PDA

View Full Version : If Djokovic wins Roland Garros 2012, will it be the strongest top 3 in history?


Mike Sams
12-17-2011, 02:41 PM
Federer is the holder of all 4 Slams.
Nadal is the holder of all 4 Slams.
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros next year, he becomes the holder of all 4 Slams.

Is this a big deal in the context of tennis history where the top 3 players all have THE Grand Slam (all 4 Slams)? :)

Nadal_Power
12-17-2011, 02:51 PM
Not in today's game

Homeboy Hotel
12-17-2011, 02:57 PM
He won't.
I'll expect to be quoted when I'm wrong in 5 years time.

ledwix
12-17-2011, 03:00 PM
The top 3 combine for 30 majors right now. I think they are already the strongest top 3 in history.

NadalAgassi
12-17-2011, 03:06 PM
It would cement Djokovic as a top 15 player all time, so yes it probably would be the strongest top 3 in history. It would mean 3 different players who have 3 slams in the same year, been consistent top 3 (or better) players for many years, and who also have the Career Slam to boot. Pretty amazing. One has to feel sorry for Andy Murray if he is still slamless at that point (maybe Murray will win Australia and Djokovic the French though).

MrFlip
12-17-2011, 03:08 PM
It would cement Djokovic as a top 15 player all time, so yes it probably would be the strongest top 3 in history. It would mean 3 different players who have 3 slams in the same year, been consistent top 3 (or better) players for many years, and who also have the Career Slam to boot. Pretty amazing. One has to feel sorry for Andy Murray if he is still slamless at that point (maybe Murray will win Australia and Djokovic the French though).

You dont feel sorry for Andy Murray. No one should. The guy pushes. Watch AO final again. Djokovic was swatting the ball, while Murray was just putting it back with his practice match style forehands.

SLD76
12-17-2011, 03:38 PM
Strongest top 3:

Superman

Spiderman

Batman.

shaqtus
12-17-2011, 03:47 PM
AM will never win a major

Monsieur_DeLarge
12-17-2011, 04:17 PM
Federer is the holder of all 4 Slams.
Nadal is the holder of all 4 Slams.
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros next year, he becomes the holder of all 4 Slams.

Is this a big deal in the context of tennis history where the top 3 players all have THE Grand Slam (all 4 Slams)? :)

None of the top three would have "THE Grand Slam", only Laver and Budge can claim that. ;)

By the numbers Fedalovic [sic] is the "strongest". However, given that prior to the late '80s the Australian Open was of a lower priority than today, it's possible to compare, say, a top 3 from the early 'eighties comprising Borg, Connors, and McEnroe. They eventally accumulated 26 major wins between them, while typically playing only three quarters of the slam events of today's champions.

And if you're allowed to count the old Pro Tour, you might find some candidate years from the 1960s that included Laver, Rosewall, and A. N. Other, although of course you'd need to choose one of the subjectively compiled rankings since an official list didn't yet exist. I'll leave it up to others to select the best candidate to complete that triumvirate.


Regards,
MDL

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 04:22 PM
None of the top three would have "THE Grand Slam", only Laver and Budge can claim that. ;)

By the numbers Fedalovic [sic] is the "strongest". However, given that prior to the late '80s the Australian Open was of a lower priority than today, it's possible to compare, say, a top 3 from the early 'eighties comprising Borg, Connors, and McEnroe. They eventally accumulated 26 major wins between them, while typically playing only three quarters of the slam events of today's champions.

And if you're allowed to count the old Pro Tour, you might find some candidate years from the 1960s that included Laver, Rosewall, and A. N. Other, although of course you'd need to choose one of the subjectively compiled rankings since an official list didn't yet exist. I'll leave it up to others to select the best candidate to complete that triumvirate.


Regards,
MDL

Fedalovic will surpass that easily. They only need 5 more majors which is just over a year also given that there's nobody on the horizon it should be an easy feat

CocaCola
12-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Yes.

