Hard Records I: Calendar Grand Slam

There are many things that attract us to watch sports: excitement of a match point in tennis, penalties in football, touchdowns in american football, home runs in baseball, and so on... but... if there is something that excites people more than anything is when a record is going to be broken, or in some cases, a very hard achievement.

I want to start a series of blogs discussing some of the toughest and hardest records I am aware of in sports, and it is likely I may overlook some, so feel free to contribute to any in the comments section. Today I begin by writing about how hard it is to win a Calendar Grand Slam in Tennis.

By now you must know that the greats of Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Rafael Nadal, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, all of them haven't or weren't able to win a career grand slam. Some of then got (or have been) closer than others. The only man: Rod Laver, who did it in 1969; so what I'm going to do is briefly summarize each year of the open era from the beginning, starting with the tennis player who won the first Grand Slam -hence the one who could have potentially won the calendar Grand Slam (note that until 1985, the first GS of the year was Roland Garros. Australia was the last, then it became the first).

1968: Ken Rosewall won RG defeating Rod Laver in the Finals. He was eliminated in the semi finals of Wimbledon and failed to win another Slam for the year.

1969: Rod Laver wins all four GS Tournaments. The only man in the open era to do so.

1970: Jan Kodes wins RG. A clay court specialist, he was clobberd in Wimbledon. He would repeat his French triumph in 1971, with the same fate in Wimbledon.

1972: Andres Gimeno, another clay court specialist wins RG. Once again he would exit early in Wimbledon.

1973: Illie Nastase was in his best years, winning his second GS in Paris. But he would be eliminated in the 4th round of Wimbledon.

1974: Bjorn Borg wins his first Grand Slam at RG and overall. Still immature for grass, he would be eliminated in the third round. Interestingly, in this year Jimmy Connors would go on to win the remaining three Grand Slams and what's ironic about the whole thing  is that he didn't play at RG. Had he played, would he won it? We'll never know. Borg wins RG again in 1975 and in Wimbledon he loses to eventual champion Arthur Ashe in the quarterfinals.

1976: Adriano Panatta wins RG and as it happens before with clay court specialists, he exits early in Wimbledon.

1977: Guillermo Vilas faces the same fate Panatta did the previous year.

1978-1981: Bjorn Borg wins RG each year and goes on to win Wimbledon as well, putting him in good position to win the other two slams. He becomes the only player since Rod Laver to achieve this. He would hit a brick wall however at the US Open, losing in the 1978 finals to Jimmy Connors, the 1979 quarters to Roscoe Tanner and the 1980 finals to John McEnroe. During all this time Bjorn did not make the trip to play in Australia, and his reasoning was simple: It wasn't worth it, due to not having conquered the third GS of the year in New York. Finally in 1981, Bjorn's reign ends at Wimbledon losing the finals to McEnroe.

1982: Mats Wilander wins RG, and again as a clay court specialist, exits early at Wimbledon.

1983: Same as above for Yannick Noah.

1984: Same as above for Ivan Lendl. Interestingly, finalst John McEnroe had the match in the bag, up 2 sets to none against Lendl. Amazingly, Ivan built the comeback and ended up winning the title.

1985: Mats Wilander wins RG a second time and exits early at Wimbledon a second time as well.

1986: Ivan Lendl wins at RG, but loses at the Wimbledon finals. He wins at the US Open though.

1987: Australian Open becomes the first Grand Slam of the year. It also changes surface from grass to hard courts. Stefan Edberg wins it but exits early at RG.

1988: Mats Wilander wins in Australia and at Roland Garros. He becomes only the third man after Laver and Borg to win the first two GS of the year. He loses at Wimbledon though in the quarterfinals to Miloslav Mecir. Wilander would go on and win the 1988 US Open, collecting three of the four Slams. Only Connors and Laver before him achieved the same.

1989: Ivan Lendl wins at Australia and in one of the greatest upsets in the history of the sport, loses to 17 year old -underarm serving- Michael Chang in RG quarters. Lendl repeats his Aussie win in 1990, but did not play the 1990 RG.

1991: Boris Becker wins at Australia. Up to that point Boris had never won a clay tournament in his career and RG did not change his luck.

