:

Agassi - 1992-1999(7 years)
Federer - 2003-2009(6 years)
Nadal - 2005-2010(5 years)

It took Nadal the least time. If Nole wins RG in 2012 it would have taken him the least amount of years in the open era. 2008-2012(4 years). Wow.

Will Nole establish a new record for the fastest to achieve the Career Slam? Or will someone stop him at RG again?

How you count the years is inaccurate, 1 year to them all but Djokovic will have a chance next year although he had one of the most dominant seasons ever and would kick himself for not making the FO final and having a shot at it. The case with Nadal is, soon after winning the 3rd slam, he quickly followed the next year with the USO. Djokovic is in a similar position and both will be impressive as they wouldn't have scrapped every year looking for the elusive one. Federer had to wait 5 years and Agassi 4 years.

Had Federer beaten Nadal at FO, he'd win hands down. He is superior to Nadal on hard courts, where the competition is the stiffest.
HOWEVER!
The fact that Nadal had to beat Federer in Wimbledon as well as AO in order to part-complete his career slam, tips it for me.

It would be great if Nole could win RG next year. Federer's last chance,too.

All this in mind, Roland Garros 2012 may be very, very interesting, indeed....

The draw will perhaps be decisive. Should Novak defeat either Roger or Rafa in SF, the final would be most interesting. Whoever wins in absence of Rafa in final (as if that were to happen!), will have the pundits crying out an astericked slam win! Being the eternal optimist, I think think Roger will defeat Rafa in final. Most Roger fans and nonfans alike will then hopefully agree about GOAT issue.

Manojchandra wrote:The draw will perhaps be decisive. Should Novak defeat either Roger or Rafa in SF, the final would be most interesting. Whoever wins in absence of Rafa in final (as if that were to happen!), will have the pundits crying out an astericked slam win! Being the eternal optimist, I think think Roger will defeat Rafa in final. Most Roger fans and nonfans alike will then hopefully agree about GOAT issue.

Perhaps the comment above will be more suited for the fantasy thread on the main page. Over here, we are a bit more realistic.

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Perhaps the comment above will be more suited for the fantasy thread on the main page. Over here, we are a bit more realistic.

I am not sure you will find a poster here who would like to pair with your views.

But nonetheless, stay around as we enjoy having different views on v2...even as weird as yours.

I agree Tenez, i'll be more worried if you in particular pair with my views

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Perhaps the comment above will be more suited for the fantasy thread on the main page. Over here, we are a bit more realistic.

I am not sure you will find a poster here who would like to pair with your views.

But nonetheless, stay around as we enjoy having different views on v2...even as weird as yours.

I for one have really missed this brand of entertainment. Where else can you find someone thinking Dr Seuss is spelt as Dr Zeus, and then spending a day trying to design a convoluted reason why they really meant it? It was like watching a guy walk in front of a car every day for a month because he did it once by accident and didn't want to appear foolish.

Lol you still not over your blunder? Didn't i recommend a read on Dr Zeus to you and Julius before i attended to more important task of cleaning under my fridge?

Manojchandra, may be your optimism could be justified though. For all it's worth, this year was one of the few productive years Federer had against Nadal- he did not get beat left, right and centre as usual but managed to win their meeting at the exhibition match recently as well a cameo losing effort at the FO. You wouldn't normally expect him winning any of their slam matches let alone at the FO but every one is allowed to be optimistic.

Simple, what you're selling nobody is buying.

Nobody.

Not a sausage.

Please keep doing it though, your "Dr Seuss" faux pas is climbing up to the 2nd tier of humiliations, though still somewhere under Dr_Sinceres' Premature Speculation.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Didn't i recommend a read on Dr Zeus to you and Julius before i attended to more important task of cleaning under my fridge?

You did. Can you tell us the author? I could only find reference to Kage Baker, but that Dr. Zeus was a corporation (not a person) of time-travellers, and do not seem to be known for any sort of incompetence. Therefore I assume your reference to a fictional incompetent Dr. Zeus is someone else?

Although i still have to attend to my fridge i have to say never heard of Dr Seuss before either. Apparently he does children comics. Certainly explains Bogbrush's fascinations with him.

Julius, research harder, find the novels and have a read.
Good to see Boggo said he is not buying yet days after, he is still not over his blunder.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Didn't i recommend a read on Dr Zeus to you and Julius before i attended to more important task of cleaning under my fridge?

You did. Can you tell us the author? I could only find reference to Kage Baker, but that Dr. Zeus was a corporation (not a person) of time-travellers, and do not seem to be known for any sort of incompetence. Therefore I assume your reference to a fictional incompetent Dr. Zeus is someone else?

You can't see the connection to Glandular Fever?

