PDA

View Full Version : Will Djokovic end up with a better career than Nadal ?


Pages : [1] 2

tennisaddict
09-25-2012, 02:21 PM
It was sad to see Nadal not compete in Olympics , USO 2012. Now it appears even AO 2013 is doubtful.

Nadal is almost 27 now. Not sure how many more productive majors he has left. He has 11 now.

Compare with Novak. He has 5 majors, just at the start of his prime. He could have very well been at 7-8 majors with a little more luck, still age is on his side.

When Novak ends his career, do you think he will have a better record than Nadal ? It is a guarantee that he will have a more wider collection of major wins.

With not too many players coming up, it is not hard to see that Novak / Murray are going to have a lion's share of the majors for the next 3 years (12 majors).

If Novak has similar years like 2011-2012 for the next 3 years, it appears he can equal or surpass Nadal.

Mid 2012 everyone was talking Nadal will surpass Federer in Slam count. Even in the worst case, he would rank as an all time second in tennis history.

But if Novak ends up at10-11 majors, it will put Nadal same as Novak , Borg , Emerson and well less than Federer / Sampras, thus further diluting Nadal's legacy.

What are your thoughts ?

dangalak
09-25-2012, 02:25 PM
Might equal him.

But we shouldn't overestimate Djokovic either. I mean, it's tough to keep a high level up forever.

JMR
09-25-2012, 02:29 PM
Why are the only options matching Nadal or falling short "by a good margin"? I don't think Djokovic will equal Nadal, but he might come fairly close if Nadal retires or dramatically reduces his playing in the near future. At 5-11 in slams, Djokovic is well behind at the moment. But what if he eventually reached, say, 9-11?

Mike Sams
09-25-2012, 02:36 PM
Djokovic is 6 away from catching Nadal.
Nadal is 6 away from catching Federer.
With the way things are looking right now, Djokovic is in contention to win more Slams and narrow the gap on Nadal considering half the Slams are played on Djokovic's best surface. Djokovic has won the last 2 AOs and either won or been a runner in the last 3 USOs.
Nadal still has not won anything off clay since Japan 2010. And the competition is getting stronger with Murray and Del Potro now being mentally stronger and more formidable players on hardcourts.
Basically in order for Nadal to win anything now, he has to beat at least 2 back to back Grand Slam champions, barring a surprise. Murray's now officially a threat to everybody which makes winning even more difficult for Nadal who is not exactly a spring chicken.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 04:08 PM
Not a chance. Even if Nadal retires today he still will end up with a better career than Djokovic will ever reach. Djokovic will do well to surpass Agassi.

Hood_Man
09-25-2012, 04:10 PM
I doubt he can catch Nadal at this point, especially since Nadal may still add to that figure in the next 2-3 years if he starts playing a shorter schedule.

Prisoner of Birth
09-25-2012, 04:11 PM
Djokovic is just one year younger than Nadal.

kishnabe
09-25-2012, 04:11 PM
He needs another 3 slam year....to have a chance....while assuming Nadal has stopped winning majors.

forzamilan90
09-25-2012, 05:03 PM
Could happen, probably not. Nadal has the title of greatest ever on clay that elevates him above numerous others by default, and he's up in the greatest legends discussion, though quite far from the GOAT. Still though, Djko theoretically could strike a career with 10 or majors that might put him in the discussion, though I doubt even at his best major (AO) he gets anywhere the recognition that Nadal has at his best. Not sure how to rank if say Nadal ends with 11 majors, and that huge clay emphasis, yet tremendous results all across, and Djokovic with potentially a FO or two and a bit more balanced resume if he reaches 10 or 11 potentially.

90's Clay
09-25-2012, 06:13 PM
No way he manages another 6 slams. I can't even see Djoker passing Andre's 8 to be honest. Its possible though of course.. But he won't have that longevity because he requires so much on defense, speed and movement.

Then that doesn't even count all those masters events ANdre and Nadal have.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 06:22 PM
No way he manages another 6 slams. I can't even see Djoker passing Andre's 8 to be honest. Its possible though of course.. But he won't have that longevity because he requires so much on defense, speed and movement.

Then that doesn't even count all those masters events ANdre and Nadal have.

I could see him reaching 9 possibly, that would be about the max IMO. He would need a French Open title to arguably outrank Agassi though I feel. Agassi's career slam counts for alot, especialy considering it was much harder to do then vs today.

Sim
09-25-2012, 06:25 PM
Asking Novak to double his slam count to be just 1 slam behind Nadal is incredibly difficult. But since there are no youngsters breaking through yet, who knows. Plus, I don't think Nadal is done yet. He still has at least 1-2 more French Opens in him to add to the count.

BauerAlmeida
09-25-2012, 06:35 PM
Similar, but Nadal's will be a bit better.

tennisaddict
10-30-2012, 04:54 PM
Cannot believe Nadal is leading by a wide margin. Given Nadal's comeback and that too a decent one seem to be a remote possibility, this poll needs updated..

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 05:00 PM
Cannot believe Nadal is leading by a wide margin. Given Nadal's comeback and that too a decent one seem to be a remote possibility, this poll needs updated..

Most people dont believe Djokovic will ever reach 11 slams. Some people believe Djokovic will never win Roland Garros to complete a Career Slam. Nearly everyone believes Djokovic will never be the GOAT on any major surface like Nadal is on clay (he could the Australian Open GOAT, but that is a sub division of a surface). Thus Nadal's comeback and whether he does anything that much more is irrelevant to how most people would vote on this poll. Anyway most would expect Nadal to win atleast another couple French Opens, meaning Djokovic would then need to reach 13 slams or more to match or surpass him in slam count, something close to nobody expects he will reach.

I am surprised Djokovic even has as many votes as he has on this poll, but it is safe to say almost all of them are from Nadal haters. Who would bet their life on Djokovic's career and place in history passing Nadal's, maybe 2 out of 1000. The odds of any of Nadal passing Federer, Djokovic passing Nadal, or Murray passing Djokovic are very slim to none at this point, and considering Nadal potentially has many more years left than the much older Federer yet is almost the same age as Djokovic, and Murray is only 4 slams behind Djokovic and is the only one who might not have peaked yet, Djokovic ever surpassing Nadal is the most unlikely of them all.

Clarky21
10-30-2012, 05:09 PM
Yeah,I think he will. Just take a look at the lack of quality competition he will have for the next 5 or so years. It would be a huge shock if he didn't win 12-15 slams when it's all said and done.

MichaelNadal
10-30-2012, 05:14 PM
Yeah,I think he will. Just take a look at the lack of quality competition he will have for the next 5 or so years. It would be a huge shock if he didn't win 12-15 slams when it's all said and done.

Lol don't worry clarky, he won't even get close.

Towser83
10-30-2012, 05:25 PM
I could see him reaching 9 possibly, that would be about the max IMO. He would need a French Open title to arguably outrank Agassi though I feel. Agassi's career slam counts for alot, especialy considering it was much harder to do then vs today.

Yeah I totally agree with you here. I wouldn't count on more than 9 slams but I would still count Agassi's the best career slam.

merwy
10-30-2012, 05:28 PM
Yeah,I think he will. Just take a look at the lack of quality competition he will have for the next 5 or so years. It would be a huge shock if he didn't win 12-15 slams when it's all said and done.

I actually agree with you about the "look at the lack of quality competition he will have for the next 5 or so years". But we don't know how Nadal will be doing. If Nadal would retire today, I expect Djokovic to gain in on his slam count. But if Nadal keeps playing he could win a few more RGs and maybe some slam outside of it and stay in front of Djokovic. They almost have the same age. And even if Djokovic wins more grand slams in the end, Nadal will always keep his record of 7 Roland Garros wins, which in my opinion also is an indication of how great his career was.

90's Clay
10-30-2012, 05:36 PM
Nadal will probably add on to his slam count by a few slams.. So even then DJoker is going to have to have some seasons where he grabs 2-3 slams every year. I'm not entirely sure he can do that. 7-8 more slams is quite a bit. And Murray has in a way caught up to him and Djoker's level has leveled off

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 05:39 PM
Yeah I totally agree with you here. I wouldn't count on more than 9 slams but I would still count Agassi's the best career slam.

it is funny you go back to that post of mine since I made a recent prediction of more than that. I guess I continue to vary as I gain and lose faith in the so called up and coming group. They and whether they pan out to worth a darn will mean as much to how many future slams Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray win in their more advanced age, as those players themselves will. It will be intersting to see how Raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, Harrison develop, if any of them pan out to be slam caliber, and if so how many for those, and what the generation after that will be like.

Either way the order of Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray is unlikely to ever change, and I still would say even now the Nadal > Djokovic is the least likely of all (Nadal surpassing Federer as Open Era GOAT, Murray surpassing Djokovic, as unlikely as both are, are even more likely than Djokovic ever catching Nadal in career greatness). Even if Djokovic is arguably likely to achieve more than Nadal from here (just as Nadal is even more likely to achieve more from this point on than the 31 year old Federer, despite the questions about him now), Djokovic is still virtually certain to not make up the current mammoth gap in their careers on someone only 1 year older than him, when both probably have already hit their all time peak of play and short term results (Nadal 2008 and 2010, Djokovic 2011).

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 05:40 PM
People don't realize how hard it is to win Grand Slams. Djokovic needed one of the greatest years of all time in 2011, a great 2012, and one Slam from 5 years ago to get to where he is now : 5. And he's 25.5 years old now, with 1.5/2 years of his prime left, probably. He'll need to do well just to get to 10 Slams. Nadal is at 11 Slams and unless he retires tomorrow, he'll likely add a couple of Slams at the FO alone. For all we know, Djokovic might need to win 10 more Slams to go past Nadal.

90's Clay
10-30-2012, 05:50 PM
People don't realize how hard it is to win Grand Slams. Djokovic needed one of the greatest years of all time in 2011, a great 2012, and one Slam from 5 years ago to get to where he is now : 5. And he's 25.5 years old now, with 1.5/2 years of his prime left, probably. He'll need to do well just to get to 10 Slams. Nadal is at 11 Slams and unless he retires tomorrow, he'll likely add a couple of Slams at the FO alone. For all we know, Djokovic might need to win 10 more Slams to go past Nadal.

Ehh... Its not really that hard to win slams today if you are among the top 4 though:confused:. In fact, with the homogenizations of conditions over the past decade, and lack of depth in the field (and upcoming generation of "players" I use that term loosely), it couldn't be any EASIER for the top guys.

Court specialists are gone, the day you had to worry about going from slow clay to lightning fast grass and hard court season is gone etc..

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 05:54 PM
Ehh... Its not really that hard to win slams today if you are among the top 4 though:confused:. In fact, with the homogenizations of conditions over the past decade, and lack of depth in the field (and upcoming generation of "players" I use that term loosely), it couldn't be any EASIER for the top guys.

Court specialists are gone, the day you had to worry about going from slow clay to lightning fast grass and hard court season is gone etc..

Homogenization = More number of competitive players at every Slam.

The fact that only the top 4 guys win everything doesn't mean it's easier winning Slams. How many guys have won more than 1 Slam in the past 10 years? 3. Back in the 90s? Way more. Maybe it's just a more exclusive club, now?

cc0509
10-30-2012, 05:59 PM
Either way the order of Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray is unlikely to ever change, and I still would say even now the Nadal > Djokovic is the least likely of all (Nadal surpassing Federer as Open Era GOAT, Murray surpassing Djokovic, as unlikely as both are, are even more likely than Djokovic ever catching Nadal in career greatness). Even if Djokovic is arguably likely to achieve more than Nadal from here (just as Nadal is even more likely to achieve more from this point on than the 31 year old Federer, despite the questions about him now), Djokovic is still virtually certain to not make up the current mammoth gap in their careers on someone only 1 year older than him, when both probably have already hit their all time peak of play and short term results (Nadal 2008 and 2010, Djokovic 2011).

Djokovic surpassing Nadal is just as unlikely as Nadal surpassing Federer at this point. It will likely end up:

Federer>Nadal>Djokovic

unless a miracle happens imo. I see Djokovic winning 8 or 9 slams total. He does not strike me as the type of guy who will be interested in playing at the highest level for more than a couple of years. To me, he seems like a guy who would have other interests outside of tennis much more so than even Federer and for sure Nadal. I don't think tennis will be Djokovic's life to that extent. I could be wrong and I could change my mind in time.

absurdo
10-30-2012, 06:00 PM
nadal will end up with a better career, i would say. and that is good, because he is the superior player, out of the 2.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 06:26 PM
It is funny the person who bumped it did so saying he expected Djokovic would gain ground in the poll, yet since the bump Nadal gained another 8 votes and Djokovic none, lol!