1992: Jim Courier joins the likes of Laver, Borg and Wilander, becoming the fourth player to win the first two slams of the year. He would lose in the third round of Wimbledon. He wins in Australia in 1993 again, but loses in the finals of Roland Garros (to Sergi Bruguera), and Wimbledon (to Pete Sampras). Courier becomes the first man since the 1980 Borg to reach the finals of the first three Grand Slams tournaments.

1994: Sampras wins at Australia and loses in the quarterfinal round of RG.

1995: Agassi wins at Australia and also loses in the quarters of RG.

1996: Becker wins at Australia and you know the rest of the story...

1997: Sampras wins at Australia and exits in the 3rd round of RG.

1998: Petr Korda wins at Australia and hits the nail in the head exiting in RG's first round. Way to go!

1999: Yevgeny Kafelnikov conquers the Down Under, but loses in the second round of RG -almost as good as last years's Korda-

2000-01: Agassi wins in Australia but he never gets a second chance at RG. Ironically, he had came from winning it in 1999, which became the first slam of his resurgence into tennis-.

2002: Thomas Johansson upsets clear favorite Marat Safin to win his only Grand Slam ever. He was never seen again at a final round of any Slam after that.

2003: Agassi conquers his third Aussie slam, and again misses RG.

2004-07: Federer begins his domination of the tennis scene winnig in Australia, but fails to pass the quarters at RG. He loses to Safin in the 2005 Aussie semifinals, and Marat goes on to crown one of his finest performances in his career winning in Australia but loses early in RG. He would never be seen at a late round in a Slam again. As Federer continues to dominate, Nadal begin his domination over Federer. From 2005 and on, Nadal would defeat Federer everytime they met at RG. In 04, 06 and 07, Federer would go on and win Wimbledon and the US Open, which raises the question: Had Nadal not been around, he probably would have won the career Grand Slam in 2006 and 2007!?!?!?!?!

2008: New tennis promise Novak Djokovic wins his first Slam. He is downed by Nadal in the semifinals of RG.

2009: Nadal wins his first Australian open. He unexpectedly loses in the quarters to Robin Soderling, in what has been so far his only loss in Paris. Federer is finally able to win RG, completing his career Grand Slam.

2010: Federer wins in Australia and loses in Paris.

2011: Djokovic wins in Australia but loses to Federer in the semis of RG. Some believe had he won that match, he probably would have defeated Rafa in the finals, as up to that point he had a 6-0 head 2 head in finals that year. Interestingly, Novak would win at Wimbledon and at the US Open... both times against Nadal.

2012: Djokovic wins an amazing 6 hour final in Australia, but Nadal regains his crown at RG.

So as you can see, winning a calendar slam is no easy thing. Lots of players never even had the chance or were close to it. In a nutshell here are the players I consider have been closer to winning the calendar Grand Slam in a year, both of them swedes, and both of them are the only players who were able to win the first two Grand Slams in a calendar year (no tennis player so far has been able to win the first three Slams), other than Rod Laver:

Bjorn Borg in 1978: He wins at Roland Garros and at Wimbledon, but he loses at the US Open finals. Had he won, I really think he would have won in Australia.

Bjorn Borg in 1980: Exactly the same story than in 1978. He wins at Roland Garros and at Wimbledon, but he loses at the US Open finals. Had he won, I really think he would have won in Australia.

Mats Wilander in 1988: He wins at Australia and at RG. He missed his chance at Wimbledon and he went on to win the US Open.

Special mentions to:

Jimmy Connors in 1974, who won all three slams in 1974 without having participated at RG.


Jim Courier in 1993: He wins at Australia and loses a five setter final at RG. Had he won, I think he would have been a different animal against Pete Sampras in Wimbledon.

Roger Federer in 2006 and 2007: He wins Australia both years, and he meets a brick wall called Rafael Nadal at RG's finals both years. He went on to win the other Slams.

Novak Djokovic in 2011: He wins at Australia and had all the odds in his favor to beat Nadal in the finals, had he made it past the semis. He went on and won Wimbledon and the US Open.

Kaka: His past, present and future

Once upon a time a tall whitish player that came by the name of Ricardo Izecson Dos Santos Leite made his debut on Brazil's national squad, who were facing Costa Rica in the round group of the 2002 World Cup. He was called to be the next Brazilian jewel to reign across the football universe. And so he did.