I thought nobody could touch socal in 2011 for the Fognini incident but this effort by Simplistic has blown him out of the water.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Although i still have to attend to my fridge i have to say never heard of Dr Seuss before either. Apparently he does children comics. Certainly explains Bogbrush's fascinations with him.
Julius, research harder, find the novels and have a read.
Good to see Boggo said he is not buying yet days after, he is still not over his blunder.

Oh my sides!

I can remember Dr Seuss because I have a memory.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Although i still have to attend to my fridge i have to say never heard of Dr Seuss before either. Apparently he does children comics. Certainly explains Bogbrush's fascinations with him.

Julius, research harder, find the novels and have a read.
Good to see Boggo said he is not buying yet days after, he is still not over his blunder.

In other words, you don't know.
By the way, Dr Seuss is (or at least he was last time I checked) the most widely read children's author in the world. 'The Grinch Who Stole Christmas' is a classic for this time of year, and check your TV listings - the animated version is usually on over Christmas and is brilliant!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Although i still have to attend to my fridge i have to say never heard of Dr Seuss before either. Apparently he does children comics. Certainly explains Bogbrush's fascinations with him.

Julius, research harder, find the novels and have a read.
Good to see Boggo said he is not buying yet days after, he is still not over his blunder.

In other words, you don't know.
By the way, Dr Seuss is (or at least he was last time I checked) the most widely read children's author in the world. 'The Grinch Who Stole Christmas' is a classic for this time of year, and check your TV listings - the animated version is usually on over Christmas and is brilliant!

I realised that from the orgasm you two are having over the name. Don't worry Julius, i will check my tv listings for the 'The Grinch who stole christmas'. Perhaps watching it over again for many years might have given you a clearer child's persepctive than a soon to be first-time viewer like me. Care to summarize the story for me.

SPOILER ALERT!
Simply put, the Grinch is out to ruin Christmas for Whoville, because 'his heart is two sizes too small'. He sneaks in, steals all the presents, trees etc on Christmas Eve. But the Whos wake up and still celebrate Christmas. When the Grinch hears them singing he has an epiphany and returns everything and at the big feast 'he himself, he carves the roast beast'.

The animated version has songs - 'You're a mean one Mr Grinch' being a personal favorite.

I'm too young to know what an orgasm is, could you summarize for me?

Gone for Agassi cos of surfaces, but they are all MIGHTY ACHIEVEMENTS. Interestingly, and somwhat surprisingly, no one in the Open Era has one each of the slams at least twice. Fed came the closest this year by making the RG final.
It's a remarkable stat and if it was anything but the French Fed had to win, you would say that he had a chance to do it. Rafa has the best chance, with "only" the AO and USO to win again.

Agassi for me also. The variation between the surfaces is the clincher. Also the fact that his career peaked and troughed and that he blew a few finals early on makes it a good story too.

All great achivements but for me Federer's is slightly the least impressive simply because he had finals against players like Philipoussis, Safin, Hewitt and Soderling. And Nadal is the most impressive because his finals were against Puerta (but he beat Federer in the semi that year and Federer in multiple finals later at the same event), Federer, Federer and Djokovic.

The surfaces definately make Agassi's more impressive in a way but the calibre of players wasn't quite so impressive Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras (wasn't at his best emotionally after his coach had cancer) and Medvedev (but I think he beat defnding champ Moya in an earlier round).

Not much between Agassi and Nadal but Nadal for me.

Henman Bill wrote:All great achivements but for me Federer's is slightly the least impressive simply because he had finals against players like Philipoussis, Safin, Hewitt and Soderling. And Nadal is the most impressive because his finals were against Puerta (but he beat Federer in the semi that year and Federer in multiple finals later at the same event), Federer, Federer and Djokovic.

To me the problem with Nadal is that he was actually beaten by all those guys like Blake, Youzhny, Hewitt, Murray, and only managed to win the AO, Wimbledon and the USO when they drastically reduced the speed of those courts.

Had the courts been as different as in the 90s, I could see Federer still winning the 4. Frankly, I could not envisage one second Nadal winning the USO, let alone Wimbledon.

In that respect I am very surprised to see him with so many votes here. He won with the same styles on all surfaces....and he won only just despite the slowing of the 3 other slams.

Yes but Fed won on those courts too. What's good for the goose is...
Plus FO is faster now than in the 90s...I'd have guys like Guga to beat Fed most times (as Guga did in 2004). Fed also won his 4 slams with broadly similar styles - this is why its getting easier for guys to do the Grand Slam. We had Laver in 69 then Agassi in 99...a 30 year gap which showed just how hard the feat was...and now all of a sudden we have 2-3 doing it in the space of 3 seasons!

lydian wrote:Yes but Fed won on those courts too. What's good for the goose is...
Plus FO is faster now than in the 90s...I'd have guys like Guga to beat Fed most times (as Guga did in 2004). Fed also won his 4 slams with broadly similar styles - this is why its getting easier for guys to do the Grand Slam. We had Laver in 69 then Agassi in 99...a 30 year gap which showed just how hard the feat was...and now all of a sudden we have 2-3 doing it in the space of 3 seasons!