Towser83
10-30-2012, 07:05 PM
it is funny you go back to that post of mine since I made a recent prediction of more than that. I guess I continue to vary as I gain and lose faith in the so called up and coming group. They and whether they pan out to worth a darn will mean as much to how many future slams Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray win in their more advanced age, as those players themselves will. It will be intersting to see how Raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, Harrison develop, if any of them pan out to be slam caliber, and if so how many for those, and what the generation after that will be like.

Either way the order of Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray is unlikely to ever change, and I still would say even now the Nadal > Djokovic is the least likely of all (Nadal surpassing Federer as Open Era GOAT, Murray surpassing Djokovic, as unlikely as both are, are even more likely than Djokovic ever catching Nadal in career greatness). Even if Djokovic is arguably likely to achieve more than Nadal from here (just as Nadal is even more likely to achieve more from this point on than the 31 year old Federer, despite the questions about him now), Djokovic is still virtually certain to not make up the current mammoth gap in their careers on someone only 1 year older than him, when both probably have already hit their all time peak of play and short term results (Nadal 2008 and 2010, Djokovic 2011).

To be honest I didn't notice when your post was from, but you have changed you mind quite a bit in just over a month ;)

But actually, when you bring up the no new players on the horizon factor, I can see that point too. Djokovic might end up with over 10 slams... but he might not. I can't decide. He might simply get bored with tennis, he seems to have other interests and might even get into some sort of political role in Serbia in the future. But unless Nadal is finished, he will still pick up enough to stay ahead of Djokovic.

Also agree that Nadal surpassing Federer is more likely than Djokovic surpassing Nadal. Murray could surpass Djokovic as he is only 4 slams behind, but it will depend a lot on next year imo. If Djokovic had a 3 slam year I would say Murray won't catch him (at best it would be 8-2, possibly 8-1) but if they stayed even or Murray gained ground thn possible.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 07:14 PM
My odds would be:

Nadal surpassing Federer: 15%
Djokovic surpassing Nadal: 7%
Murray surpassing Djokovic: 12%

All extremely low. Djokovic passing Nadal the lowest of all though.

I am interested to see how soon the up and comers will start winning slams and how much the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, and maybe even still Federer group collectively will continue to win the next few years though.

90's Clay
10-30-2012, 07:38 PM
My odds would be:

Nadal surpassing Federer: 15%
Djokovic surpassing Nadal: 7%
Murray surpassing Djokovic: 12%

All extremely low. Djokovic passing Nadal the lowest of all though.

I am interested to see how soon the up and comers will start winning slams and how much the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, and maybe even still Federer group collectively will continue to win the next few years though.


We may have to wait a few years for that one.

papertank
10-30-2012, 08:48 PM
Nadal is comfortably the 4th best player of all time, and may rise by the end of his career. Djokovic may get close to him in number of slams, but there are other areas in which Djokovic will never come close to Nadal. Nadal has a dominating record against the undisputed GOAT, and is by far the best player of a single surface. Djokovic can't compare to that.

Clarky21
10-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Djokovic surpassing Nadal is just as unlikely as Nadal surpassing Federer at this point. It will likely end up:

Federer>Nadal>Djokovic

unless a miracle happens imo. I see Djokovic winning 8 or 9 slams total. He does not strike me as the type of guy who will be interested in playing at the highest level for more than a couple of years. To me, he seems like a guy who would have other interests outside of tennis much more so than even Federer and for sure Nadal. I don't think tennis will be Djokovic's life to that extent. I could be wrong and I could change my mind in time.


I think that's pretty conservative. I think he easily surpasses that number by some margin.

adamX012
10-30-2012, 08:52 PM
Nadal is still pretty strong for future games.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 08:56 PM
Nadal is comfortably the 4th best player of all time, and may rise by the end of his career. Djokovic may get close to him in number of slams, but there are other areas in which Djokovic will never come close to Nadal. Nadal has a dominating record against the undisputed GOAT, and is by far the best player of a single surface. Djokovic can't compare to that.

Who're 2 and 3 on your GOAT-list?

papertank
10-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Who're 2 and 3 on your GOAT-list?

Laver and Sampras. I think Nadal could possibly pass Sampras by the end of his career, but they are very hard to compare as their achievements are totally different.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 09:02 PM
Laver and Sampras. I think Nadal could possibly pass Sampras by the end of his career, but they are very hard to compare as their achievements are totally different.

I'm confident Nadal will go past Sampras by the time he's done. As it stands, though, Sampras has to be rated slightly higher.

cc0509
10-30-2012, 09:15 PM
I think that's pretty conservative. I think he easily surpasses that number by some margin.

I don't think so Clarky. Remember this is a guy who won his first slam in 2008 and then took another three years to win the rest of his slams so far. I just don't see him as tennis-crazed as a Federer or Nadal. It takes tons of sacrifice to continue dominating for years. Federer was able to do it for four or five years, that is very rare. Look already at the year Djokovic had in 2012 compared to his 2011 year. Djokovic was only able to completely dominate for less than a year and then his level came down. I also think he seems like a guy who has other interests and will become bored of the grind in a couple of years. That is just my feeling. I could be incorrect. I say Djokovic ends his career with around 8 or 9 slams. I reserve the right to change my mind in the future however, lol.

Sabratha
10-31-2012, 03:08 AM
Novak won't even get close.

kOaMaster
10-31-2012, 03:31 AM
I don't think he'll come close - because Nadal isn't done yet and I can't see novak winning at least 1 major more than nadal for 6 years.

Sabratha
10-31-2012, 03:35 AM
Novak is known to go on random tears, though.

christinamaniac7
10-31-2012, 12:45 PM
No way in freezing hell will nole have a chance to even with nadal...

Clarky21
10-31-2012, 12:59 PM
No way in freezing hell will nole have a chance to even with nadal...



Yes he will.

tennisdad65
10-31-2012, 01:06 PM
Nadal 15 - Novak 10

Agassifan
10-31-2012, 01:20 PM
Similar type of career, although Rafa will have 70% of his slams at one venue.

mattennis
10-31-2012, 02:33 PM
Ehh... Its not really that hard to win slams today if you are among the top 4 though:confused:. In fact, with the homogenizations of conditions over the past decade, and lack of depth in the field (and upcoming generation of "players" I use that term loosely), it couldn't be any EASIER for the top guys.

Court specialists are gone, the day you had to worry about going from slow clay to lightning fast grass and hard court season is gone etc..



Homogenization = More number of competitive players at every Slam.

The fact that only the top 4 guys win everything doesn't mean it's easier winning Slams. How many guys have won more than 1 Slam in the past 10 years? 3. Back in the 90s? Way more. Maybe it's just a more exclusive club, now?

You both are saying exactly the same thing.

For the top 3 ( now top 4 ) winning GS tournaments in this era is easier than in any other era, which is exactly the same as saying that for the players outside the top 4 it is more difficult to win a GS tournament than in any other era.

Given that almost all the GS tournaments have been won by the same top 4 players in the last years, what you both are saying is a tautology.

And it is mostly a result of homogenization of playing conditions and baseline game being the only one winning playing style today.

Ms Nadal
10-31-2012, 02:35 PM
I don't think so.

mattennis
10-31-2012, 02:36 PM
In spite of that, I think Nadal will not reach 17 GS, and Djokovic will not reach 11 GS (Murray may reach 5 GS).

In fact if I had to bet I'd say that at the end of their careers it will be:

Federer: 17 GS
Nadal: 12 GS
Djokovic: 9 GS
Murray: 5 GS

or something along this line.

Ms Nadal
10-31-2012, 02:39 PM
I think Rafa can win some more slams. So he better return to give his fans some more great memories to add to the collection!

Clarky21
10-31-2012, 02:42 PM
I think Rafa can win some more slams. So he better return to give his fans some more great memories to add to the collection!


Not me,and the only memories over the past 2 years as a Nadal fan have all been bad. Wasn't much joy to be taken from 2011 or 2012.

PrinceMoron
10-31-2012, 02:44 PM
I don't think so.

Do you miss Nadal?

mattennis
10-31-2012, 02:44 PM
I only give him one more (probably RG) because it is extremely hard to return to the top of the game once you've been out for that long (six months or more) and I seriously think Nadal will be injured again and again from now on given his propensity to hurt his knees ( and what not! ) and given that he is nearing his 27 birthday (and he's been pounding his body since he was a very child).

Ms Nadal
10-31-2012, 02:47 PM
Wrong message

Ms Nadal
10-31-2012, 02:49 PM
When I said I don't think so it was answering the thread question. Djokovic won't be as successful as Rafa in my eyes.

Ms Nadal
10-31-2012, 02:50 PM
Do you miss Nadal?

You're kidding me, right? Of course I miss Rafa! he is my favourite player. I miss him bad!:(

Ms Nadal
10-31-2012, 02:54 PM
Not me,and the only memories over the past 2 years as a Nadal fan have all been bad. Wasn't much joy to be taken from 2011 or 2012.

Why do you say that? 2011 was terrible for all the Djok stuffings especially that Wimbledon! But at least Rafa won his RG!. 2012 started well, ok Rafa lost the AO final but he fought so hard in that match and I am proud of him for that. He had made progress with Djokovic! and was building up some courage against Djokovic. And Rafa had a good clay season ending with 7th RG title. Clarky, those moments made me proud. We must remember the good things. I hope and pray that Rafa does return!

beast of mallorca
10-31-2012, 02:54 PM
In spite of that, I think Nadal will not reach 17 GS, and Djokovic will not reach 11 GS (Murray may reach 5 GS).

In fact if I had to bet I'd say that at the end of their careers it will be:

Federer: 17 GS
Nadal: 12 GS
Djokovic: 9 GS
Murray: 5 GS

or something along this line.

This total GS to be won is in a span of 2 yrs.+
Who else do you think will be winning the rest of the GS for the next 4 yrs ?

mattennis
10-31-2012, 03:15 PM
This total GS to be won is in a span of 2 yrs.+
Who else do you think will be winning the rest of the GS for the next 4 yrs ?

Ummm, you're right, I had not thought about that.

In fact right now I can not think of any player ( outside the top 4 ) winning a GS tournament any time soon.

So maybe you're right and they will end up with more GS total than I previously thought.

Clarky21
10-31-2012, 03:47 PM
Why do you say that? 2011 was terrible for all the Djok stuffings especially that Wimbledon! But at least Rafa won his RG!. 2012 started well, ok Rafa lost the AO final but he fought so hard in that match and I am proud of him for that. He had made progress with Djokovic! and was building up some courage against Djokovic. And Rafa had a good clay season ending with 7th RG title. Clarky, those moments made me proud. We must remember the good things. I hope and pray that Rafa does return!


Thanks to Fed,or else Nadal would have gone slamless last year.


Those few things don't make up for the rest of the crap 2011 and 2012 were made up of. They don't erase 7 finals in a row lost,or the injuries forcing him to miss half the year. The past 2 years have sucked as a Nadal fan. There's not been much at all to cheer about.

beast of mallorca
10-31-2012, 03:47 PM
Ummm, you're right, I had not thought about that.

In fact right now I can not think of any player ( outside the top 4 ) winning a GS tournament any time soon.

So maybe you're right and they will end up with more GS total than I previously thought.

i know. Because when I looked and thought about it, I really can't put a name to a GS winner outside of the 4. Unless by way of a tragedy, Roger and Rafa retires, or anyone of the top 4 gets sick or someting. So, unless something of the extraordinary happens, Im thinking, these 4 will still get the majority of the SLAMS in the next 4 yrs at least.

Maybe Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych or Ferrer will snatch a Slam or 2. Outside of them who ? Wawrinka, Almagro, Tipsy ?

tHE YOUNG ONES ? I watch Raonic today, and his game is not ripe to win a Major. His defense etc is too weak. He barely snapped a win against Chardy. Hopefully, he improves. Nishikori ? Remains to be seen. Serve among other things are in question. Isner or Querrey ? Nahhh. Tomic, Harrison ? double nahhh

But maybe I'm wrong and a prodigy will just come out of nowhere.

Gonzo_style
10-31-2012, 03:51 PM
We'll know better after next year, if he wins RG and be #1 (third consecutive) Djokovic would be very close to Rafa...

TheFifthSet
10-31-2012, 06:10 PM
Thanks to Fed,or else Nadal would have gone slamless last year.


Those few things don't make up for the rest of the crap 2011 and 2012 were made up of. They don't erase 7 finals in a row lost,or the injuries forcing him to miss half the year. The past 2 years have sucked as a Nadal fan. There's not been much at all to cheer about.

Gosh you're spoiled lol.

RAFA2005RG
10-31-2012, 08:24 PM
?

The only thing doubtful is whether Djokovic will ever win a slam again. He came as close as is humanly possible to going slamless in 2012. That is a preview of things to come.

Of the top 10, Nadal is the only player to commit to Abu Dhabi and the Australian Open so far. He's also the only player in the top 10 who isn't a member of the ATP Player's Council.

Clarky21
10-31-2012, 08:26 PM
The only thing doubtful is whether Nadal will ever win a slam again. He came as close as is humanly possible to going slamless in 2012. That is a preview of things to come.