10simpleasthat's

TTMR
12-17-2011, 06:38 PM
*Typical 2010 TW post*

Joke-a-vic? No way. One slam wonder, lulz.

NadalAgassi
12-17-2011, 06:42 PM
You dont feel sorry for Andy Murray. No one should. The guy pushes. Watch AO final again. Djokovic was swatting the ball, while Murray was just putting it back with his practice match style forehands.

Say what you will about Murray but he has twice the # of Masters titles as any other slamless player. Plus being in 3 slam finals. Having a winning record vs Federer, and alot of wins over Nadal and Djokovic. Being very close to the year end #3 sevearl times and never getting it. You have to feel for him atleast a bit to still be slamless even if you arent a fan (which I am not).

shaqtus
12-17-2011, 08:49 PM
i would love to see Murray win one, i just don't think it will happen

Mike Sams
12-17-2011, 09:59 PM
Say what you will about Murray but he has twice the # of Masters titles as any other slamless player. Plus being in 3 slam finals. Having a winning record vs Federer, and alot of wins over Nadal and Djokovic. Being very close to the year end #3 sevearl times and never getting it. You have to feel for him atleast a bit to still be slamless even if you arent a fan (which I am not).

He has to play like he did against Nadal in that first set of Wimbledon 2011. Aggression, attack and patience. That pushing nonsense he does won't cut it. Looping forehands! :lol:

ZeroSkid
12-17-2011, 10:02 PM
I think so

furryballs
12-17-2011, 10:22 PM
Strongest top 3:

Superman

Spiderman

Batman.

muzza prefers to lurk in the shadows as.................................THE PHANTOM.......have a good look at his ring and u 2 shall know.

urban
12-17-2011, 10:39 PM
History is long. As Ms. DeLarge writes, there were some other great trios or quartets in the history of tennis. Brookes-Wilding-McLoughlin, Tilden-Lacoste-Cochet-Johnston, Vines-Perry-Budge-von Cramm, Gonzalez-Sedgman-Hoad-Rosewall, Laver-Rosewall-Gonzalez for instance, all pre 1968.

Slice&Smash
12-17-2011, 11:39 PM
No, it only confirms the scientific theory that this is, by far, the weakest tennis era!!!

:mrgreen:

zagor
12-18-2011, 01:13 AM
Strongest top 3:

3. Big blue boy scout

2. Lab geek

1. The Goddamn Batman.

Fixed .

SLD76
12-18-2011, 01:21 AM
muzza prefers to lurk in the shadows as.................................THE PHANTOM.......have a good look at his ring and u 2 shall know.

you had it right the first time, he is more like The Shadow, roflmao.

What evil lurks in the heart of man.....

helloworld
12-18-2011, 01:43 AM
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.

SLD76
12-18-2011, 01:46 AM
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.

must be the short shorts.

dlk
12-18-2011, 01:58 AM
The top 3 combine for 30 majors right now. I think they are already the strongest top 3 in history.

I agree.

It would be amazing if he took RG though.

paulorenzo
12-18-2011, 02:39 AM
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.

considering this federer/nadal/djokovic dynamic started around 2007/2008, let's give them a few more years until we compare them with a decade's worth of tennis greats.

for all we know, these three could start to fall short at future slams and allow murray, tsonga, delpo, sod, berd, and others to win majors for a few years, which will make this era appear even stronger with so many winning slams + the 30 slam trio.

reversef
12-18-2011, 05:35 AM
You dont feel sorry for Andy Murray. No one should. The guy pushes. Watch AO final again. Djokovic was swatting the ball, while Murray was just putting it back with his practice match style forehands.

There was nothing to do against Djokovic in the AO. I actually think that he never played that good again after that, even if he won everything. Murray gave up very quickly, it's true. But every player with 0 slam would have done the same, methinks. Watch Djokovic's SF against Federer. Federer would have won against everyone else that day. Djokovic was just terrifying. I remember watching it and think "OMG, Djokovic is unbeatable right now". He didn't play that well again after that, even if he won all those tournaments.

