There have only been 7 players in tennis history who have won every major in their career.
They are, in order of achievement: Fred Perry (GBR), Don Budge (USA), Rod Laver (AUS), Roy Emerson (AUS), Andre Agassi (USA), Roger Federer (SUI), Rafael Nadal (ESP)
Only two have achieved it twice so far, Laver and Emerson, but neither achieved two in the Open Era.
There are several famous top players who have won 3, and never been able to produce the elusive win, despite trying their utmost to do so. The most recent player in this category is former #1 and current #2 player in the world, Novak Djokovic.
His albatross? The French Open, or Roland Garros, officially Les internationaux de France de Tennis, Roland Garros.
For him, like many others, the clay major has been the toughest. He had never reached a final until 2012. Before that, 3 out of 6 years he met one of the all time Clay greats, Rafael Nadal, in the quarter finals or semifinals and lost. In the 2012 final, he met, who else - Nadal and lost. In the 2013 semifinal he also lost to Nadal. In Novak's best year thus far, 2011, he also made it to the semifinal, only to be beaten by a brilliant Roger Federer that day, ending his 43 match unbeaten streak. Other than Ivan Lendl and Ken Rosewall, he is probably been the closest to winning the elusive 4th major.
Will Novak ever be able to conquer his demons and win at Roland Garros and achieve a career slam? This is the poll question.
But Novak is not alone. The list of great players in the Open Era, who never managed to win the elusive 4th major:
Novak Djokovic*: 4 Australian Opens, 1 Wimbledon, 1 US Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 1 Final (2012), 4 SF (2007, 2008, 2011, 2013), 2 QF (2006, 2010)
Pete Sampras: 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 2 Australian Opens. Best showings at Roland Garros - 1 SF(1996), 3 QF(1992-1994)
Stefan Edberg: 2 Australian Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens. Best showings at Roland Garros - 1 Final (1989), 3 QF (1985, 1991, 1993)
Boris Becker: 3 Wimbledons, 2 Australian Opens, 1 US Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 3 SF (1987, 1989, 1991), 1 QF(1986)
Ivan Lendl: 3 US Opens, 3 French Opens, 2 Australian Opens. Best showings at Wimbledon - 2 Finals (1986-87), 5 SF (1983-84, 1988-90)
Mats Wilander: 3 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 1 US Open. Best showings at Wimbledon - 3 QF (1987-89)
Guillermo Vilas: 2 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 1 US Open. Best showings at Wimbledon - 2 QF (1976-77)
Jimmy Connors: 5 US Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 1 Australian Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 4 SF (1979-80, 1984-85), 4 QF (1981-83, 1987)
John Newcombe: 3 Wimbledons (1 pre-Open Era), 2 US Opens (1 pre-OE), 2 Australian Opens. Best showings at Roland Garros - 2 QF (1965, 1969)
Arthur Ashe: 1 Wimbledon, 1 US Open, 1 Australian Open. Best showings at Roland Garros - 2 QF (1970-71)
Ken Rosewall: 4 Australian Opens (2 pre-OE), 2 French Opens (1 pre-OE), 2 US Opens (1 pre-OE). Best showings at Wimbledon - 4 Finals (1954, 1956, 1970, 1974), 2 SF (1954, 1971), 1 QF (1953)
*Still Active
Note that for most non-Australian based players before the late 1980's, the Australian Open was not feasible, due to the distance and costs to go there, as well as the time of year (Dec & Jan), and lower prize money. The great Bjorn Borg, for example, only played it one time, early in his career. Perhaps if Bjorn had managed to win the US Open in 1978 or 1980, and thus would have won the first 3 majors of the year, he would have made the trip to Australia (when it was held in December). But for the 6 time Roland Garros winner and 5 time Wimbledon winner, the US Open was his albatross, losing in 4 Finals (1976, 1978, 1980-81), 1 SF, and 1 QF. John McEnroe only attended the Australian Open 5 times with a SF and 3 QF results.
If Andy Murray, OBE, can get back to his form preceding back injury, I believe he has a credible chance to win an Australian Open. But even with that, I think he will join the list above with the lack of a Roland Garros title, having no clay titles at all thus far.
Respectfully,
masterclass
fantastic thread general masterclass.
this will require some thought.
what if nadal holds him off for 2 more years? can nole wait that long?
where will nole be in his career in 2-3 years?
nadal is still in his prime and he is the best that has ever been on the red clay. if he can just stay healthy, he has 2 more RG crowns: this year and the next.