Of the top 10, Nadal is the only player to commit to Abu Dhabi and the Australian Open so far. He's also the only player in the top 10 who isn't a member of the ATP Player's Council.



Fixed it for you.

Towser83
10-31-2012, 09:32 PM
Fixed it for you.

lol how did Nadal come close to not winning a slam in 2012? He only lost one set at RG and you said he only lost that cos of rain.

The only year he came close to not winning a slam was 2009. Had Federer taken one of the many break points in the 3rd set, it's possible Nadal would have not won a slam between Wimbledon 2008 and RG 2010.

Thanks to Fed,or else Nadal would have gone slamless last year.


Those few things don't make up for the rest of the crap 2011 and 2012 were made up of. They don't erase 7 finals in a row lost,or the injuries forcing him to miss half the year. The past 2 years have sucked as a Nadal fan. There's not been much at all to cheer about.

Hmm I think I get it..

basically you will never get over those 7 losses in a row to a player you hate, and you are really angry with Nadal for losing like that and so you constantly insult him. Even if he wins the next 8 slams and beats Djokovic 15 times in a row, you can't change the fact he lost 7 times and that is the source of your negativity.

Even though you claim nadal is a mug on hardcourt who has always needed a miracle to beat Djokovic, you still can't accept defeats in IW, Miami, US Open and AO which were closer than his usual hc defeats to Djokovic and so have to claim he was playing terribly - which doesn't make sense since like I said, you claim he has always been a mug on HC and always needed miracles to beat Djokovic, so playing him closer than ever before doesn't indicate playing worse than his usual mug level (unless Djokovic was also playing worse than normal)

beast of mallorca
10-31-2012, 09:51 PM
lol how did Nadal come close to not winning a slam in 2012? He only lost one set at RG and you said he only lost that cos of rain.

The only year he came close to not winning a slam was 2009. Had Federer taken one of the many break points in the 3rd set, it's possible Nadal would have not won a slam between Wimbledon 2008 and RG 2010.



Hmm I think I get it..

basically you will never get over those 7 losses in a row to a player you hate, and you are really angry with Nadal for losing like that and so you constantly insult him. Even if he wins the next 8 slams and beats Djokovic 15 times in a row, you can't change the fact he lost 7 times and that is the source of your negativity.

Even though you claim nadal is a mug on hardcourt who has always needed a miracle to beat Djokovic, you still can't accept defeats in IW, Miami, US Open and AO which were closer than his usual hc defeats to Djokovic and so have to claim he was playing terribly - which doesn't make sense since like I said, you claim he has always been a mug on HC and always needed miracles to beat Djokovic, so playing him closer than ever before doesn't indicate playing worse than his usual mug level (unless Djokovic was also playing worse than normal)

Towser, it's useless to discuss Rafa and Djoko with Clarky. Give it up. It's like talking to a wall. She made this schizophrenic persona, and she will stick to it no matter how illogical she has become.

Feather
10-31-2012, 11:58 PM
lol how did Nadal come close to not winning a slam in 2012? He only lost one set at RG and you said he only lost that cos of rain.

The only year he came close to not winning a slam was 2009. Had Federer taken one of the many break points in the 3rd set, it's possible Nadal would have not won a slam between Wimbledon 2008 and RG 2010.



Won't you get tired of arguing with Clarky? Same arguments again and again !

Sabratha
11-01-2012, 12:06 AM
Nadal might have a slamless year next year.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 12:12 AM
Nadal might have a slamless year next year.


I doubt it.

Sabratha
11-01-2012, 12:27 AM
I doubt it.
If he hasn't been practicing and is battling an injury that's had him out for months, you don't think he will fall short at the slams?

sbengte
11-01-2012, 02:20 AM
The only thing doubtful is whether Djokovic will ever win a slam again. He came as close as is humanly possible to going slamless in 2012. That is a preview of things to come.


Let's see,
AO winner
FO RU
Wimbledon SF
USO RU

Yeah sure he came closest to not winning a slam in 2012. You can say that he got unlucky with the scheduling at USO and it still went to 5 sets. He is the one who came within a whisker of having a 2 slam or even a 3 slam year.

sbengte
11-01-2012, 02:24 AM
lol how did Nadal come close to not winning a slam in 2012? He only lost one set at RG and you said he only lost that cos of rain.

The only year he came close to not winning a slam was 2009. Had Federer taken one of the many break points in the 3rd set, it's possible Nadal would have not won a slam between Wimbledon 2008 and RG 2010.


I think Nadal came pretty close to not winning a slam in 2011 too. He was down mentally after losing 4 finals in a row, 2 on clay in straights to Nole. Had Fed not spoiled the party in the SF and Nole had made the RG finals, Nadal may have gone slamless. Why, he was taken to 5 sets in the first round by Isner of all people. And if Fed hadn't choked in the finals after leading 5-2, SP in the first set, things may have been different as well.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 02:26 AM
If he hasn't been practicing and is battling an injury that's had him out for months, you don't think he will fall short at the slams?

If he does come back I am sure he will be ready to compete. It is hard to see how he won't win one slam, especially the FO.

Russeljones
11-01-2012, 02:28 AM
Novak doesn't seem to be half as driven as Nadal.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 02:35 AM
Novak doesn't seem to be half as driven as Nadal.


That is what I think too.

5555
11-01-2012, 05:32 AM
Novak doesn't seem to be half as driven as Nadal.

Connors was more driven than Borg and yet Borg won 11 slams in contrast to Connors who won 8 despite the fact that Borg retired in 1982 while Connors continued to play until 1990s.

ledwix
11-01-2012, 05:45 AM
The only thing doubtful is whether Djokovic will ever win a slam again. He came as close as is humanly possible to going slamless in 2012.


I've come closer.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 06:17 AM
Connors was more driven than Borg and yet Borg won 11 slams in contrast to Connors who won 8 despite the fact that Borg retired in 1982 while Connors continued to play until 1990s.

Are you kidding me? Connors was already 31 when Borg retired! If Connors was a lot younger when Borg retired, you can bet he would have surpassed Borg's slam count.

Russeljones
11-01-2012, 06:32 AM
Connors was more driven than Borg and yet Borg won 11 slams in contrast to Connors who won 8 despite the fact that Borg retired in 1982 while Connors continued to play until 1990s.

Djokovic started to 'achieve' when Nadal was already established. For him to have a better career he'd have to go on for longer than Nadal and at a considerably higher level. I don't think your comparison is relevant at all.

DropShotArtist
11-01-2012, 06:47 AM
Just got back from the future.

Final slam count of big 4:

Federer 18
Djokovic 13
Nadal 12
Murray 6

RF20Lennon
11-01-2012, 06:47 AM
Highly doubt it!!!!

Sabratha
11-01-2012, 06:47 AM
Djokovic started to 'achieve' when Nadal was already established. For him to have a better career he'd have to go on for longer than Nadal and at a considerably higher level. I don't think your comparison is relevant at all.
By the time Djokovic even became a contender for a slam Nadal had won two.

Steve0904
11-01-2012, 07:32 AM
Just got back from the future.

Final slam count of big 4:

Federer 18
Djokovic 13
Nadal 12
Murray 6

Federer is the closest prediction you've got IMO. I think Nadal can tie Sampras on 14, and I really don't think there is any way Djokovic gets to 13, much less surpasses Nadal. Murray at 6 is a little high too IMO.

Hitman
11-01-2012, 08:12 AM
This is a tough ask. Nadal has had a sensational dream career. Even if Nadal did not play a single match from now on, Djokovic still might not catch him...Nadal is that far ahead at the moment.

Novak needs to go on a breathtaking tear for at least two more seasons, and then he could be considered, but that is a huge ask, considering how much he had already put into the game.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 08:19 AM
This is a tough ask. Nadal has had a sensational dream career. Even if Nadal did not play a single match from now on, Djokovic still might not catch him...Nadal is that far ahead at the moment.

Novak needs to go on a breathtaking tear for at least two more seasons, and then he could be considered, but that is a huge ask, considering how much he had already put into the game.

Not going to happen. Djokovic will not catch Nadal. He is not as driven as Nadal is.

Hitman
11-01-2012, 08:25 AM
^^ I agree with you mostly. But one thing I have learned in life is Never say Never. No one expected Djokovic to do what he did in 2011, but crazy things can and do happen.

I won't rule it out, but as I stated, it is an incredibly difficult task, and the odds are stacked against him.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 08:27 AM
^^ I agree with you mostly. But one thing I have learned in life is Never say Never. No one expected Djokovic to do what he did in 2011, but crazy things can and do happen.

I won't rule it out, but as I stated, it is an incredibly difficult task, and the odds are stacked against him.

You are right! :)

Okay, I change my wording to say it is very unlikely Djokovic will ever catch Nadal's numbers.

Hitman
11-01-2012, 08:32 AM
You are right! :)

Okay, I change my wording to say it is very unlikely Djokovic will ever catch Nadal's numbers.

:)

........

PrinceMoron
11-01-2012, 11:57 AM
You're kidding me, right? Of course I miss Rafa! he is my favourite player. I miss him bad!:(

Oh, thought you were Ms Nadal, not miss. Sorry, not very funny, but it was all I could think of. Must try harder.

フェデラー
11-01-2012, 12:45 PM
My odds would be:

Nadal surpassing Federer: 15%
Djokovic surpassing Nadal: 7%
Murray surpassing Djokovic: 12%

All extremely low. Djokovic passing Nadal the lowest of all though.

I am interested to see how soon the up and comers will start winning slams and how much the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, and maybe even still Federer group collectively will continue to win the next few years though.

So Nadal, who hasn't won a title off clay since 2010, is all of a sudden going to win at least six more slams? Since these days it seems he only can win on clay, that would mean winning the FO until he is 32/33, which is highly unlikely at this point considering the number of injuries and time off from the game. At this point on hard court he has very little chance against Djokovic, who has been established on HC for some time now (won their last four meetings), and Murray who is finally a slam winner. Djokovic surpassing Nadal is considerably more likely, as Djokovic is a bigger threat at all of the majors, rather than Nadal who has been relegated to to the FO .

Sabratha
11-01-2012, 01:05 PM
Djokovic's majors may be split with Murray, though. So it's hard to speculate about these things. I'm sure Federer has some gas left in the tank for at least one more major. Djokovic is unlikely to ever catch Nadal's slam count.

Clarky21
11-01-2012, 01:37 PM
So Nadal, who hasn't won a title off clay since 2010, is all of a sudden going to win at least six more slams? Since these days it seems he only can win on clay, that would mean winning the FO until he is 32/33, which is highly unlikely at this point considering the number of injuries and time off from the game. At this point on hard court he has very little chance against Djokovic, who has been established on HC for some time now (won their last four meetings), and Murray who is finally a slam winner. Djokovic surpassing Nadal is considerably more likely, as Djokovic is a bigger threat at all of the majors, rather than Nadal who has been relegated to to the FO .



When is the last time **** won anything off of hardcourt? He's a surface specialist the same as Nadal,but because his best surface is hardcourt,he doesn't take any bs at all about not doing crap off of his favorite surface for a year and a half. Do you think that's fair?

kaku
11-01-2012, 01:41 PM
When is the last time **** won anything off of hardcourt? He's a surface specialist the same as Nadal,but because his best surface is hardcourt,he doesn't take any bs at all about not doing crap off of his favorite surface for a year and a half. Do you think that's fair?

It's actually interesting that you mention this. Novak's last non HC title was Wimbledon 2011, ~a year and a half ago. Meanwhile, around Tokyo 2011 people were criticizing Nadal for not winning a non clay title for ~a year.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 01:42 PM
When is the last time **** won anything off of hardcourt? He's a surface specialist the same as Nadal,but because his best surface is hardcourt,he doesn't take any bs at all about not doing crap off of his favorite surface for a year and a half. Do you think that's fair?

So if Djokovic can only win on HC, why do you predict Djokovic will win every time he meets Nadal on every surface?

As for the last title Djokovic won off HC, it was Wimbledon 2011 and Rome, Madrid and Belgrade of 2011 which were all on clay. That is still better than the last time Nadal won a non-clay title in 2010.

Clarky21
11-01-2012, 01:49 PM
So if Djokovic can only win on HC, why do you predict Djokovic will win every time he meets Nadal on every surface?

As for the last title Djokovic won off HC, it was Wimbledon 2011 and Rome, Madrid and Belgrade of 2011 which were all on clay. That is still better than the last time Nadal won a non-clay title in 2010.


Because of the match-up problem. And Nadal is past his prime by some margin as well.


Not by much. But how about before 2011,when is the last time **** won anything off of hardcourt? Three years is the answer. He also went nearly 2 years without winning a masters title anywhere on any surface. I'll take Nadal's extra 6 months over **** without a title off of clay over that anyday.