Indeed and this year we also had the Murray achieving the Calendar Semi-Final Grand Slam, only the seventh man to have achieved this since the dawn of time.

lydian wrote:Yes but Fed won on those courts too. What's good for the goose is...
Plus FO is faster now than in the 90s...I'd have guys like Guga to beat Fed most times (as Guga did in 2004). Fed also won his 4 slams with broadly similar styles - this is why its getting easier for guys to do the Grand Slam. We had Laver in 69 then Agassi in 99...a 30 year gap which showed just how hard the feat was...and now all of a sudden we have 2-3 doing it in the space of 3 seasons!

I am sorry but your partiality is so obvious here again.

1 - The very point is that the game was slowed down to actually allow the "great" rivalry outside the FO. All the other slams wanted to have their piece of the Fedal rivalry and history. They did not want to have the likes of Youzhny, Rodick Blake and others to spoil the party. This is why they slowed down the USO. I remember reading already in 2008 that the organisers of the USO had slowed the USO by adding sand in the paint. But Fed started to win the USO in 2004, well before there was a need to slow the courts down. The courts were fast enough to make Roddick and Blake Federer's biggest rivals. As we saw this year and last Roddick is now completely toothless on the courts he oce won a GS.

2 -Honestly, thinking that Guga would beat Federer more often than not on slow clay of the 90s just shows further your partiality when it comes to Federer. Just to remind you that Federer on clay has only been beaten by Nadal himself over the last 7 years (bar the odd match there and then). And I would even add he has beaten Nadal on teh slowest clay more convincingly than on the fast hot bouncy clay of Paris.A very young Federer also won Guga himself on teh slowest clay courts around in Hamburg. Federer had simply a terrible day in that FO04.

Just to show again that with you every single piece of data is twisted and used against Federer as usual. Be it slow, fast, young v old opponent, rain, sunshine, it always helped Federer 's career. It's been going on for the last 6 years or so.

Lol so not only will faster courts favour Federer but slower clay will favour him to. I know it's all fantasy but which is which?
Wasn't the guy losing to Patrick Rafter on slow clay? Seeing what Kuerten did to him at RG 2004, he wouldn't make the 3rd round in the 90s.

Tenez wrote:I am sorry but your partiality is so obvious here again.

Unlike you, who just says it as he sees it...

Tenez wrote:
1 - The very point is that the game was slowed down to actually allow the "great" rivalry outside the FO. All the other slams wanted to have their piece of the Fedal rivalry and history. They did not want to have the likes of Youzhny, Rodick Blake and others to spoil the party. This is why they slowed down the USO. I remember reading already in 2008 that the organisers of the USO had slowed the USO by adding sand in the paint. But Fed started to win the USO in 2004, well before there was a need to slow the courts down. The courts were fast enough to make Roddick and Blake Federer's biggest rivals. As we saw this year and last Roddick is now completely toothless on the courts he oce won a GS.

It is not solely down to the slowing of the courts though. Nadal has clearly improved on hardcourts, so it is a combination of the two. Citing earlier defeats is as relevant as talking about Federer's early defeats, before he, too, improved. To use your own argument against you, if the success of Roddick is the barometer of court quickness then Wimbledon can't be as slow as you would have us believe as he was the finalist in 2009, either side of Nadal's wins. Unless they sped it up for a year in between!

I went for Agassi. Given that there was such a time frame to which he done it in and also he faced varied competition and also the surfaces too. I think for me Nadal has beaten Federer yes, but he hasn't really beaten anyone else in the finals. Soderling and Djokovic and given that Djokovic is now defeating Nadal in GS finals for me is starting to eat away at his legacy like Federer and his defeats to Nadal.

Positively 4th Street wrote:
It is not solely down to the slowing of the courts though. Nadal has clearly improved on hardcourts, so it is a combination of the two. Citing earlier defeats is as relevant as talking about Federer's early defeats, before he, too, improved. To use your own argument against you, if the success of Roddick is the barometer of court quickness then Wimbledon can't be as slow as you would have us believe as he was the finalist in 2009, either side of Nadal's wins. Unless they sped it up for a year in between!

The fact is once again Nadal crashed early on low bounce indoor courts and a week later plays his best on clay.

I do not believe Nadal adapted his game whatsoever. The conds adapted to him as of course Fedal matches is what it was all about. They even created a match of teh surfaces to satisfy the appetite of the viewers.