Better known by his nickname "Kaka", he played for Sao Paulo from 2001, until he was signed by AC Milan in the summer of 2003. Creation midfielder Rui Costa was in his final years and the rossoneri were looking for someone to fill in the position. While they may have had hints, I personally doubt they how sure they were that this new kid was going to take over Rui Costa's role as quick as he did. The most amazing part of it, was that Kaka's transfer only cost 8 million Euros. The payoff was immediate: Milan one the scudetto and the UEFA Supercup.

The following season, AC Milan cruised to reach the UEFA Champions League Finals facing Liverpool, and went on to build a sold 3-0 lead in the first half. In one of those unexplained circumstances, the British club came back to even the score at 3 goals and eventually won the title in penalties. However Kaka was still regarded as the best midfielder of the tournament. In 2005-06, Milan would fall in the semifinals against the inspired talent of another Brazilian jewel, Ronaldinho Gaucho, who would go on and win the tournament.

Glory came for Kaka in the 2006-07 season, when AC Milan won the Champions League title, backed up by Kaka's ten goals scored during the competition. His performance against Manchester United was definite in sending the message that AC Milan was the best team of that year.

Then came the fall...

After winning the Champions League and Ballon d'or -a perfect touch to culminate a perfect season-, much speculation grew around Kaka moving away from Milan. Particularly Chelsea, Manchester City and Real Madrid were the clubs involved in bidding on him. Loyal to his fans, Kaka decided to stay in Italy and dismiss any rumours of transfers, but by the end of the 2008-09 season, pressure was too much and Silvio Berlusconi agreed on selling Kaka to Real Madrid on an $96 million transfer, claiming economic health of the club. Weeks later, Real Madrid bought Cristiano Ronaldo for $120 million, establishing what in paper seemed to be the most fearful midfield in football. Pity is, as today we have yet to fear it.

Ever since Kaka set foot in Real Madrid, fans have claimed -rightfully in my opinion- Kaka has not performed at the skill level the world had seen displayed by him in Milan. Recurring injuries and constant line-up changes are the initial causes of his mixed results. In my opinion, he hasn't had the need, hunger, desire or ambition he had in Milan, where he was the focus of the team. Alas, not the star of the team, but the focus of the team, meaning the spark plug, the engine, the termometer, the barometer, the battery, everything. Every offensive ball played by Milan, passed through the boots of Kaka. Also, the type of game played by Milan suited Kaka's perfectly: an aggressive, bottom-liner, to the point, football, with no flashy things or flamboyant strategies. Get the job done playing openly and convincingly. Give Kaka space to play and play he will.

In Madrid, Kaka became one more piece in a set of pieces, each one claiming their star on the squad and each one needing a huge amount of space on the pitch. Kaka NEEDS space to play; if you take space away from him, you are taking away his game. The so-called godlike conection between Cristiano and Kaka has never happened, and Kaka has never been able to syncronize the same way he did with Clarence Seedorf in Milan. Then you have his salary: I would really like to dig into Real Madrid financial numers and see how profitable Kaka's transfer has been. Today after another below average season in Madrid, his future is unknown; a sell to another club is likely will happen, and since he has been out of form, injured and has barely played consistently in the past years, it is also likely that we may never see him play like he did in the Milan years.


I've always wondered how club president and coaches think, and Kaka's transfer to Madrid is one of the examples that end up being pondered by my mind. He didn't need to go to Madrid, at all and the club would have still been strong without him being brought. I wonder what were the Madrid directive thinking when they came across the idea of signing Kaka. I wonder what they think today of it.

Either way, I think that the best we can do is to say that we lived in the generation of people that got the honor to watch Kaka play at his best. I close today's entry with my personal favorite Kaka goal:

 .

The Seven titles of Federer, Nadal and Sampras

Does winning seven Wimbledon titles prove Pete Sampras' dominance at Wimbledon? Check yes.

Rafa Nadal winning seven Roland Garros prove dominance ? Check yes.

Is Roger Federer's seventh Wimbledon title a proof of his dominance at Wimbledon? Check yes.

Now comes the better question: Which one has more merit? 

From 1993 to 2000 Pete Sampras amassed a 53-1 record. His only lost came to Richard Krajicek in 1996 Quarterfinal match, but let's talk about his victories:

-In 1993 Sampras defeated Agassi -defending champ-, Becker -3 time champ- and Courier -#2 of the world- en route to the title. 

-In 1994 Sampras had an "easier" time, defeating Chang, Martin but had to face Ivanisevic at the finals.