The point is,Nadal takes a lot of crap for only winning on his best surface when the other top players are in the same exact boat.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 01:55 PM
Because of the match-up problem. And Nadal is past his prime by some margin as well.


Not by much. But how about before 2011,when is the last time **** won anything off of hardcourt? Three years is the answer. He also went nearly 2 years without winning a masters title anywhere on any surface. I'll take Nadal's extra 6 months over **** without a title off of clay over that anyday.

The point is,Nadal takes a lot of crap for only winning on his best surface when the other top players are in the same exact boat.

But Clarky, seventy percent of the tournaments are on HC, so most players unless they are dirtballers only are going to have most of their wins on HC. That only makes sense right?

Re Nadal being past his prime by some margin, I think he is just slightly past his prime. He is just at the start of "past his prime." He should still be good for a couple of years.

Steve0904
11-01-2012, 01:59 PM
Because of the match-up problem. And Nadal is past his prime by some margin as well.


Not by much. But how about before 2011,when is the last time **** won anything off of hardcourt? Three years is the answer. He also went nearly 2 years without winning a masters title anywhere on any surface. I'll take Nadal's extra 6 months over **** without a title off of clay over that anyday.

The point is,Nadal takes a lot of crap for only winning on his best surface when the other top players are in the same exact boat.

That's kind of the point of having a best surface. The problem for Nadal is that most of the events in a year are on HC so it's more obvious.

Clarky21
11-01-2012, 02:05 PM
But Clarky, seventy percent of the tournaments are on HC, so most players unless they are dirtballers only are going to have most of their wins on HC. That only makes sense right?

Re Nadal being past his prime by some margin, I think he is just slightly past his prime. He is just at the start of "past his prime." He should still be good for a couple of years.


Nope because it's not the choice of the player that decides what surface dominates the very stingy ATP tour,so how can Nadal be blamed for being better on clay than on hardcourt? It suits his game the best and that's that. You also have to take into account where these players grew up and what surface they played on as kids. Hardcourts are also not some magical surface that tells all of us who plays "real tennis" and who doesn't. It would be funny if these type of conversations would be happening if clay dominated the tour. I cannot imagine the venom that would be spat if that were the case.


And this only highlights the immense double standards around here when it comes to Nadal. He is expected to win on every surface no matter what,and if he doesn't then he is called one dimensional,and talentless. The same rules do not apply to everyone,only to him. If Nadal is expected to win on all surfaces or be labeled a one dimensional,dirtballing mug,then all of the top players should be held to the same standards. That will never happen though because Nadal is public enemy number one around here.

Clarky21
11-01-2012, 02:05 PM
That's kind of the point of having a best surface. The problem for Nadal is that most of the events in a year are on HC so it's more obvious.



Doesn't make it fair.

cc0509
11-01-2012, 02:29 PM
Clarky21;6988752]Nope because it's not the choice of the player that decides what surface dominates the very stingy ATP tour,so how can Nadal be blamed for being better on clay than on hardcourt? It suits his game the best and that's that. You also have to take into account where these players grew up and what surface they played on as kids. Hardcourts are also not some magical surface that tells all of us who plays "real tennis" and who doesn't. It would be funny if these type of conversations would be happening if clay dominated the tour. I cannot imagine the venom that would be spat if that were the case.

Clarky, Nadal is on the same tour that everybody else is on and he knew before he became a tennis pro that the majority of tournaments were on HC. Cry me a river would you. Federer grew up on clay as well as did many other players. They are all in the same boat. If he did not want to play the majority of tournaments on HC, he should have chosen another profession.


And this only highlights the immense double standards around here when it comes to Nadal. He is expected to win on every surface no matter what,and if he doesn't then he is called one dimensional,and talentless. The same rules do not apply to everyone,only to him. If Nadal is expected to win on all surfaces or be labeled a one dimensional,dirtballing mug,then all of the top players should be held to the same standards. That will never happen though because Nadal is public enemy number one around here.


Yes, you are one of the main posters who has called Nadal talentless and one-dimensional. You can't seriously be making this argument when 80% or more of your posts in the past year have been about how Nadal is the least talented player (you just made a post about this the other day which I disagreed with you on) and how he is one-dimensional. What is the matter with you lately?

kiki
11-01-2012, 02:31 PM
Nadal more than doubles him in majors, and Murray is finally becoming a factor.I see it very unlikely...

Clarky21
11-01-2012, 03:20 PM
.

Clarky, Nadal is on the same tour that everybody else is on and he knew before he became a tennis pro that the majority of tournaments were on HC. Cry me a river would you. Federer grew up on clay as well as did many other players. They are all in the same boat. If he did not want to play the majority of tournaments on HC, he should have chosen another profession.





Yes, you are one of the main posters who has called Nadal talentless and one-dimensional. You can't seriously be making this argument when 80% or more of your posts in the past year have been about how Nadal is the least talented player (you just made a post about this the other day which I disagreed with you on) and how he is one-dimensional. What is the matter with you lately?



Yes,but how boring would the tour be if everyone was a hardcourt specialist? If there were no variety at all? I mean we already get gypped out of a grasscourt season as it is. There are too many hardcourt tournaments,and it's monotonous.


I don't think he's the most talented player,and I do think he is the least talented of the top 4. It just bugs me that he gets ripped on for having a favorite surface just because it's clay. I'd like it if he could win more on other surfaces,but it is not to be. He's not alone in being a surface specialist because the rest of the top players are too so he's in good company.


And there's nothing wrong with me. Maybe I am getting bored with the lack of quality tennis this late in the year. The new season cannot start soon enough.

dimeaxe
11-01-2012, 03:28 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcmb2jWMki1qjp3yp.gif

Gonzo_style
11-01-2012, 03:46 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcmb2jWMki1qjp3yp.gif

Stop with that! :):)

ChrisRF
11-02-2012, 12:00 AM
I could see him reaching 9 possibly, that would be about the max IMO. He would need a French Open title to arguably outrank Agassi though I feel. Agassi's career slam counts for alot, especialy considering it was much harder to do then vs today.

We shouldn't overrate Agassi's achievement so much. He was really good and maybe one of the best returners of all time, but was it really harder to complete the career slam back then? Yes, if we only look on surfaces. But no way in terms of competition.

He never would have won Roland Garros if he had to deal with Nadal, that ist almost sure. He took Wimbledon before Sampras raised his top level there and had absolutely no chance after that. And even at the US Open he could only hope that Sampras wasn't there (1999) or was out due to illness (1994). Only at the Australian Open he was really the best player for many years.

But still he wouldn't have beaten a prime Federer at any Slam. Djokovic has to deal with Federer everywhere and Nadal on clay. So if he wins the career slam, it is a much higher achievement than Agassi's. For example, even if Federer ist past his prime now, I think Agassi had lost the 2011 US Open Semifinal against him very clearly.

DropShotArtist
11-02-2012, 06:24 AM
Federer is the closest prediction you've got IMO. I think Nadal can tie Sampras on 14, and I really don't think there is any way Djokovic gets to 13, much less surpasses Nadal. Murray at 6 is a little high too IMO.

I wasn't making a prediction. Just reporting the facts.

Ms Nadal
11-02-2012, 06:34 AM
Not me,and the only memories over the past 2 years as a Nadal fan have all been bad. Wasn't much joy to be taken from 2011 or 2012.

Clarky, you are very harsh about Rafa. He tried his best you know. Djok got him last year but Rafa is going to make it up to us next year! :). Let's be positive now. I think Rafa needed a rest mentally and physically so he is having it now. So hopefully he will be recharged for next year and bring us lots of joy! :). That is how I am looking at it now. I am always pleased with what Rafa wins. I used to be a huge Roddick fan and he never used to win much. Rafa has spoiled me! :)

Sabratha
11-02-2012, 06:38 AM
Clarky, you are very harsh about Rafa. He tried his best you know. Djok got him last year but Rafa is going to make it up to us next year! :). Let's be positive now. I think Rafa needed a rest mentally and physically so he is having it now. So hopefully he will be recharged for next year and bring us lots of joy! :). That is how I am looking at it now. I am always pleased with what Rafa wins. I used to be a huge Roddick fan and he never used to win much. Rafa has spoiled me! :)
Good thing he didn't have surgery, because in most cases after that happens the player is done.

Clarky21
11-02-2012, 07:03 AM
Clarky, you are very harsh about Rafa. He tried his best you know. Djok got him last year but Rafa is going to make it up to us next year! :). Let's be positive now. I think Rafa needed a rest mentally and physically so he is having it now. So hopefully he will be recharged for next year and bring us lots of joy! :). That is how I am looking at it now. I am always pleased with what Rafa wins. I used to be a huge Roddick fan and he never used to win much. Rafa has spoiled me! :)



The problem is Nadal is not 20 anymore. He is going to be 27 next year which is old for a tennis player. Time is up for him,and these injuries are just speeding up the process.

Sabratha
11-02-2012, 07:18 AM
The problem is Nadal is not 20 anymore. He is going to be 27 next year which is old for a tennis player. Time is up for him,and these injuries are just speeding up the process.
Especially since he's been out of his prime for over two years. :twisted:

Clarky21
11-02-2012, 07:36 AM
Especially since he's been out of his prime for over two years. :twisted:



Yep. But so was Fed after only 4 years,and at 26 years old. :wink:

helloworld
11-02-2012, 08:09 AM
Even if Nadal stops playing now, Djokovic still has to win 7 more slams to at least surpass Nadal, and I don't think Nadal will stop playing any time soon, so Djokovic has very little chance to surpass Nadal..

Clarky21
11-02-2012, 08:34 AM
Even if Nadal stops playing now, Djokovic still has to win 7 more slams to at least surpass Nadal, and I don't think Nadal will stop playing any time soon, so Djokovic has very little chance to surpass Nadal..



But just because Nadal is playing doesn't mean he will be winning anymore slams.

TopFH
11-02-2012, 08:59 AM
Yep. But so was Fed after only 4 years,and at 26 years old. :wink:

You are talking about Fed's peak, Clarky. Fed was in his prime until the 2010 AO.

Clarky21
11-02-2012, 09:35 AM
You are talking about Fed's peak, Clarky. Fed was in his prime until the 2010 AO.



I'm just repeating what most of the Fedfans here have said.

MichaelNadal
11-02-2012, 09:39 AM
But just because Nadal is playing doesn't mean he will be winning anymore slams.

Nadal is still leagues ahead of the field besides the other 3 you know who's. He wants to play to 2016 and there's no way he won't win between 1-3 more slams at the least if he's healthy.

BauerAlmeida
11-02-2012, 10:00 AM
We shouldn't overrate Agassi's achievement so much. He was really good and maybe one of the best returners of all time, but was it really harder to complete the career slam back then? Yes, if we only look on surfaces. But no way in terms of competition.

He never would have won Roland Garros if he had to deal with Nadal, that ist almost sure. He took Wimbledon before Sampras raised his top level there and had absolutely no chance after that. And even at the US Open he could only hope that Sampras wasn't there (1999) or was out due to illness (1994). Only at the Australian Open he was really the best player for many years.

But still he wouldn't have beaten a prime Federer at any Slam. Djokovic has to deal with Federer everywhere and Nadal on clay. So if he wins the career slam, it is a much higher achievement than Agassi's. For example, even if Federer ist past his prime now, I think Agassi had lost the 2011 US Open Semifinal against him very clearly.

Pfff.....If there's someone who's career grand slam is really worthy, it's Agassi's. He won in 3 different surfaces, and when the surfaces were actually different.

It's not his fault if Sampras lost in Wimbledon before facing him, but he had to defeat Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic to win in his worst surface. Not like the draw open up for him.
The Nadal thing makes no sense, so every player who didn't face Nadal to win Roland Garros it's as if he didn't win it?? I assume Borg's titles at Roland Garros are worth **** because he didn't face Nadal. And Agassi beat players like Courier or Moya at Roland Garros.
And well, in Hard courts he got tired of wining.

He also has at least one final in every grand slam besides from the time he won, so none of them can't be considered a fluke.

He wouldn't have beaten prime Federer at any slam?? Seriously?? Why did prime Federer need 4 and 5 sets to beat 34 and 35 year old Agassi at the USO?? Agassi could perfectly beat prime Federer at both HC slams, probably too in clay. Federer would easily win at Wimbledon.

Djokovic will win the career slam, but in any way it will be harder to achieve than Agassi's. Surfaces today are a joke.

Steve0904
11-02-2012, 10:41 AM
Pfff.....If there's someone who's career grand slam is really worthy, it's Agassi's. He won in 3 different surfaces, and when the surfaces were actually different.

It's not his fault if Sampras lost in Wimbledon before facing him, but he had to defeat Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic to win in his worst surface. Not like the draw open up for him.
The Nadal thing makes no sense, so every player who didn't face Nadal to win Roland Garros it's as if he didn't win it?? I assume Borg's titles at Roland Garros are worth **** because he didn't face Nadal. And Agassi beat players like Courier or Moya at Roland Garros.
And well, in Hard courts he got tired of wining.

