Connors, Wilander and Nadal couldn't win multiple slams the following year after their 3 slam year....

Federer has been the only player able to win multiple slams after a 3 slam year(from 2004 to 2005, from 2006 to 2007), so that is an exception and not the norm...

If I were a betting man, I would say Novak is most likely to win just 1 slam next year.

Some may point to the competitiveness of the eras...!

Some may also point to Laver winning the Grand Slam in 62, then was excluded until the open era and in the next full year (Open era only started part way through 1968, not the start of it) he won the grand slam again. I have a feeling Nadal would have likely won 3 in 2009 (AO/FO/SW19 - although to be fair Soderling played the match of his life too...who knows) had he not been injured from Miami onwards but that's pure conjecture of course.

Otherwise, yep Federer is the man! Not sure about Novak, depends on his injuries and how the others respond too.

Connors missed a potential GS, due to his legal fights and association with WTT.

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014143.html

lydian wrote: then was excluded until the open era and in the next full year

Laver won 8/15 Pro championships during the 62-68 Open Era hiatus, which should be valued as well.

Ooo My crystal ball seems to have broken

Good point LF...most pundits feel that Laver would have won above 20 slams had he not being excluded from the tour between 62-68 - do you know what his H2H vs Emerson was given that Emerson was the king of the amateur period?

lydian wrote:Good point LF...most pundits feel that Laver would have won above 20 slams had he not being excluded from the tour between 62-68 - do you know what his H2H vs Emerson was given that Emerson was the king of the amateur period?

Laver Emerson - 49-18 overall.

Before Open Era - 20-12.

Open Era - 29-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver-Emerson_rivalry

Thanks LF - well I think that shows he would have won the majority of titles in that amateur period when Emerson amassed 12 slams - given Laver won 11 himself outside that period that clearly would put him beyond 20...probably a record that would never have been beaten.