I have heard stories about how China wants to have a Grand Slam tournament hosted. That sounded like a great idea the first time I saw it, but now that I think about it, someone like Djokovic could technically break the overall Grand Slam record set by Sampras by winning 2 out 5 slams every year. It is true that tennis would be more fun if we added some new events to it, and to be honest I do not rate other big tournament such as Masters series as serious tournaments. Either you win Grand Slams or you don’t. At the end of the day, you are not going to be the best player of all time by winning 50 Masters Series and no slams.

Having said that, we need to find a way to differentiate between someone who has won 2/4 slams every year and one that has won 2/5 each year. You can’t be the overall Grand Slam record holder if you have been given an extra chance every year to win a slam. Of course, one way to do this is to multiply the final number by 4/5, but would that be fair? Let’s say if Mr. X wins 15 Grand Slams, after applying the above method, they will have won 12 slams effectively. That doesn’t seem fair either. I honestly don’t believe there is any way for us to squeeze in another slam without taking away a part of tennis history. I guess the bigger question is, how important tennis history is to us?