He also has at least one final in every grand slam besides from the time he won, so none of them can't be considered a fluke.

He wouldn't have beaten prime Federer at any slam?? Seriously?? Why did prime Federer need 4 and 5 sets to beat 34 and 35 year old Agassi at the USO?? Agassi could perfectly beat prime Federer at both HC slams, probably too in clay. Federer would easily win at Wimbledon.

Djokovic will win the career slam, but in any way it will be harder to achieve than Agassi's. Surfaces today are a joke.

You make a nice argument, but I disagree with the bolded part. You can use the USO 2005 as an example, but the Australian was Andre's best surface, and Fed played him there in 2005, and beat him convincingly in straights, so it's a wash really. I realize Andre was far from his prime, but he also beat him in straights in Miami in 2005. An event which Andre won 6 times. More than anyone else. I'm also not sure he would've beat him at RG. The only guy to stop Fed there in his prime was Nadal. He lost to Kuerten in 2004 of course, but he's not exactly terrible on clay. And he lost to Soderling in 2010, but Agassi plays nothing like Soderling. I know Agassi was pretty good on the clay himself, but I think he'd have a tough time beating Fed there.

Clarky21
11-02-2012, 12:13 PM
Nadal is still leagues ahead of the field besides the other 3 you know who's. He wants to play to 2016 and there's no way he won't win between 1-3 more slams at the least if he's healthy.


Come on,dude. There is no way he will be playing in 2016. Look at all the physical problems he's having now. No way the injury woes won't get worse from now on as he gets older and slower.


He also will not win 1-3 more slams of any kind as much as we would like him to. Being realistic about his chances are best instead of living in a fantasy land.

cc0509
11-02-2012, 09:08 PM
Come on,dude. There is no way he will be playing in 2016. Look at all the physical problems he's having now. No way the injury woes won't get worse from now on as he gets older and slower.


He also will not win 1-3 more slams of any kind as much as we would like him to. Being realistic about his chances are best instead of living in a fantasy land.

Nah, Nadal should be able to win 1-3 more slams easily.

NadalAgassi
11-02-2012, 10:01 PM
We shouldn't overrate Agassi's achievement so much. He was really good and maybe one of the best returners of all time, but was it really harder to complete the career slam back then? Yes, if we only look on surfaces. But no way in terms of competition.

He never would have won Roland Garros if he had to deal with Nadal, that ist almost sure. He took Wimbledon before Sampras raised his top level there and had absolutely no chance after that. And even at the US Open he could only hope that Sampras wasn't there (1999) or was out due to illness (1994). Only at the Australian Open he was really the best player for many years.

But still he wouldn't have beaten a prime Federer at any Slam. Djokovic has to deal with Federer everywhere and Nadal on clay. So if he wins the career slam, it is a much higher achievement than Agassi's. For example, even if Federer ist past his prime now, I think Agassi had lost the 2011 US Open Semifinal against him very clearly.

Agassi won his RG title at 29. Had he been roughly the same age as Nadal, Nadal might be all but finished as a top player by then, who knows at this point.

Agassi won a Wimbledon title with Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Edberg, defending Champion Stich, McEnroe all in the quarters. He beat Becker and a red hot Ivanisevic who had beaten Lendl, Edberg, and Sampras to do it. Seems pretty deserving to me. Sampras was good enough to win Wimbledon that year, he was just stopped for the only time it would turn out by his toughest grass opponent, and probably the 2nd best grass courter of the Sampras generation, Ivanisevic, who was in red hot form that event. Then Agassi beat that same person in the final, when most assumed in his form he would roll over Agassi, which was an impressive victory. Yes there is a good chance Sampras would have beaten Agassi had they played there, but it is a moot point in the end.

How on earth do you know Agassi wouldnt beat prime Federer at any slam. 34 year old Agassi took prime Federer to 5 sets at the 2004 U.S Open, and then had peak Federer at 1 set all, down 4-2, 30-0 in the 3rd. That seems a pretty arrogant and baseless assumption to make.

What is this stupidity of needing to beat Nadal and Federer at slams to justify them too, LOL! That is like saying Djokovics slams arent worthy since he wouldnt have ever beaten prime Sampras at Wimbledon or the U.S Open or prime Agassi at the Australian Open, which some would suggest.

NadalAgassi
11-02-2012, 10:02 PM
Pfff.....If there's someone who's career grand slam is really worthy, it's Agassi's. He won in 3 different surfaces, and when the surfaces were actually different.

It's not his fault if Sampras lost in Wimbledon before facing him, but he had to defeat Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic to win in his worst surface. Not like the draw open up for him.
The Nadal thing makes no sense, so every player who didn't face Nadal to win Roland Garros it's as if he didn't win it?? I assume Borg's titles at Roland Garros are worth **** because he didn't face Nadal. And Agassi beat players like Courier or Moya at Roland Garros.
And well, in Hard courts he got tired of wining.

He also has at least one final in every grand slam besides from the time he won, so none of them can't be considered a fluke.

He wouldn't have beaten prime Federer at any slam?? Seriously?? Why did prime Federer need 4 and 5 sets to beat 34 and 35 year old Agassi at the USO?? Agassi could perfectly beat prime Federer at both HC slams, probably too in clay. Federer would easily win at Wimbledon.

Djokovic will win the career slam, but in any way it will be harder to achieve than Agassi's. Surfaces today are a joke.

Exactly post. It seems ****s have no respect for any player in the history of tennis not named Roger Federer.

5555
11-03-2012, 05:36 AM
Are you kidding me? Connors was already 31 when Borg retired! If Connors was a lot younger when Borg retired, you can bet he would have surpassed Borg's slam count.

1. My point is that Borg won more slams than Connors despite the fact that Borg retired at age 26 and Connors at 43.
2. Connors had enough time to win more slams when he was younger but he failed.

Djokovic started to 'achieve' when Nadal was already established. For him to have a better career he'd have to go on for longer than Nadal and at a considerably higher level.

Djokovic has very good chance to be No. 1 for another 3 seasons (2013,2014,2015). There is realistic possibility that Novak will have have much more weeks at No. 1 than Nadal, more seasons as player of the year etc etc....overall have better career than Rafa.

NadalAgassi
11-03-2012, 11:45 AM
Weeks at #1 is not the main factor in a better career. If it were than Connors would be considered to have had a greater career and be greater than Borg but that isnt even close to the case since 11 slams > 8 slams, and since Borg was the clay court GOAT before Nadal. Djokovic would need to reach the same # of slams as Nadal at minimum and win the French before anyone might consider him as having the better career.

veroniquem
11-03-2012, 12:17 PM
Djokovic already has a better career than Nadal on hard court: 25 titles total, 10 masters, 4 slams is definitely superior to: 11 titles total, 5 masters, 2 slams which is what Nadal has on the surface. Djoko will retire as the second best player of his era on hard (after Fed).
The reason why Djoko won't overtake Nadal overall is because he will never come even remotely close on clay (and will never dominate a surface the way Nadal has dominated clay) and may not even match Nadal's success on grass (seeing how grass is really Djoko's weakest surface).
So no, I don't think Djoko will surpass Nadal overall. I think he will be a very deserving #3 overall and #2 on hard.

NadalAgassi
11-03-2012, 12:19 PM
I agree with all that but I do think Djokovic will end up retiring as the Australian Open GOAT with 5 or more titles there (if he wins this January I already give him the nod over Agassi and Federer who also have 4 but never won 3 in a row), and he has a good chance of surpassing Federer as the 2nd best clay courter of this era by the time he retires.
Overall he will definitely be 3rd.

Surpassing Nadal on grass, no way. Even if he wins a 2nd Wimbledon, which I dont think he will, in fact Nadal is more likely to win more Wimbledons than Djokovic IMO, he would need to reach 5 Wimbledon finals like Nadal did, and that will never happen.

veroniquem
11-03-2012, 12:30 PM
I agree with all that but I do think Djokovic will end up retiring as the Australian Open GOAT with 5 or more titles there (if he wins this January I already give him the nod over Agassi and Federer who also have 4 but never won 3 in a row), .

Let's not put the cart before the horse here. Currently, Djoko has not won AO 3 times in a row either . He should win at least 4 total there though. It's his best event along with Miami (which he's won 3 times too) and I expect him to surpass Fed or any other active player in those 2 events by a comfortable margin by the time he retires. But I don't expect him to win the next 3 or 4 AO. I think Murray will win one and probably someone else too.

NadalAgassi
11-03-2012, 12:36 PM
I dont think he will win every Australian Open. I do think he will win atleast 2 more though, and that would more than cement him as the Australian Open GOAT as nobody else in the Open Era has more than 4. I do think Nadal could win another, and I do think Murray could win one. I think Murray is more likely to win at Wimbledon and the U.S Open than the Australian Open though.

Steve0904
11-03-2012, 01:06 PM
I agree with all that but I do think Djokovic will end up retiring as the Australian Open GOAT with 5 or more titles there (if he wins this January I already give him the nod over Agassi and Federer who also have 4 but never won 3 in a row), and he has a good chance of surpassing Federer as the 2nd best clay courter of this era by the time he retires.
Overall he will definitely be 3rd.

Surpassing Nadal on grass, no way. Even if he wins a 2nd Wimbledon, which I dont think he will, in fact Nadal is more likely to win more Wimbledons than Djokovic IMO, he would need to reach 5 Wimbledon finals like Nadal did, and that will never happen.

I respectfully disagree with the bolded part. Djokovic has got too long a way to go to surpass Federer on clay IMO. Federers made 5 RG finals and he has a title. He also has 6 clay masters to Djokovic's 3(not sure) (Djokovic could surpass him here.) The only way Djokovic surpasses Federer on clay is if Nadal doesn't come back, or comes back a shell of what he once was on clay, and considering that would mean that Federer faced a tougher version of Nadal, it's kind of *** backwards when anybody talks about "weak" eras in regards to Federer.

Djokovic would have to win RG and make the final until 2016 just to match Federer there in # of finals and titles. If he won 2 RG titles, and/or beat Nadal to get 1 or both of them then he would surpass Federer, but as of now, although Djokovic has a better chance of beating Nadal at RG than Federer ever did, he's still pretty far from beating him and Nadal is still king of clay as witnessed this year. He almost lost to Seppi and Tsonga as well this year.

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 01:13 PM
I respectfully disagree with the bolded part. Djokovic has got too long a way to go to surpass Federer on clay IMO. Federers made 5 RG finals and he has a title. He also has 6 clay masters to Djokovic's 3(not sure) (Djokovic could surpass him here.) The only way Djokovic surpasses Federer on clay is if Nadal doesn't come back, or comes back a shell of what he once was on clay, and considering that would mean that Federer faced a tougher version of Nadal, it's kind of *** backwards when anybody talks about "weak" eras in regards to Federer.

Djokovic would have to win RG and make the final until 2016 just to match Federer there in # of finals and titles. If he won 2 RG titles, and/or beat Nadal to get 1 or both of them then he would surpass Federer, but as of now, although Djokovic has a better chance of beating Nadal at RG than Federer ever did, he's still pretty far from beating him and Nadal is still king of clay as witnessed this year. He almost lost to Seppi and Tsonga as well this year.
Djokovic is only 25 - you don't know what he will achieve in the tail end of his career.

NadalAgassi
11-03-2012, 01:20 PM
I respectfully disagree with the bolded part. Djokovic has got too long a way to go to surpass Federer on clay IMO. Federers made 5 RG finals and he has a title. He also has 6 clay masters to Djokovic's 3(not sure) (Djokovic could surpass him here.) The only way Djokovic surpasses Federer on clay is if Nadal doesn't come back, or comes back a shell of what he once was on clay, and considering that would mean that Federer faced a tougher version of Nadal, it's kind of *** backwards when anybody talks about "weak" eras in regards to Federer.

Djokovic would have to win RG and make the final until 2016 just to match Federer there in # of finals and titles. If he won 2 RG titles, and/or beat Nadal to get 1 or both of them then he would surpass Federer, but as of now, although Djokovic has a better chance of beating Nadal at RG than Federer ever did, he's still pretty far from beating him and Nadal is still king of clay as witnessed this year. He almost lost to Seppi and Tsonga as well
this year.

Valid points but I could see Djokovic ending up with 6 or 7 Masters on clay (roughly equal to Federer) but he has won Rome which is an edge IMO. He also has major potential to have won all the current Masters, and he cant be blamed that much for not winning Hamburg which ended in 2008. Federer has only won Hamburg/Madrid which is basically the replacement, so at no given point of his career had he won more than 1 of the 3 current ones, never winning either Rome or Monte Carlo. As for Roland Garros I dont know if he will make 5 finals but he should make 3 or 4 anyway, and he should win atleast 1 Roland Garros. He might win 2 which would pretty much close any debate, but even if he wins 1 by beating Nadal in the final, that would push him over Federer in many peoples minds.