This is a great and thought provoking thread. Cheers to Masterclass once agai for exceeding all of our expectations.
However, I do not want to answer this question due to a conflict of interest.
One advantage for Nole is that he is still near the top of his game at #2 in the world, many of the better clay court players are older than he is, and there are very few who are near his level on clay as he generally has been the last few years.
One disadvantage is that the current #1 player is Rafael Nadal, the Clay King of this generation and perhaps all time.
So I suppose the real question is who will decline the fastest from this point forward, especially on clay, Nadal or Djokovic?
Some say Nadal has already declined on clay. But he was at such a high level to start with, one would think he has some room to fall.
Novak may have to contend with some of those that still have an excellent game on clay, but there aren't many. One doesn't see many young rising stars on clay at this point either.
I would agree that he has an excellent chance to complete his career slam, especially if Nadal were to fail. But that's the big if. On the other hand, if Soderling could beat Nadal once, something like that could happen again.
Respectfully,
masterclass
I understand your position Lady TT.
Having a slight or even greater prejudice or bias is pretty normal for fans in any sport, after all the word "fans" comes from the word "fanatic", and it's almost expected that one's views would be slanted in a certain direction. As long as those points of view can be expressed without demeaning or insulting other points of view, then perhaps a reasonable discussion might take place.
But it is also acceptable to say nothing on the matter.
I for one, though, would be eager to hear your or any other reasonable opinion on the subject in this topic, as you said, thought provoking.
It doesn't only have to pertain to the poll question. That's just the "candy", so-to-speak. There are many things that can be discussed in this topic. For example, the different players styles, and their natural weaknesses Or, to what extent did the players on the list try to accomplish the feat? Early on, it may not have even been thought of as a feat worth sacrificing other things. Even the players that accomplished it can be brought into question. Were they fortunate to have completed a career slam? Or was it just a product of their game and overall ability?
Respectfully,
masterclass
One thing that is interesting to me is that in all of the players listed who didn't complete their career slam, it is one of the natural surfaces that has been their doom.
Also, looking at the players, it seems there is mostly one style category of player that hasn't won Roland Garros, and one that hasn't won Wimbledon.
The serve and volley players like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe never won the French Open.
The baseliners like Wilander, Lendl, Vilas, never won Wimbledon.
Looking at Novak's game and style in isolation, I might have predicted that he would have the most difficulty winning Wimbledon, though it's true that recently baseliners have had more success there due to the generally higher bouncing and consistent grass court.
But, he did win there, and it has been Roland Garros where he has failed thus far.
To me, he's most similar to Jimmy Connors in this respect. Both aggressive baseliners who were/are excellent on clay.
Of course, Connors was prevented from playing at Roland Garros in 5 of his best years due to his contract with WTT and thereafter, Borg, Lendl, and other clay adepts got in his way, whereas Djokovic has had Nadal and a few others blocking him thus far.
Of course, a little luck never hurts when there aren't too many standing in your way.
Respectfully,
masterclass
One advantage for Nole is that he is still near the top of his game at #2 in the world, many of the better clay court players are older than he is, and there are very few who are near his level on clay as he generally has been the last few years.
One disadvantage is that the current #1 player is Rafael Nadal, the Clay King of this generation and perhaps all time.
So I suppose the real question is who will decline the fastest from this point forward, especially on clay, Nadal or Djokovic?
Some say Nadal has already declined on clay. But he was at such a high level to start with, one would think he has some room to fall.
Novak may have to contend with some of those that still have an excellent game on clay, but there aren't many. One doesn't see many young rising stars on clay at this point either.
I would agree that he has an excellent chance to complete his career slam, especially if Nadal were to fail. But that's the big if. On the other hand, if Soderling could beat Nadal once, something like that could happen again.
Respectfully,
masterclass
Your analyses are so inspiring. One can never argue with your logic. Fair and balanced, objective, and covers all the bases.
Yes, I agree with everything. The question is who will fall first, but we also have to consider Nadal's injuries, some self-lnflicted from over playing and some due to the stress of bone defect which affects his knees. But, when you have one injury that is persistent, it eventually affects other parts of your body, hence the back injury.
I do think Nole will get the career grand slam. Other than Nadal, only Federer can stop him.
But Federer is aging and Nadal's body may not be able to prevent Nole from ascending to the illustrious goal.
Either way, it will be all good. This is tennis, not our lives.