In the USO they added sand (officially anounced) and provided bigger Wilsons. In Australia when they changed the surfaces, they said it was playing fast and then adopted bigger balls to slow it down. The AO is probably the slowest slams out there.

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:
It is not solely down to the slowing of the courts though. Nadal has clearly improved on hardcourts, so it is a combination of the two. Citing earlier defeats is as relevant as talking about Federer's early defeats, before he, too, improved. To use your own argument against you, if the success of Roddick is the barometer of court quickness then Wimbledon can't be as slow as you would have us believe as he was the finalist in 2009, either side of Nadal's wins. Unless they sped it up for a year in between!

The fact is once again Nadal crashed early on low bounce indoor courts and a week later plays his best on clay.

I do not believe Nadal adapted his game whatsoever. The conds adapted to him as of course Fedal matches is what it was all about. They even created a match of teh surfaces to satisfy the appetite of the viewers.

In the USO they added sand (officially anounced) and provided bigger Wilsons. In Australia when they changed the surfaces, they said it was playing fast and then adopted bigger balls to slow it down. The AO is probably the slowest slams out there.

I don't dispute that Nadal is poor indoors, or that conditions have been slowed somewhat. I do think he has improved on hard courts and grass though, whereas he was good on clay almost immediately. To say the difference between the Nadal who lost to Youzhny and that who won the US Open is solely down to the surface is, in my view, extremely fanciful.

Nadal definitely adapts his game on grass too. Alas, if you don't want to see that you never will.

I don't think people appreciate how much the conditions have changed.

Certainly the DC Final put to rest any notion that Nadal was somehow impaired at the WTF; he murdered Monaco and beat off a challenge by a very motivated Del Potro. Exactly what you'd expect of peak Nadal. Therefore the difference in performance must be down to environment, where he was pushed by Fish, beaten by Tsonga and hammered by Federer.

I'd like to see his game adapting to grass but he simply doesn't. If you think taking the ball slightly earlier (thanks to big balls slowing down faster) or the use of 3 or 4 more BH slices than usual is adapting to grass, then those are very small adjustement essentially forced upon him by the conds of the court and no different than what Ferrer, Clement, or others would do.

Nadal is simply just hoping that, be it on grass, clay or HC, his CC FH will give him more UEs than he can pull winners from. End of!

But hey, if you do not want to see it but rather attribute his success to his amazing talent allowing him swift and easy transitions from surfaces fine. Just that when it comes to lower bounce (Indoors/outdoors is irrelevant as clay was indoors too last week), his adaptation skills are poor. Grass used to have the lowest of bounce and that woudl have killed Nadal no end. We know that Federer was much better at playing on grass and clay.

Career's GS are simply not significant anymore. Having all physical players doing well on teh 4 surfaces simply proves the point.

Thus far only Agassi and Federer were able to challenge Pete on fast surfaces...in fact only young Federer could do it on grass! Just watching at the way tennis was played on grass in teh 90s I cannot imagine Nadal (already standing 3 m behind the baseline) having any chance of adapting. On those slow courts he just struggled getting rid of Gilles Muller.

bogbrush wrote:I don't think people appreciate how much the conditions have changed.

And how much the conds influence the outcome of a match.

Pete on grass + HC = 14 slams.
Pete on clay = 0 slams!!!

Bruguerra + Guga on clay = 5 or 6 slams!

Bruguerra + Guga on 1990s grass = 0 quarter finals!!!!! (on top of my head!)

I don't see other players making massive adjustments either. If the surfaces are similar then surely it makes sense to play a similar game on them? I think the talk of slowing down has become so prevalent that people are starting to believe that all surfaces are the same. I didn't see Roddick threatening to get to the final at Roland Garros in 2009.

I take your point about the career GS, but dispute that it is Nadal achieving it that somehow cheapens it, which I think is your belief.

Once more, great stock is placed in the solitary Federer-Sampras match. One encounter can tell us some things, but there are too many variables to conclude anything definitive from it. Citing the Muller match (straight sets) proves nothing - Sampras had plenty of struggles along the way at times and so has Federer. I refer you to your own article about Federer being better now than in 2006 for plenty of examples of him toiling.

Positively 4th Street wrote:
Once more, great stock is placed in the solitary Federer-Sampras match.

I agree that the outcome coudl have been different and that it is in a way irrelevant. What is relevant however, and would have been even if Pete had won teh tight 5 setter is that already then Federer showed he was close to Pete on fast grass. And it 's clear that Federer was very far from playing his best then but those were conditions he learnt his reflexes on and would have been the future of the game on grass like he was on the faster surface of his time Cuncy and USO.

Despite being pretty slow, the O2 works in his favour because of the lower bounce and no player can rush him on this surface, not even at 30. On even lower bounce of grass 1990s, he owudl have been unstoppable. We cannot say that of Nadal of course.