PDA

View Full Version : What will the final Slam record won by 1 male professional be?


tennis_pro
04-20-2011, 07:48 AM
I was thinking 40 Slams sounds absurd as it would mean every Slam won for 10 consecutive years which is about an average pro players time spend on the circuit. What do you think the highest number of Slams will end at in the future?

glazkovss
04-20-2011, 07:56 AM
Less than 20

MichaelNadal
04-20-2011, 07:58 AM
If Nadal only wins the French this year, Im gonna say 16.

MagneticCurls
04-20-2011, 08:04 AM
Nadal has not proven he can soundly beat Federer at Wimbledon yet, so I say Fed takes Wimby this year and the record will be 17.

PCXL-Fan
04-20-2011, 08:18 AM
How far into the future are we going? Open era has been going for 43 years, what will happen in the next 300 years, who knows. Some aspect of the game relevant to slam # may change in 40 years. Introduction of a 5th slam perhaps. Maybe in 50 years the collapse of oil economy and skyrocketing prices will bringing an end to affordable international air travel for lower ranked pros?

tuk
04-20-2011, 08:33 AM
Roger wins Wimbledon this year, world ends in 2012, so 17

cucio
04-20-2011, 08:38 AM
Over 9000.

Rock Strongo
04-20-2011, 11:11 AM
Over 9000.

WHAT? NINE THOUSAND? THERE'S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT!

TennisAddict121
04-20-2011, 11:25 AM
Over 9000.

I second this

Nadalfan89
04-20-2011, 11:33 AM
Over 9000.

This isn't 4chan. Stop with the stupid memes.

Gorecki
04-20-2011, 11:43 AM
^ha... this is what you drink before posting!!!!

http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/wp-content/la-meme-large-57kb.jpg

tennis_pro
04-20-2011, 12:07 PM
I personally think that it's gonna be more and more difficult to dominate in the future, thus IMO if Nadal doesn't break Federer's Slam record I don't see anyone breaking it anytime soon.

Guess I had simmilar feelings when Sampras retired in 2002...

Cassius Clay
04-20-2011, 12:13 PM
Let's say 15 top years (from 18 to 33) x 4 = 60 slams.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-20-2011, 12:34 PM
Let's say 15 top years (from 18 to 33) x 4 = 60 slams.

What the hell does that even mean?

Joe Pike
04-20-2011, 12:50 PM
I was thinking 40 Slams sounds absurd as it would mean every Slam won for 10 consecutive years which is about an average pro players time spend on the circuit. What do you think the highest number of Slams will end at in the future?


We will have someone with 20 or more slams one day.
Why not?

woodrow1029
04-20-2011, 01:04 PM
I thought we had already established that Djokovic would win at least 47

ucr_tennis90
04-20-2011, 01:15 PM
(hypothetically) if it wasn't for nadal, it's arguable that federer would have 6 more slams than he does now. that would make 22 majors total, including 2 Grand Slams (in 2006 and 2007), which in itself is crazy impressive and probably unbeatable.

having said that, i don't see why it's impossible for someone to get 23-25 slams in a career, though it is very unlikely and i personally don't see it happening.

and i honestly don't think we've seen the last of federer. he may not be as impressive as he was before, but he's still one of the most dangerous players on the tour. i could see him winning another Wimbledon, US, or Australian.

billnepill
04-20-2011, 03:16 PM
We don't have a clue which the real slams are, so you have to ask Sureshs about that..

The record could be 50 + by now .

dominikk1985
04-20-2011, 03:27 PM
I think in the future there will be less multi slam winners because the competition is getting tougher.

Usually extreme dominance means weak era.

for example during rafas clay dominance there were no real good clay courters. and during feds dominance there were no great fast courters (only some semi good like roddick and hewitt).

does that mean rafa and roger are not great? hell no they are likely the best players to ever walk on this planet today.

but if one guy wins the french open a gazillion times that is not a good sign for the competition.

and tennis is going to become even more professional and future players will have a harder time dominating.

ananda
04-20-2011, 08:31 PM
We don't have a clue which the real slams are, so you have to ask Sureshs about that..

The record could be 50 + by now .
ROFL !

Slam count does not matter, Bill. It's all about H2H. Who will have the highest head to head against another player. Currently the record is Nadal with 15-8 or something like that.:)

DjokerIsTheBest
04-20-2011, 08:33 PM
ROFL !

Slam count does not matter, Bill. It's all about H2H. Who will have the highest head to head against another player. Currently the record is Nadal with 15-8 or something like that.:)

Umm sorry, I think Davydenko is GOAT. :)

cc0509
04-20-2011, 08:48 PM
Let's say 15 top years (from 18 to 33) x 4 = 60 slams.

HUH? Yeah, maybe if the tennis player is bionic! :confused::confused:

tennis_pro
04-20-2011, 11:46 PM
Umm sorry, I think Davydenko is GOAT. :)

Case closed, then!

Hail the new KING!

namelessone
04-20-2011, 11:57 PM
Case closed, then!

Hail the new KING!

Word!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jXzsVbb9GC8/Sy-N8oNwkSI/AAAAAAAAAWo/cqvJjszbMLs/s640/b_davydenkoportrait.jpg

ananda
04-21-2011, 12:43 AM
Umm sorry, I think Davydenko is GOAT. :)
When you mention Davydenko's H2H against Nadal, THEN and only THEN are other factors taken into account. Such as they were not on clay, ND is lower ranked than Nadal, whereas Federer was higher ranked, ND has never won a slam etc etc.

However, if you dare trying refuting the 15-8 by saying that Nadal never reached many finals, or they are largely clay, see what you get:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=376718&page=2

Excuses really don't matter. The H2H speaks for itself. Facts cannot be changed.


It only matters when they played each other. Why they did not play each other is not the point.

So basically, Nadal is really the GOAT. Accept the facts. Excuses don't really matter.

aphex
04-21-2011, 01:44 AM
Word!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jXzsVbb9GC8/Sy-N8oNwkSI/AAAAAAAAAWo/cqvJjszbMLs/s640/b_davydenkoportrait.jpg

lolololol.....