In the end the two will be close but I do think Djokovic will atleast make it a strong debate vs Federer to the second best clay courter of this era by the time he retires. IMO as far as level of play he has been a better clay courter than Federer since 2008 now, with the exception of 2010 where both were crap and neither even in the top 5 clay courters that year probably. In 2008 he was playing better tennis at all clay events that season minus Monte Carlo where Federer was better, both had to play Nadal at Hamburg and Roland Garros though and Novak had to first. In 2009 Nadal and Djokovic were both much better than Federer until that MAdrid semi which ruined both IMO. Obviously no debate that Djokovic was overall better than Federer on clay in both 2011 and 2012.

tudwell
11-03-2012, 02:01 PM
although Djokovic has a better chance of beating Nadal at RG than Federer ever did,

I'm gonna disagree here. Djokovic has played Nadal four times at Roland Garros and won a total of one set against him. Federer has only once not won a set against Nadal in five matches. Plus, Djokovic only won that single set when they were playing in a flood and probably shouldn't have been on court in the first place.

Plus, Federer generally plays Nadal much closer on clay than Djokovic does. That obviously wasn't the case in 2011, but the only time Federer has looked as bad against Nadal as Djokovic did in his 2012 clay Masters finals was the 2008 French Open final. Generally, Federer gives Nadal a very tough match. It's actually surprising he's not more competitive in the head-to-head.

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 02:11 PM
I'm gonna disagree here. Djokovic has played Nadal four times at Roland Garros and won a total of one set against him. Federer has only once not won a set against Nadal in five matches. Plus, Djokovic only won that single set when they were playing in a flood and probably shouldn't have been on court in the first place.

Plus, Federer generally plays Nadal much closer on clay than Djokovic does. That obviously wasn't the case in 2011, but the only time Federer has looked as bad against Nadal as Djokovic did in his 2012 clay Masters finals was the 2008 French Open final. Generally, Federer gives Nadal a very tough match. It's actually surprising he's not more competitive in the head-to-head.
Almost every match Nadal has with Federer is a close encounter, really. Dating back to 2004 even.

tudwell
11-03-2012, 02:12 PM
Valid points but I could see Djokovic ending up with 6 or 7 Masters on clay (roughly equal to Federer) but he has won Rome which is an edge IMO. He also has major potential to have won all the current Masters, and he cant be blamed that much for not winning Hamburg which ended in 2008. Federer has only won Hamburg/Madrid which is basically the replacement, so at no given point of his career had he won more than 1 of the 3 current ones, never winning either Rome or Monte Carlo. As for Roland Garros I dont know if he will make 5 finals but he should make 3 or 4 anyway, and he should win atleast 1 Roland Garros. He might win 2 which would pretty much close any debate, but even if he wins 1 by beating Nadal in the final, that would push him over Federer in many peoples minds.

In the end the two will be close but I do think Djokovic will atleast make it a strong debate vs Federer to the second best clay courter of this era by the time he retires. IMO as far as level of play he has been a better clay courter than Federer since 2008 now, with the exception of 2010 where both were crap and neither even in the top 5 clay courters that year probably. In 2008 he was playing better tennis at all clay events that season minus Monte Carlo where Federer was better, both had to play Nadal at Hamburg and Roland Garros though and Novak had to first. In 2009 Nadal and Djokovic were both much better than Federer until that MAdrid semi which ruined both IMO. Obviously no debate that Djokovic was overall better than Federer on clay in both 2011 and 2012.

I'm not sure I'd lump Federer and Djokovic in as the same era. They're obviously not terribly far removed, but really only 2008 and 2009 are years where they overlap as far as top clay-court playing. Since then, Federer's age has withered his clay ability by a good margin, and before that Djokovic was not a top clay-courter.

Steve0904
11-03-2012, 02:26 PM
I'm gonna disagree here. Djokovic has played Nadal four times at Roland Garros and won a total of one set against him. Federer has only once not won a set against Nadal in five matches. Plus, Djokovic only won that single set when they were playing in a flood and probably shouldn't have been on court in the first place.

Plus, Federer generally plays Nadal much closer on clay than Djokovic does. That obviously wasn't the case in 2011, but the only time Federer has looked as bad against Nadal as Djokovic did in his 2012 clay Masters finals was the 2008 French Open final. Generally, Federer gives Nadal a very tough match. It's actually surprising he's not more competitive in the head-to-head.

Good points, however I'd still give Djokovic an edge in terms of actually being able to beat Nadal on clay. Djokovic is just a much better matchup for Nadal on any surface than Federer is regardless of how many sets Federer's taken (excluding indoor HC).

It's also misleading to look at Djokovic-Nadal matches at RG in 06, 07, or even 08, because Djokovic is a much better player now than he was then.

The-Champ
11-03-2012, 04:11 PM
Good points, however I'd still give Djokovic an edge in terms of actually being able to beat Nadal on clay. Djokovic is just a much better matchup for Nadal on any surface than Federer is regardless of how many sets Federer's taken (excluding indoor HC).

It's also misleading to look at Djokovic-Nadal matches at RG in 06, 07, or even 08, because Djokovic is a much better player now than he was then.

But Nadal was a much better player on clay back then than he is now. Peak Federer was very unlucky he had to face the Nadal that moved twice as fast and much better defender.

veroniquem
11-03-2012, 04:19 PM
Fed still has the better record on clay (compared to Djoko), especially at RG (by a landslide). Djoko is showing great potential on clay especially in masters but he's only been there since 2008 (excluding his catastrophic 2010), he still has a lot to prove on the surface. To me, the biggest edge he has over Fed is winning 2 masters out of the 3 and especially 2 Rome which for me has much more weight than either Hamburg or Madrid prestige-wise.

Steve0904
11-03-2012, 04:29 PM
But Nadal is a much better player on clay back then than he is now. Peak Federer was very unlucky he had to face the Nadal that moved twice as fast and much better defender.

Not sure about that. Nadal is so great on clay you can hardly tell if he was a better player in the past than he is now. He may have been faster, but he wasn't a better player. He dominated RG again in 2012, on par with his 2010, and 2008 campaigns. The only set he lost came in the pouring rain.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 05:23 PM
Not sure about that. Nadal is so great on clay you can hardly tell if he was a better player in the past than he is now. He may have been faster, but he wasn't a better player. He dominated RG again in 2012, on par with his 2010, and 2008 campaigns. The only set he lost came in the pouring rain.



:shock:


10thenyourenotpayingattentions

Steve0904
11-03-2012, 05:30 PM
:shock:


10thenyourenotpayingattentions

All I'm saying is he's about 2-3 levels above everybody on clay. It doesn't matter if it's 2005 or 2012.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 06:13 PM
All I'm saying is he's about 2-3 levels above everybody on clay. It doesn't matter if it's 2005 or 2012.



I disagree with that. Especially when it comes to ****.

Towser83
11-03-2012, 06:18 PM
I disagree with that. Especially when it comes to ****.

lol Djokovic only won 1 set from Nadal in 3 clay meetings this year (7-1) and you said he only won that set because it was raining.

Do you have a split personality posting 2 opposing views?

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 06:31 PM
Djokovic is about half as good as Nadal is on clay.

90's Clay
11-03-2012, 06:38 PM
Ehh.. .. Djoker will definitely win a French Open title. Or two.. hell Maybe 3. . Nadal won't dominate there much longer. And at this point, no one else is even close to Djoker or Nadal on clay so Nole will have quite a few more chances to give him 2 French Open titles at the very least which should firmly cement over Federer on clay. Not to mention Nole will manage some other clay titles as well.

I look at it like this:

AO- Nole will clearly be Australian Open GOAT by the time he retires. He will easily manage 2 more and then some. Hes much better then anyone else at this point at the AO. Murray is close, but I dont think Murray much better then he did in Australia this year, and it still wasn't enough to beat Nole who wasn't even at the top of his game there this year (and he still won it all mind you)

French Open- 2 RG titles at the very least. How long can Rafa go there? He already 7, He may be able to manage 1 more (possibly 2) but I think one of those years, Djoker gets the best of him. No one else is even close to these two on clay at this point and Djoker has a good 3-5 years of opportunities there

Wimbledon- I could see Nole winning another one possibly. Hes not a great grass court player but the field will be open there. Unless Nadal re-emerges.. I think disregarding the roof, if the weather stays good and the roof open Nole will still have a chance to grab one more wimbledon anyways before he hangs it up. Nole isn't great, but really neither is anyone else here outside of Fed (who's probably done now at wimbledon, unless the roof is closed of course or Rafa re-emerges)

USO- Nole should manage 1-2 more at least. Though he clearly is not as good in Flushing as he is in Australia


Nole will manage 9.. Maybe 10 slams by the time he retires. Not enough to pass Rafa but it will clearly put him in line as hands down 3rd of the post Sampras/Agassi era. He will be hands down the best slow hard court player of this generation, 2nd best clay, 3rd or 4th best grass, 2nd best fast hard court player.

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 06:52 PM
Ehh.. .. Djoker will definitely win a French Open title. Or two.. hell Maybe 3. . Nadal won't dominate there much longer. And at this point, no one else is even close to Djoker or Nadal on clay so Nole will have quite a few more chances to give him 2 French Open titles at the very least which should firmly cement over Federer on clay. Not to mention Nole will manage some other clay titles as well.

I look at it like this:

AO- Nole will clearly be Australian Open GOAT by the time he retires. He will easily manage 2 more and then some. Hes much better then anyone else at this point at the AO. Murray is close, but I dont think Murray much better then he did in Australia this year, and it still wasn't enough to beat Nole who wasn't even at the top of his game there this year (and he still won it all mind you)

French Open- 2 RG titles at the very least. How long can Rafa go there? He already 7, He may be able to manage 1 more (possibly 2) but I think one of those years, Djoker gets the best of him. No one else is even close to these two on clay at this point and Djoker has a good 3-5 years of opportunities there

Wimbledon- I could see Nole winning another one possibly. Hes not a great grass court player but the field will be open there. Unless Nadal re-emerges.. I think disregarding the roof, if the weather stays good and the roof open Nole will still have a chance to grab one more wimbledon anyways before he hangs it up. Nole isn't great, but really neither is anyone else here outside of Fed (who's probably done now at wimbledon, unless the roof is closed of course or Rafa re-emerges)

USO- Nole should manage 1-2 more at least. Though he clearly is not as good in Flushing as he is in Australia


Nole will manage 9.. Maybe 10 slams by the time he retires. Not enough to pass Rafa but it will clearly put him in line as hands down 3rd of the post Sampras/Agassi era. He will be hands down the best slow hard court player of this generation, 2nd best clay, 3rd or 4th best grass, 2nd best fast hard court player.
No way is Djokovic winning a French Open title, he nearly lost to players ranked 20-30 this year there.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 07:06 PM
lol Djokovic only won 1 set from Nadal in 3 clay meetings this year (7-1) and you said he only won that set because it was raining.

Do you have a split personality posting 2 opposing views?



It's all about mileage. **** is still in his prime while Nadal isn't. I think **** will win RG for the next 3 years or more at this point.

Towser83
11-03-2012, 07:07 PM
No way is Djokovic winning a French Open title, he nearly lost to players ranked 20-30 this year there.

So? He almost lost to Troicki at the US Open in 2010 when Troicki was ranked 47. He DID lose to Tommy Haas ranked 34 at Wimbledon 2009

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 07:07 PM
No way is Djokovic winning a French Open title, he nearly lost to players ranked 20-30 this year there.


Then who else is going to win there? With Nadal well past his prime and practically retired,**** is as good as gold at RG.

Towser83
11-03-2012, 07:12 PM
It's all about mileage. **** is still in his prime while Nadal isn't. I think **** will win RG for the next 3 years or more at this point.

The poster was talking about him dominating this year and his ability on clay in 2012. Which is backed up by his results on clay. But you have to deny Nadal has been able to win anything since 2010 finished. This was not about the future it was about the recent past.

And even with mileage so what? He killed Djokovic this year, next year with more milage maybe he loses a set in non rainy weather.

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 08:19 PM
Then who else is going to win there? With Nadal well past his prime and practically retired,**** is as good as gold at RG.
Ferrer could have a golden run like Michael Chang did and snag a Roland Garros title.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 08:28 PM
Ferrer could have a golden run like Michael Chang did and snag a Roland Garros title.



Never gonna happen.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 08:29 PM
The poster was talking about him dominating this year and his ability on clay in 2012. Which is backed up by his results on clay. But you have to deny Nadal has been able to win anything since 2010 finished. This was not about the future it was about the recent past.

And even with mileage so what? He killed Djokovic this year, next year with more milage maybe he loses a set in non rainy weather.



You know that mileage and wear and tear matters. I don't know why you keep denying that fact.

