Laver did the Grand Slam in 1962 and 1969, and no one has done it since. He says that if Nadal wins the Aussie Open, it won't count as a real Grand Slam since he didn't win them in the same year. Thoughts? I tend to agree with Laver.
That's how it works, all in one year.
Steffi Graf did it in 1988, by the way. Plus the Olympic gold medal.
If the wrap around worked, Martina Navratilova would have had one or more. I think.
I say he is accurate. Same thing has come up in golf with Tiger Woods in the past and everyone agrees that it must be in the same year.
Same calendar year is the rule. Thus, career slams do not count. Thus, the "Roger Slam."
As a former avid tennis fan growing up in the 80s I can tell you that is correct. It is not a true grand slam. But its still worth making a note for posterity what Nadal may achieve.
To hold all the championships at one time is a badass feat. But to do it in one competitive cycle rather than two is where the Slam comes in. The Slam is like a royal flush where you effectively ice all possible challenging hands. It has to be done in one season to be a real Slam.
yes it is for posterity's sake...and it's also for posterity's sake that one of the big reasons Operation Puerto was effectively shut down by the spanish government was....wait for it...the involvement of not just cyclists, not even famous footballers...but Nadal's involvement. with him in there, it was most destined to be killed by the powers that be. no way were they going to let him get crucified like lance. both deserve it, btw. just makes me wonder how many more RF would have won if Nadal was clean? quite a few for sure.
There is no "Roger Slam." RF has a career Grand Slam, like Agassi.
Tiger Woods has a "Tiger Slam" because he has held all four GS trophies concurrently, he just didn't do it in one season (won the 2000 US, British & PGA, then the first tournament of the next year, the 2001 Masters.)