3 Slams in a year - then what?

It is often assumed that winning 3 slams in a calendar year will be the start of a period of dominance. I remember this happened with Wilander and Connors, and more recently with Nadal.
But let's look at what happened the following year :-
Laver 1969 - 4 slams, 1970 - 0 slams (0 slams for rest of career)
Connors 1974 - 3 slams, 1975 - 0 slams (5 slams for rest of career)
Wilander 1988 - 3 slams, 1989 - 0 slams (0 titles in 1979, only 1 title for rest of career)
Federer 2004 - 3 slams, 2005 - 2 slams
Federer 2006 - 3 slams, 2007 - 3 slams
Federer 2007 - 3 slams, 2008 - 1 slam
Nadal 2010 - 3 slams, 2011 - 1 or 2 slams

So historically, for Nadal to even get 1 slam this year goes against the trend, and if he were to retain the USO it would quite an achievement - joint 2nd best 'follow-up' year ever.
And Djokovic beware - win the US Open this year, and it's all downhill from there!

PS please correct any inaccuracies in the above stats.

Julius...

Glad to 'see' you.

It just shows what a herculean effort is required to win multiple slams in a calendar year and what is needed to be in 'form' and consistent over multiple years.

Here is the full list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

Edit: Laver had the 1962 GS and then switched to the 'Pro circuit' prior to the Open Era.

Crawford (1933) - 1 follow-up title 1935,
Perry (1934) - 4 follow-up titles 1935-36,
Trabert(1955) - No follow-up titles,
Hoad(1956) - 1 follow-up title 1957,
Cooper(1958) - No follow-up titles,
Emerson(1964) - 5 follow-up titles 1965-67

Hi LF,

Herculean effort is right. But the hype is always "he'll win 10 more".

I think a lot of people also see the multi-slam champs and then overly dismiss the 1, 2 or 3 times winners, the Rafters, Roddicks, even Gaudio or Johansson. Winning any slam is one hell of an achivement.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
But the hype is always "he'll win 10 more".

Agreed.

Usually emotional reaction from overzealous fans aided by misguided media.

The competition should be given enough credit for getting to slam finals. People discount the likes of Falla, Petzschner, Haase level players, but fail to recognise how hard it can be.

Players who are hoping to win slams can tell the world the effort required.

Good article, Julius. Hope you continue to post here. I personally like the topics you pick for discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hi LF,

Herculean effort is right. But the hype is always "he'll win 10 more".

I think a lot of people also see the multi-slam champs and then overly dismiss the 1, 2 or 3 times winners, the Rafters, Roddicks, even Gaudio or Johansson. Winning any slam is one hell of an achivement.

Excellent post Julius, this is what I keep telling out friend legend and he is like this high maintenance tennis fan who expects a half dozen slams before he calls a player great. Djokovic is now in the the 3-4 slam range. The players who have won about as many slams as Novak are Vilas, Nastase, Ashe, Courier, and Kuerten. That is a pretty select company all of whom I would say are great players.

I would go one step further. It is not about just winning slams. There are many 'unslammed' heroes that should get mentioned honourably. Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer, Lopez, Melzer, Ljubicic, Blake, Almagro, Berdych, Rios, Mecir, Nalbandian, Verdasco (and many more...) are no slouches either.

They might be mere footnotes when legends get written, but are very important to the daily grind of tennis. There is someone in ATP @ #1000, who has aspirations for winning a slam. The same thing for WTA.

For every Beethoven or Paganini, there is always a Carulli.