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 08:32 PM
Never gonna happen.
If he's not in Federer's half of the draw one year and Nadal is out, he could beat either Djokovic or Murray for the title. He has shown this year that he can take Murray out at Roland Garros, and he's shown in the past that he can beat Djokovic when he really needs to.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 08:34 PM
If he's not in Federer's half of the draw one year and Nadal is out, he could beat either Djokovic or Murray for the title. He has shown this year that he can take Murray out at Roland Garros, and he's shown in the past that he can beat Djokovic when he really needs to.



Ferrer will never beat **** at RG. He can barely manage to take one set off of him when they play much less the 3 it would take to beat him at a slam.

Sabratha
11-03-2012, 08:44 PM
Ferrer will never beat **** at RG. He can barely manage to take one set off of him when they play much less the 3 it would take to beat him at a slam.
Stranger things have happened.

Clarky21
11-03-2012, 09:02 PM
Stranger things have happened.



It would have to be the strangest thing to ever happen on planet earth for Ferrer to beat **** at RG,or at any slam for that matter. Lol.

NadalAgassi
11-03-2012, 09:04 PM
Ehh.. .. Djoker will definitely win a French Open title. Or two.. hell Maybe 3. . Nadal won't dominate there much longer. And at this point, no one else is even close to Djoker or Nadal on clay so Nole will have quite a few more chances to give him 2 French Open titles at the very least which should firmly cement over Federer on clay. Not to mention Nole will manage some other clay titles as well.

I look at it like this:

AO- Nole will clearly be Australian Open GOAT by the time he retires. He will easily manage 2 more and then some. Hes much better then anyone else at this point at the AO. Murray is close, but I dont think Murray much better then he did in Australia this year, and it still wasn't enough to beat Nole who wasn't even at the top of his game there this year (and he still won it all mind you)

French Open- 2 RG titles at the very least. How long can Rafa go there? He already 7, He may be able to manage 1 more (possibly 2) but I think one of those years, Djoker gets the best of him. No one else is even close to these two on clay at this point and Djoker has a good 3-5 years of opportunities there

Wimbledon- I could see Nole winning another one possibly. Hes not a great grass court player but the field will be open there. Unless Nadal re-emerges.. I think disregarding the roof, if the weather stays good and the roof open Nole will still have a chance to grab one more wimbledon anyways before he hangs it up. Nole isn't great, but really neither is anyone else here outside of Fed (who's probably done now at wimbledon, unless the roof is closed of course or Rafa re-emerges)

USO- Nole should manage 1-2 more at least. Though he clearly is not as good in Flushing as he is in Australia


Nole will manage 9.. Maybe 10 slams by the time he retires. Not enough to pass Rafa but it will clearly put him in line as hands down 3rd of the post Sampras/Agassi era. He will be hands down the best slow hard court player of this generation, 2nd best clay, 3rd or 4th best grass, 2nd best fast hard court player.

Good assessment. If I had to guess now I would say:

Australian Open- atleast 2 more
French Open- atleast 1, a decent shot at 2. It mostly depends on Nadal really.
Wimbledon- probably wont win another, but still could
U.S Open- should win atleast 1 more

abmk
11-03-2012, 09:07 PM
Ferrer will never beat **** at RG. He can barely manage to take one set off of him when they play much less the 3 it would take to beat him at a slam.

ferrer is 3-1 vs novak on clay , the one win for novak was a hard-fought 3-setter for novak in 2011 .... ferrer beat in him straights in their DC encounter in 2009 ....

Towser83
11-03-2012, 10:06 PM
You know that mileage and wear and tear matters. I don't know why you keep denying that fact.

yeah point is with supposedly destroyed knees and lots of mileage on the clock (you were saying Nadal wouldn't beat almagro etc) he still totally destroyed Djokovic winning 7 out of 8 sets in 3 meetings and only lost a set due to rain.

So Nadal can probably suffer a bit more milage and still win, because this year he won so comfortably.

And again the other poster was only talking about Nadal up to this year and saying he was miles better than everyone whether it was 2005 or 2012. You refuted that, which is obviously ridiculous.

You have no valid point.

TheFifthSet
11-03-2012, 10:13 PM
It would have to be the strangest thing to ever happen on planet earth for Ferrer to beat **** at RG,or at any slam for that matter. Lol.

Ferrer can beat everyone on clay except Nadal and to an extent Fed. Seppi almost beat Djokovic at the French Open this year. How can you honestly say it's out of the realm of possibility for Ferrer to do so? You exaggerate so much it's unreal.

NadalAgassi
11-03-2012, 10:23 PM
Regardless of their career H2H I dont see Ferrer beating Djokovic if they play at RG. Ferrer is not strong enough mentally to beat the top players in the slams. His only 2 really big slam wins ever are his upsets of Nadal at the 2007 U.S Open and 2011 Australian Open, atleast one of which was heavily injury based. Beating Murray at the French Open is not a big win, Ferrer is supposed to beat Murray on clay. Djokovic although already generally better than Ferrer for many years was also not really in his prime at the time of those defeats, his prime being 2011-probably another few years after this one.

tudwell
11-03-2012, 10:32 PM
Ferrer will never beat **** at RG. He can barely manage to take one set off of him when they play much less the 3 it would take to beat him at a slam.

The exact same could be said about Djokovic playing Nadal.

Steve0904
11-04-2012, 02:44 AM
I don't see how Djokovic goes above Fed on clay automatically if wins 2 RG titles. It's quite evident that if Nadal comes back even close to what he was Djokovic is unlikely to beat him, although I still maintain he has a better shot than Federer ever did. If he comes back, and he's not half as good as what he was, that would just mean that Djokovic bagged 2 RG titles in a "weak" clay era (for lack of a better word). The only difference between them then would be that Djokovic didn't have to play Nadal twice in the final, and Federer got "lucky" only once.

I hate to bring this up because it's very hypothetical, but I think without Nadal, Federer has at least 3 RG titles, and IMHO that's the only way Djokovic is getting 2. He had enough trouble with Seppi and Tsonga this year for gods sake, and he lost a set to Delpo in 2011 when he was only in the process of coming back. Delpo has pushed Federer hard there twice now, he could certainly do the same to Novak, and if he gets that close who's to say he won't beat him.

Nadal is getting older, but so is Djokovic, which means he's more likely to get upset. Say Djokovic makes the final the next two years. He'll be 26 this coming year, and 27 the next. Will he make the final again at 28 and beyond with his style of play even if the next generation is supposedly weak. I'm not so sure. If he does, all power to him, but given this scenario which I think is relatively likely he'll have to cash in 2 for 2 the next 2 years. I think he'll win at least 1 RG for the record. Now I could be totally wrong obviously, but these are just my thoughts.

5555
11-04-2012, 03:53 AM
Weeks at #1 is not the main factor in a better career. If it were than Connors would be considered to have had a greater career and be greater than Borg but that isnt even close to the case since 11 slams > 8 slams, and since Borg was the clay court GOAT before Nadal.

I did not say that weeks at No. 1 is the main factor. It is a very important factor. Number of slams in the main factor but it is not the only factor which means that Djokovic does not have to reach the same number of slams as Nadal in order to have better career. Also, the ranking method in 1970s and 1980s was much different than in the last 20 years. It was a unreliable ranking method. Since 1990 "Player Of the Year" has always been the Year-End No. 1 unlike in 1970s and 1980s. So, your comparison is irrelevant.

Djokovic would need to reach the same # of slams as Nadal at minimum and win the French before anyone might consider him as having the better career.

Is it fact?

Steve0904
11-04-2012, 04:38 AM
I think Djokovic has to win the French first, but I also think that if Nadal stays at 11 slams (big if IMO), and Djokovic can get to 9 or 10 along with other things like another YEC or two it will be very close. Djokovic could end up with more weeks at #1 as well, and he could end up beating Nadal en route to some slams thus cutting into the H2H. The problem for Novak is that I don't think Nadal is done. Djokovic has more potential to win more M1000 tournaments from here on out, but I don't think he's catching Nadal because Nadal has at least MC and Rome where he is the overwhelming favourite for now, and he has a few more slams in him I think. I'd give him 14 to put him on level with Sampras.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 05:16 AM
The exact same could be said about Djokovic playing Nadal.



How so? **** has beaten Nadal on clay and multiple times across every surface and at the slams. I see no comparison between the two at all.

NadalAgassi
11-04-2012, 06:37 AM
I did not say that weeks at No. 1 is the main factor. It is a very important factor. Number of slams in the main factor but it is not the only factor which means that Djokovic does not have to reach the same number of slams as Nadal in order to have better career. Also, the ranking method in 1970s and 1980s was much different than in the last 20 years. It was a unreliable ranking method. Since 1990 "Player Of the Year" has always been the Year-End No. 1 unlike in 1970s and 1980s. So, your comparison is irrelevant.


The only players considered above Nadal in history today by anyone are people with 11 slams or more. Nobody rates guys with fewer slams like Connors, Lendl, Agassi, anywhere near, and this despite that Connors and Lendl have numerous unbelievable stats in other areas which neither Nadal or Djokovic will ever get close to. So yes it seems pretty obvious Djokovic would need to atleast match Nadal's slam count for anyone to rate him higher.

As for the Player of the Year awards the ATP board at the time hated Connors so those in the 70s were just as irrelevant. It is a more a reflection on them than the ranking system.

NadalAgassi
11-04-2012, 06:43 AM
I don't see how Djokovic goes above Fed on clay automatically if wins 2 RG titles. It's quite evident that if Nadal comes back even close to what he was Djokovic is unlikely to beat him, although I still maintain he has a better shot than Federer ever did. If he comes back, and he's not half as good as what he was, that would just mean that Djokovic bagged 2 RG titles in a "weak" clay era (for lack of a better word). The only difference between them then would be that Djokovic didn't have to play Nadal twice in the final, and Federer got "lucky" only once.

I hate to bring this up because it's very hypothetical, but I think without Nadal, Federer has at least 3 RG titles, and IMHO that's the only way Djokovic is getting 2. He had enough trouble with Seppi and Tsonga this year for gods sake, and he lost a set to Delpo in 2011 when he was only in the process of coming back. Delpo has pushed Federer hard there twice now, he could certainly do the same to Novak, and if he gets that close who's to say he won't beat him.

Nadal is getting older, but so is Djokovic, which means he's more likely to get upset. Say Djokovic makes the final the next two years. He'll be 26 this coming year, and 27 the next. Will he make the final again at 28 and beyond with his style of play even if the next generation is supposedly weak. I'm not so sure. If he does, all power to him, but given this scenario which I think is relatively likely he'll have to cash in 2 for 2 the next 2 years. I think he'll win at least 1 RG for the record. Now I could be totally wrong obviously, but these are just my thoughts.

Take away Nadal and Djokovic wins the 2008 and 2012 French titles too (sorry no way a totally crap Federer in 08 beats Djokovic, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay while in poor form), so in the hypothetical event he wins 2 that would mean atleast 4 without Nadal himself, probably more as he most likely loses to Nadal in some other finals, so that isnt really an edge for Federer in that case.

Djokovic should be a contender the next 4 years atleast, and with Nadal on decline he could quite well win 2 of those 4, with Nadal probably winning the other 2. It is quite easy to envision it. It is hard to picture anyone else winning a French anytime soon even if both have a small decline. Does anyone see Murray, Federer at this point, or Del Potro winning a French, LOL! I also believe if Djokovic does win 2 atleast 1 will be over Nadal in the final. Even if Djokovic only wins 1, but does it by beating Nadal in the final, and reaches another few FO finals and wins another couple Masters titles, that would also put him above Federer on clay, and given the importance you seem to give to facing Nadal or Nadal being around, it is hard to see you disagreeing with that.

As for Del Potro, Djokovic owns him completely. Unless he shows a drastic further upgrade in form he is not beating Djokovic on clay or hard courts, especialy in a major. His only win over Djokovic (outside a retirement after the 1st set) is on grass.

tudwell
11-04-2012, 07:15 AM
How so? **** has beaten Nadal on clay and multiple times across every surface and at the slams. I see no comparison between the two at all.

The only set he's won against Nadal at Roland Garros was in torrential rain. Nadal tears him apart in normal conditions.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 07:20 AM
The only set he's won against Nadal at Roland Garros was in torrential rain. Nadal tears him apart in normal conditions.



How about last year when Nadal lost 2 consecutive clay finals to **** in straight sets? If not for Fed playing like a beast and taking him out in the semi,he would have beaten Nadal in the RG final last year as well.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 07:23 AM
Take away Nadal and Djokovic wins the 2008 and 2012 French titles too (sorry no way a totally crap Federer in 08 beats Djokovic, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay while in poor form), so in the hypothetical event he wins 2 that would mean atleast 4 without Nadal himself, probably more as he most likely loses to Nadal in some other finals, so that isnt really an edge for Federer in that case.