Sentinel
12-18-2011, 06:44 AM
I agree.

It would be amazing if he took RG though.
This year Rafa won't be winning RG.

corners
12-18-2011, 06:55 AM
Already is the strongest top 3 in history. Has been for several years.

Tony48
12-18-2011, 07:01 AM
Has there ever been a top 3 where each man had at least 4 slams at the time? I started digging but I'm too lazy to continue =p

But yes, if Novak wins RG, it'll definitely be the strongest top 3, even though most would contend that it already is.

phnx90
12-18-2011, 08:03 AM
Strongest top 3:

Superman

Spiderman

Batman.


Batman
Batman
Batman

There, fixed it for you

kiki
12-18-2011, 08:50 AM
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.

How trueĦĦĦ

kiki
12-18-2011, 08:55 AM
Federer is the holder of all 4 Slams.
Nadal is the holder of all 4 Slams.
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros next year, he becomes the holder of all 4 Slams.

Is this a big deal in the context of tennis history where the top 3 players all have THE Grand Slam (all 4 Slams)? :)

Apart from Laver´s bislam, and Agassi´s career
slam,Connors,Wilander,Vilas,Becker,Edberg,Sampras, Newcombe,Rosewall,Ashe and others have won 3 out of 4 majors.It was much, but so much more difficult to win 3 out of 4 in the 70´s,80´s and 90´s than winning the big four today, because competition atop has reduced a lot.And courts are pretty much the same.

TMF
12-18-2011, 09:00 AM
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.

The names you listed above have played from the 70s to the 90s(3 decades), but Fed/Rafa/Nole only a little over 10 years(so far).

How trueĦĦĦ

How clueless !!!

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:04 AM
The names you listed above have played from the 70s to the 90s(3 decades), but Fed/Rafa/Nole only a little over 10 years(so far).




How clueless !!!

you are the clueless

Connors,Mc,Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg were the top 6 in 1985, so they shared courts.

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:09 AM
1971: Laver,Newcombe,Rosewall,Kodes,Smith,Ashe and Nastase, plus Okker,Roche and Gimeno

1975: Connors,Ashe,Borg,Vilas,Orantes,Panatta,Ramirez,Ro sewall,Tanner and Laver

1979: Borg,Mc Enroe,Connors,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Vilas,Pecci,Ashe,S olomon,Dibbs

1981: Mc Enroe,Lendl,Connors,Borg,Clerc,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Ta nner.Mayer,Kriek

1985:

Lendl,Mac,Connors,Wilander,Becker,Edberg,Cash,Noah ,Mecir and Curren


1993:

Sampras,Edberg,Courier,Agassi,Becker,Stich,Bruguer a,Ivanisevic,Rafter,Krajicek or Chang


Any of those top 10 wipes out the floor with any of the top 10 you can make from 2000 till 2011...

Talker
12-18-2011, 09:14 AM
The sport is so grueling now it's hard for top players to be at their peak all year so it doesn't help to only look at how they play when at their best.

Peakwise I would say yes.

TMF
12-18-2011, 09:27 AM
you are the clueless

Connors,Mc,Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg were the top 6 in 1985, so they shared courts.

Becker was a baby in 1985. Mac never won a slam again after 1984. Connors was a shadowed of himself...only won 4 more mickey mouse tittles after 1984.

Bringing up names doesn't mean anything if you don't look at their current playing level. I would say 1985 Lendl, Wilander and Edberg is a good comparison to Fed/Nadal/Nole, but still, the current top 3 are better.

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:31 AM
Becker was a baby in 1985. Mac never won a slam again after 1984. Connors was a shadowed of himself...only won 4 more mickey mouse tittles after 1984.