-In 1995 he had Henman, Rusedski, a 5 setter semi-final against Ivo again, and Becker in the finals.

-1997 was perhaps the easiest run: only southpaw Korda in the round of 16 and Becker in the quarter finals were threats. Pioline in the finals wasn't.

-1998 had Enqvist, Philippoussis, Henman and Ivo again in a 5-setter final.

-1999 had a complex draw repeating Henman in the semis and Agassi in the final.

-2000 wasn't a tough draw but Sampras was injured all through the tournament, until he faced Rafter in the finals.

So all through the 7 title run, Sampras had to cope up with past champions, ex and future #1s, baseliners, serve and volleyers, right handed, left handed and even a recurrent injury. The one thing that we have to keep in mind is that Sampras was expected to win every match, every time. To picture Sampras losing was as good as picturing the North Pole melting. From 1992 and 2001 Sampras three losses came from Ivanisevic, Krajicek, and Federer. All three of them ended up winning the title at some point. Sampras not only killed the competition, he prevented everyone and anyone from winning at Wimbledon.

Now let's do Nadal.

In 2005 Nadal debuted in his first Roland Garros to begin a sick winning streak that has only been interrupted by Robin Soderling, pretty much the same way Krajicek interrumpted Sampras'. Let's take a  look at Nadal's opposition:

-From 2005 to 2012, Nadal has blanked anyone that holds a racket. His only constant regular opponent has been Roger Federer, whom he has defeated not one, or two...but FIVE times.  

There is one thing we have to consider when we analyze Nadal's dominance: Nadal has been dominant at Paris, but he has also been dominant at every other clay tournament. He has won Montecarlo eight times, Rome five times, Madrid four times, Barcelona six times. With the exception of Novak Djokovic's back to back wins at Rome and Madrid last year, Nadal has KILLED anyone, everyone and anything and everything that stands in his way. Let me put it this way: to picture Nadal losing on clay, is like picturing both the North and South pole melting, and having the resulting water evaporate five seconds later. 

Unlike Sampras, Nadal hasn't faced any past champions, ex #1s, killer clay court players or native specialists, because he smashes all rivals the same. Think about it this way, if Nadal wasn't around, Federer, Ferrer, Djokovic, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Almagro, all of them would have more titles. 

Now let's do Roger.

From 2003 to 2012 Federer faced two constant rivals: Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal, meeting both of them in three finals each, winning five and losing one. If we are honest, we will admit that like it or not, Roddick is not a player of the same caliber of Roger (evidently shown by Roger's 20-3 record against him). Nadal on the other hand, lost to Roger in the 2006 and 2007 finals, the first time being quite one sided, and the second time quite quite close. It was so close that Nadal made the necessary adjustments and defeated Roger the following year. 

Other than Roddick and Nadal, Roger faced a bunch of baseliners, retrievers and bulldogs. He had his fare amount of scares here and there, but at the end of the day, he was always expected to win -pretty much like Sampras-. Also like Nadal, Roger never faced former champions, ex #1s or grass specialists, but this is also part because Pete Sampras' dominance period came right before his, so technically Pete would have been the only ex #1, past champion Roger could have faced. 

So let's summarize and conclude:

As today Roger, Pete and Rafa are tied at seven titles in one Grand Slam. Regardless of how you look at it, this is a once in a lifetime achievement and it will be a long time before we get to see another player do it. 

Therefore, when it comes to compare the three champions, I would say Sampras has more merit because he faced a tougher competition, but it is Nadal hands down the one who clearly stands above the rest of his peers as a true dominant player, and then comes Federer as the champion who separated himself apart from his peers, at least until the true challengers came up. 

It will always be interesting to debate and discuss the success of the three legends and that is why I wanted to write today's entry, as a tribute to them and to the legacy that they have left in our lives.

Unfortunately the only Sampras vs Federer match

Eleven years ago we unfortunately witnessed the only meeting between the two greatest tennis players of all time. A round of 16 match-up at Wimbledon between the young Swiss promise Roger Federer and defending Champion 7 time winner Pete Sampras. The only reason to rate the match a "Five Star" is because of idealism and pity for what would have been a great rivalry. Reality is, in this match: Federer played well -but not great-, and Sampras did not play good -but not bad-.