I understand your position Lady TT. Having a slight or even greater prejudice or bias is pretty normal for fans in any sport, after all the word "fans" comes from the word "fanatic", and it's almost expected that one's views would be slanted in a certain direction. As long as those points of view can be expressed without demeaning or insulting other points of view, then perhaps a reasonable discussion might take place. But it is also acceptable to say nothing on the matter.
I for one, though, would be eager to hear your or any other reasonable opinion on the subject in this topic, as you said, thought provoking.
It doesn't only have to pertain to the poll question. That's just the "candy", so-to-speak. There are many things that can be discussed in this topic. For example, the different players styles, and their natural weaknesses Or, to what extent did the players on the list try to accomplish the feat? Early on, it may not have even been thought of as a feat worth sacrificing other things. Even the players that accomplished it can be brought into question. Were they fortunate to have completed a career slam? Or was it just a product of their game and overall ability?
Respectfully,
masterclass
Agreed, and I actually did go on to answer the question after giving it a bit of thought. Of course, we all have biases and tend to lean towards some people more than others, but that's expected if you ask me.
I couldn't agree more about discussion. It means hearing other people's point of view. People who demean others are immature. Why can't someone have an opinion that differs from your own? I've never understood that.
Since we can't predict the future, or what will happen the rest of Nadal and Nole's career, I think Nole will get it. The pressure of Nadal alone being the one to stop Nole will eventually create too much pressure on Nadal. I know it would if it was me.
But, they both great players and everyone gets what they have earned.
One thing that is interesting to me is that in all of the players listed who didn't complete their career slam, it is one of the natural surfaces that has been their doom.
Also, looking at the players, it seems there is mostly one style category of player that hasn't won Roland Garros, and one that hasn't won Wimbledon.
The serve and volley players like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe never won the French Open.
The baseliners like Wilander, Lendl, Vilas, never won Wimbledon.
Looking at Novak's game and style in isolation, I might have predicted that he would have the most difficulty winning Wimbledon, though it's true that recently baseliners have had more success there due to the generally higher bouncing and consistent grass court.
But, he did win there, and it has been Roland Garros where he has failed thus far.
To me, he's most similar to Jimmy Connors in this respect. Both aggressive baseliners who were/are excellent on clay.
Of course, Connors was prevented from playing at Roland Garros in 5 of his best years due to his contract with WTT and thereafter, Borg, Lendl, and other clay adepts got in his way, whereas Djokovic has had Nadal and a few others blocking him thus far.
Of course, a little luck never hurts when there aren't too many standing in your way.
Respectfully,
masterclass
Yes, I agree. That's why I like the natural surfaces. It keeps players humble.
Besides Nadal and Federer, who else do you think can stop Nole? I can't think of anyone.
One thing that is interesting to me is that in all of the players listed who didn't complete their career slam, it is one of the natural surfaces that has been their doom.
Also, looking at the players, it seems there is mostly one style category of player that hasn't won Roland Garros, and one that hasn't won Wimbledon.
The serve and volley players like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe never won the French Open.
The baseliners like Wilander, Lendl, Vilas, never won Wimbledon.
Looking at Novak's game and style in isolation, I might have predicted that he would have the most difficulty winning Wimbledon, though it's true that recently baseliners have had more success there due to the generally higher bouncing and consistent grass court.
But, he did win there, and it has been Roland Garros where he has failed thus far.
To me, he's most similar to Jimmy Connors in this respect. Both aggressive baseliners who were/are excellent on clay.
Of course, Connors was prevented from playing at Roland Garros in 5 of his best years due to his contract with WTT and thereafter, Borg, Lendl, and other clay adepts got in his way, whereas Djokovic has had Nadal and a few others blocking him thus far.
Of course, a little luck never hurts when there aren't too many standing in your way.
Respectfully,
masterclass
great post and great observations.
the game today is different. all warfare on the battlefield has to be waged from the backcourt.
so it will be the baseliners winning everything. serve n volley players would not be able to put food on the table in modern tennis unless you were bryan brothers and that is doubles.
stan hurt roger from the backcourt yesterday. he pressed and attacked roger's weaker wing from the backcourt. roger would go on to make as many as 18 unforced errors off that wing. the war has to be and must be waged from the backcourt. going forward entails a lot of risk today so you can only go in on your own terms.
but that being said, all your observations are correct. natural surfaces have been a bit of a problem for some players. as good as they were on quicker grass, they found themselves a bit limited on the red clay.
newcombe, Sampras, and johnny mac were never able to win at RG.