Bringing up names doesn't mean anything if you don't look at their current playing level. I would say 1985 Lendl, Wilander and Edberg is a good comparison to Fed/Nadal/Nole, but still, the current top 3 are better.

1981

Borg ( retiring) : 11
Mc: 7
Lendl: 8
Connors: 8

total 34

1993

Sampras: 14
Agassi: 8
Edberg: 6
Becker: 6

Total 34

Now

Federer: 16
nadal: 10
Djokovic: 5
Murray: 0

Total 31

Thank you, sirs

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:37 AM
1969

Laver 11
Rosewall 8
Emerson 12
Newcombe 7

Total 38

Had the top players competed, we all agree Laver and Rosewall would have won almost all titles Emmo wouldn´t have won.Maybe 2 clay court titles for Santana and Gimeno..still that would make 36, thus, the best modern era top.

Make your bit, Gentlemen

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 09:43 AM
kiki you do know, however, that Federer,Djokovic,Nadal are still competing and could well win a combined 10+ majors if not more? That would make any trio from any era look like a joke

Nathaniel_Near
12-18-2011, 09:44 AM
1981

Borg ( retiring) : 11
Mc: 7
Lendl: 8
Connors: 8

total 34

1993

Sampras: 14
Agassi: 8
Edberg: 6
Becker: 6

Total 34

Now

Federer: 16
nadal: 10
Djokovic: 5
Murray: 0

Total 31

Thank you, sirs

I had no idea that Sampras had 14 Major titles by 1993, among other things.

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 09:49 AM
I had no idea that Sampras had 14 Major titles by 1993, among other things.

Agassi had 1 himself at the time :) way da go kiki

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:52 AM
Agassi had 1 himself at the time :) way da go kiki

Out of the top 3 and Del potro/roddick...how many majors have the rest of the top 10?

Look at Sampras time, the 10 th best player had a major title...:)

Just as happened in 1985 or 1971, to set a few examples

TMF
12-18-2011, 09:56 AM
kiki you do know, however, that Federer,Djokovic,Nadal are still competing and could well win a combined 10+ majors if not more? That would make any trio from any era look like a joke

Well, what do you expect from kiki who doesn't watch tennis. He's assuming none of these 3 will win anymore slams from now on.

NadalAgassi
12-18-2011, 09:57 AM
It seems some posters are unable to even understand the thread title. This isnt a question about the deepest top 10 ever (which nobody would argue, it is well noted the bottom of the current top 10 is a joke) or the strongest overall top 6. It is the strongest "top 3" and nothing else. So bringing up 6 names and an entire top 10 is just evidence of being unable to argue another top 3 against the current one.

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:58 AM
Well, what do you expect from kiki who doesn't watch tennis. He's assuming none of these 3 will win anymore slams from now on.

Yes, they could but...against which competition? looks to me like Emerson,Santana and Stolle:)

kiki
12-18-2011, 10:02 AM
Number of slam winners in the top 10

1971

Laver
Newcombe
Rosewall
Ashe
Smith
Kodes
Nastase
Roche
Gimeno

(9)

1981

Borg
Mc Enroe
Lendl
Connors
Vilas
Gerulaitis
Tanner
Kriek

(8)

1985

Mc Enroe
Lendl
Wilander
Connors
Edberg
Becker
Noah
Cash
Gomez
(9)

1993

Sampras
Courier
Agassi
Edberg
Becker
Bruguera
Rafter
Ivaniseic
Stich
Chang

(10)

NOW

Djokovic
Nadal
Federer
Del Potro Roddick

(5)

WOAT era is now...numbers never lie.. and the rest of top tenners are old enough to have achieved something in their lifes, ain´t it?

Hitman
12-18-2011, 11:14 AM
You may be onto something here. If you just looked at the incredible records Fedal had set before 2010, and not just in the slams, and if you add what Novak has done this year, plus the fact he has been in the top three since 07...it certainly looks like a powerful top three for sure.