Back in 2001, the name of Roger Federer was already among those called to be the next generation of Champions, along with some that lived up to their expectations like Andy Roddick, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Marat Safin and some other guys who didn't get to shine as expected, such as Andreas Vinciguerra and Tommy Haas. There were already comparisons of Federer and Sampras, stating how the Swiss had a great serve and a huge forehand, with an "ok" backhand. Sampras on the other hand was -for lack of a better way to put it-, on his way out. People seem to forget that Sampras struggled for 5 sets in the second round to beat a guy ranked in the #100s-#200s called Barry Cowan -who by the way, nobody ever heard of ever again-. Prior the Federer match, Sampras also had a weird straight-sets victory against Sarjis Sargassian (spelling?), where he kept falling in the court and miss hitting shots everywhere. To me back then, it was clear that the 2001 Wimbledon Champion wasn't going to be Pete Sampras. To get an even better picture: after this loss, Pete also lost in five sets on grass... to Alex Corretja, in a Davis Cup tie. The tennis world had to realize that Pete's dominance at Wimbledon ended in 2000.

Had Sampras won this match against Federer, he probably would have been outsted by Tim Henman in the next round, who was playing great that year. Had he won that match, it would have been Goran Ivanisevic waiting for him in the semis, and had he made it to the finals, it would have been Pat Rafter his executioner. I know this is all speculation and that we will never know, but I'm quite sure any of Tim, Goran or Pat would have defeated Pete at the 2001 Wimbledon.

The first set of the match is kind of a "study my rival" set. At first Sampras plays just like any other day against any other unknown/unheralded rival, but somewhere around the 3-3 score where he saves a triple break point, he realizes that this kid is playing with nothing to lose and this confuses Pete. It seems that from that moment and on, Sampras doesn't know what to do to deal with Roger. Let me put it this way: if Sampras was a 6-speed engine, it looks like Pete is happy playing at 4th gear, meaning that he does the bare minimum to hold serve, but he doesn't do any effort to get a break or put Federer out of his "nothing to lose" mindset. So Sampras appeals to the strategy that had been so successful for him in the past: get to the tie-break, where the rival will likely choke. However Federer doesn't choke at all, as he goes toe to toe with Pete. The tie-break shows proof of the tension and nerves between both players: only 2 passing Winners by Sampras, against 1 by Federer; it also shows Pete arguing a call about a long serve. Overall, the tie-break is well played by both players and after a good display of his future trademark shots, Federer emerges as winner of the first set, when Sampras misses a down the line backhand passing shot. You can see Pete almost getting ready to toss his racket onto the ground, but he manages to contain himself, keeping the posture, elegance and quality of a gentlemen that characterized him. You can't defeat Roger Federer winning 6 out of 18 points at the net... even if he's 19 years old.

From that moment, the fall of Pete Sampras at Wimbledon begins.

Like I said before, he never shifts to 5th gear and is satisfied playing a passive/percentage game, which somehow allows him to win two sets and take the match to a decisive fifth. All through the rest of the match, Federer never gives up, eases down or shows any sign of having a breakdown... at ALL. That's truly remarkable, considering how unexperienced he was back then, the stage where he was and who he was up against. After each loss of a set, Roger regroups himself and starts all over again, as if the match was starting from scratch. The only chance Pete had to win the match came on the fifth set, when on a crucial break point that if converted would have let him serving for the match, he unexplainably backhand-sliced an easy Federer serve (prolly around the 80 mph mark). The ball floated very slowly and fell short right into Federer's forehand, who cold-blooded whipped the crap out of the ball to save the quasi-match point that would have sent him home back to Switzerland.

The quality of the match is mediocre at best. Forget about seeing displays of the 1999 Pete or the 2007 Federer. There are no fantastic or spectacular points through the match. Not one -at least in my opinion-. There are some "yay" or "ooooh" points, but nothing else. You can see some glances of what would come to be Federer's whipping forehand and some flashbacks of Pete's magic shots, but that's about it. At one point the commentator states "Pete must be thinking: I can do this for five sets, let's see if he can". That sentence summarizes the entire match. Pete placed a bet and he lost.

The real sad aspect about the whole thing is that just like my review title says, this was the only match we got to see between Roger and Pete. Honestly, I would have preferred them not meeting at all in their entire careers. This match doesn't do any justice to either of them. It shows an aging Sampras against an underdeveloped Federer.