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 11:59 AM
Number of slam winners in the top 10:

WOAT era is now...numbers never lie.. and the rest of top tenners are old enough to have achieved something in their lifes, ain´t it?

You just took the best players from one era and put them in the top 10, let's look at 1993 for example, you said:

1993

Sampras
Courier
Agassi
Edberg
Becker
Bruguera
Rafter
Ivaniseic
Stich
Chang

Now this is the REAL top 10 at the end of 1993
1 Sampras, Pete (USA) 4,128 0 0
2 Stich, Michael (GER) 3,445 0 0
3 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,390 0 0
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP) 2,590 0 0
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 2,571 0 0
6 Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) 2,415 0 0
7 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,186 0 0
8 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,154 0 0
9 Muster, Thomas (AUT) 2,033 0 0
10 Pioline, Cedric (FRA) 2,012 0 0

Pioline, Muster, Ivanisevic, Medvedev had 0 majors at the time. Chang, Bruguera, Stich had 1. Sampras had 3, Courier had 4, Edberg had 6.

Becker and Agassi weren't even in the top 10 at the time. In fact, Agassi finished the year ranked 24.
Rafter was a complete non-factor for another 4 years. FAIL.

I assume you screwed up the other eras as well.

The same way I can make a big top 10 that consists of: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, is GAUDIO still playing :D (well his ranking doesn't even matter cause if you put 1993 Rafter as a tough opposition even though he finished the year ranked 66th :D, Gaudio's ranking would really matter, right? He's a slam champ!)

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 12:09 PM
Out of the top 3 and Del potro/roddick...how many majors have the rest of the top 10?

Look at Sampras time, the 10 th best player had a major title...:)

Just as happened in 1985 or 1971, to set a few examples

If Del Potro goes on to win another 4 majors he'll be know as tough opposition in THIS era, right? :)

kiki
12-18-2011, 12:41 PM
If Del Potro goes on to win another 4 majors he'll be know as tough opposition in THIS era, right? :)

as far as the other 3 are still playing, yes.

celoft
12-18-2011, 02:46 PM
Say what you will about Murray but he has twice the # of Masters titles as any other slamless player. Plus being in 3 slam finals. Having a winning record vs Federer, and alot of wins over Nadal and Djokovic. Being very close to the year end #3 sevearl times and never getting it. You have to feel for him atleast a bit to still be slamless even if you arent a fan (which I am not).

AM is the best slamless player of the OE.:-?

jackson vile
12-18-2011, 06:39 PM
The top 3 combine for 30 majors right now. I think they are already the strongest top 3 in history.

Exactly, tells you how easy Federer had it when he was racking them up. Novak's accomplishments mean so much more.

paulorenzo
12-19-2011, 12:22 AM
the current rest of the top ten looks like a joke because the top 3 are so dominant.

much like how the top ten looked when federer and nadal were so dominant.

much like how the top ten looked when federer was so dominant.

if the slam wins were split up more evenly this era would look as strong as any.say if you give half of Federer's slam wins to to another player on tour,e.g. Jurgen Melzer. each would have 8 slams each. in roughly 13 years, they were able to rack up as many slams as Connors and Agassi have in their entire 20+ year careers. each have 1 more than Mcenroe and Wilander.
if you were to give 3 of Nadal's majors to djokovic, each would have 7. each equalling mcenroe and wilander and surpassing becker and edberg.

in this hypothetical world of more evenly distributed slam wins, this era would consist of two connors/agassi caliber players playing with a mcenroe and a wilander. all 4 racking up their slam wins in 13 years. no one would be seen as a GOAT candidate, but the era wouldn't be dismissed as a weak one.

Hitman
12-19-2011, 02:28 AM
Exactly, tells you how easy Federer had it when he was racking them up. Novak's accomplishments mean so much more.

Nadal had it easy also.

And you're right, Novak's accomplishments mean so much more.....