Djokovic should be a contender the next 4 years atleast, and with Nadal on decline he could quite well win 2 of those 4, with Nadal probably winning the other 2. It is quite easy to envision it. It is hard to picture anyone else winning a French anytime soon even if both have a small decline. Does anyone see Murray, Federer at this point, or Del Potro winning a French, LOL! I also believe if Djokovic does win 2 atleast 1 will be over Nadal in the final. Even if Djokovic only wins 1, but does it by beating Nadal in the final, and reaches another few FO finals and wins another couple Masters titles, that would also put him above Federer on clay, and given the importance you seem to give to facing Nadal or Nadal being around, it is hard to see you disagreeing with that.

As for Del Potro, Djokovic owns him completely. Unless he shows a drastic further upgrade in form he is not beating Djokovic on clay or hard courts, especialy in a major. His only win over Djokovic (outside a retirement after the 1st set) is on grass.

Erm "totally cap" federer in 2008 should have beaten peak Nadal in Hamburg and even had him on the ropes 4-0 in Monte Carlo in one set and twice a break down in the other. he also beat djokovic in Monte Carlo and did fairly well in RG til he got to the final. his problem was with Nadal and i don't think djokovic would have beaten him at RG that year.

Also i like the way you just take two future RG titles for djokovic to make 4 for him with the 2008 and 2012 titles you think he'd have won (i agree with 2012) But without Nadal Federer would have won in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2011. that's at least 5 titles in 7 years and i think he would have in 2008 as well for 6 titles in 7 years and 5 in a row.

At this point djokovic has made ONE RG Final and he almost got beaten by seppi and Tsonga. He should win RG but really there is no guarantee that he will have a consistent record there when he can come close to losing vs Tsonga and seppi in his best year there yet.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 07:26 AM
How about last year when Nadal lost 2 consecutive clay finals to **** in straight sets? If not for Fed playing like a beast and taking him out in the semi,he would have beaten Nadal in the RG final last year as well.


That was one year and its gone. Nadal is 12-2 on clay and last 3 matches djokovic got destroyed.

I might as well say what about us open and wtf 2010 as proof Nadal will beat djokovic on Harcourt.

tudwell
11-04-2012, 07:29 AM
How about last year when Nadal lost 2 consecutive clay finals to **** in straight sets? If not for Fed playing like a beast and taking him out in the semi,he would have beaten Nadal in the RG final last year as well.

That is entirely speculation. Djokovic has still yet to beat Nadal at Monte-Carlo, which is more similar to Roland Garros than Rome and especially Madrid. So Djokovic's results at those two tournaments do not necessarily correlate to his success at Roland Garros. Regardless, my point stands. The day Djokovic doesn't look like a lame duck against Nadal at Roland Garros is the day I will recant and admit he has a good shot at winning.

Plus, 2011 was one year. Every single other year has gone overwhelmingly to Nadal on the surface. He rarely loses sets to Djokovic on clay, let alone matches. It's more lopsided a head-to-head than Federer's against Nadal on clay.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 07:31 AM
That was one year and its gone. Nadal is 12-2 on clay and last 3 matches djokovic got destroyed.I might as well say what about us open and wtf 2010 as proof Nadal will beat djokovic on Harcourt.



How did **** get destroyed in any of those matches? The only one that was lopsided was MC,and that was a fluke because **** was mentally checked out before that match even began.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 07:41 AM
How did **** get destroyed in any of those matches? The only one that was lopsided was MC,and that was a fluke because **** was mentally checked out before that match even began.

He only won a single set which was due to rain. Using your curious benchmarks where someone having a match point on djokovic is not even troubling him, djokovic not winning a set is pathetic and he virtually wasn't in the match.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 07:44 AM
He only won a single set which was due to rain. Using your curious benchmarks where someone having a match point on djokovic is not even troubling him, djokovic not winning a set is pathetic and he virtually wasn't in the match.



Those matches were all very close except for MC,where **** didn't even show up. You really don't think Rome or RG were close matches? The match is always on ****'s racket when he plays Nadal no matter what the surface is.

The Bawss
11-04-2012, 07:47 AM
Hey *******s, I will have a better career than your idol.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1250/djokotrollsmal.png

U mad, bro?

tudwell
11-04-2012, 07:48 AM
Those matches were all very close except for MC,where **** didn't even show up. You really don't think Rome or RG were close matches? The match is always on ****'s racket when he plays Nadal no matter what the surface is.

The 6-4 6-3 scorelines of the first two sets at Roland Garros really don't show how lopsided it was. Nadal was dominating the match. He hit a bad spell and the court was sopping wet and that allowed Djokovic back into the match, but he quickly surrendered his fourth set lead when play resumed in normal conditions. Nadal is just fitter, more confident, and a better play on clay. It would take Djokovic's game coming together absolutely perfectly and Nadal being significantly below par, like in 2011, for Djokovic to even give Nadal a scare at Roland Garros.

You're absolutely nuts if you think the match is on Djokovic's racquet on clay. Nadal leads the head-to-head 12-2 and went 7-1 in sets this year. Djokovic had to play the best he ever has - a peak he hasn't come close to matching - to get those two wins, and that was probably the least confident Nadal had been since he missed Wimbledon in 2009. Nadal obviously has the match on his racquet when they play on clay, and you and maybe the FIBob are the only people in existence who would say otherwise.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 07:57 AM
Those matches were all very close except for MC,where **** didn't even show up. You really don't think Rome or RG were close matches? The match is always on ****'s racket when he plays Nadal no matter what the surface is.

You said djokovic wouldn't have even won a set in the RG final if not for rain but now you're saying the match was close?! How is a match close when you are sure one player couldn't have even won one set under normal circumstances??

Seriously don't ever get a job as a painter and decorator - you will spend all your time painting yourself into a corner.

You just want to brag about how dominant Nadal was at RG but then that goes against this mantra you've built up.

Steve0904
11-04-2012, 07:58 AM
Take away Nadal and Djokovic wins the 2008 and 2012 French titles too (sorry no way a totally crap Federer in 08 beats Djokovic, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay while in poor form), so in the hypothetical event he wins 2 that would mean atleast 4 without Nadal himself, probably more as he most likely loses to Nadal in some other finals, so that isnt really an edge for Federer in that case.

Djokovic should be a contender the next 4 years atleast, and with Nadal on decline he could quite well win 2 of those 4, with Nadal probably winning the other 2. It is quite easy to envision it. It is hard to picture anyone else winning a French anytime soon even if both have a small decline. Does anyone see Murray, Federer at this point, or Del Potro winning a French, LOL! I also believe if Djokovic does win 2 atleast 1 will be over Nadal in the final. Even if Djokovic only wins 1, but does it by beating Nadal in the final, and reaches another few FO finals and wins another couple Masters titles, that would also put him above Federer on clay, and given the importance you seem to give to facing Nadal or Nadal being around, it is hard to see you disagreeing with that.

As for Del Potro, Djokovic owns him completely. Unless he shows a drastic further upgrade in form he is not beating Djokovic on clay or hard courts, especialy in a major. His only win over Djokovic (outside a retirement after the 1st set) is on grass.

I'm not sure it's clear cut that Djokovic beats Federer at RG in 08. Federer had just beaten Novak at MC which is the slowest of the slow, and sure he lost some sets en route to the French final, but he wasn't "total crap." Nadal just made it look that way. I think Federer's lost sets en route to all of his French finals. Federer lost 3 sets en route, and Djokovic lost 1, hardly a distinguishable difference.

And the part where we disagree is this. If Nadal comes back anywhere near what he was, based on what I seen of 2012, and because I don't think Novak will ever find his 2011 form again, he's not beating Nadal in a RG final or any other part of the tournament. I still give Djokovic a better shot than Federer, but neither of them have high hopes of pulling it off, and if he comes back less than what he was well I've already provided reasoning for that. And if I really wanted to get sticky I could say Federer could have 5 RG titles if not for Nadal, and that's even if we give Novak the 08 title, which is not totally clear cut IMO. I only said at least 3 to be nice.

I agree Delpo is unlikely to beat Novak, but so were Seppi and Tsonga.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 08:00 AM
You said djokovic wouldn't have even won a set in the RG final if not for rain but now you're saying the match was close?! How is a match close when you are sure one player couldn't have even won one set under normal circumstances??

Seriously don't ever get a job as a painter and decorator - you will spend all your time painting yourself into a corner.

You just want to brag about how dominant Nadal was at RG but then that goes against this mantra you've built up.


Yeah,I do think the match was close. Closer than the scoreline indicates,imo.


What mantra? That I think **** is better than Nadal?

abmk
11-04-2012, 08:09 AM
Take away Nadal and Djokovic wins the 2008 and 2012 French titles too (sorry no way a totally crap Federer in 08 beats Djokovic, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay while in poor form), so in the hypothetical event he wins 2 that would mean atleast 4 without Nadal himself, probably more as he most likely loses to Nadal in some other finals, so that isnt really an edge for Federer in that case.

Djokovic should be a contender the next 4 years atleast, and with Nadal on decline he could quite well win 2 of those 4, with Nadal probably winning the other 2. It is quite easy to envision it. It is hard to picture anyone else winning a French anytime soon even if both have a small decline. Does anyone see Murray, Federer at this point, or Del Potro winning a French, LOL! I also believe if Djokovic does win 2 atleast 1 will be over Nadal in the final. Even if Djokovic only wins 1, but does it by beating Nadal in the final, and reaches another few FO finals and wins another couple Masters titles, that would also put him above Federer on clay, and given the importance you seem to give to facing Nadal or Nadal being around, it is hard to see you disagreeing with that.

lol, without nadal, federer would have 5, possibly 6 and djoker would have 1, possibly 2 RGs, it wouldn't be close ....

even now, achievements wise, federer is by some distance ahead ........ 1 RG+ 4 other RG finals

djoker has one lone final @ RG, in which he was taken to 5 by seppi and had to fight off MPs vs tsonga ...

taken one set off rafa in 4 meetings there ....federer has taken 4 sets off rafa in 5 meetings @ RG....

As for Del Potro, Djokovic owns him completely. Unless he shows a drastic further upgrade in form he is not beating Djokovic on clay or hard courts, especialy in a major. His only win over Djokovic (outside a retirement after the 1st set) is on grass.

lol, if seppi can take him to 5 and tsonga can have MPs in the only year he's made the finals, delpo , who is a wayyyyyy better player on clay surely has a chance of beating him @ RG .... and of course a decent chance @ the USO ...

BauerAlmeida
11-04-2012, 08:51 AM
If it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would have won RG in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011. Add that to RG 2009, it's 5 RG titles.

If it wasn't for Nadal, Djokovic would have 2 RG, in 2008 and 2012. Considering Djokovic is only 25 and I can't see anyone bar Nadal beating him there in the next few years, I say they will end up with the same amount of RG titles or situtations when they would have won the titles if it wasn't for Nadal.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 09:10 AM
Yeah,I do think the match was close. Closer than the scoreline indicates,imo.


What mantra? That I think **** is better than Nadal?

So a close match where Djokovic didn't have a chance of winning a set. Heard it all now.

The mantra that Nadal cannot beat Djokovic.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 09:28 AM
So a close match where Djokovic didn't have a chance of winning a set. Heard it all now.

The mantra that Nadal cannot beat Djokovic.



What do you mean he didn't have a chance to win a set? He absolutely did have chances to win sets. What's funny is people bleated on about **** winning this & that,and when I agree with them about it,you act like I'm crazy. You're a funny guy,Towser. :lol:


And you thought after all the beatdowns Nadal took from **** over the past year and half,that Nadal would beat him again? I highly doubt you did.

TMF
11-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Soderling made 2 FO finals, you can argue Nole is behind him, let alone Federer. And don't even get started with who had greater competition. Roger had a much better version of Nadal on clay from 2005-2009. Nole will benefit from a declining Nadal(especially his movement), so he does have an easy chance to win the FO in the future.

Gonzo_style
11-04-2012, 09:38 AM
Soderling made 2 FO finals, you can argue Nole is behind him, let alone Federer. And don't even get started with who had greater competition. Roger had a much better version of Nadal on clay from 2005-2009. Nole will benefit from a declining Nadal(especially his movement), so he does have an easy chance to win the FO in the future.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard!

90's Clay
11-04-2012, 09:58 AM
Nadal can't possibly continue his French Open domination to the same extent. Sure he probably will end up with another 1 or 2.. But thats where it ends. (especially if these constant injuries continue to derail him where he has to take off half the year, he will just call it a career in a season or two).

Its just not reasonable to think Nadal will own RG for another 4-5 years. Thats about the window Djoker has at managing 2 French Open titles. In fact, Im willing to bet Djokovic does beat Nadal at the French in the next year or two (Something Fed was unable to do). Djoker actually had his chance this year to take out Rafa before rain kind of saved Rafa. (though its not 100 percent that was the case).

So in the end if Djoker manages two RG titles (and manage to take out Rafa in the process at least once), along with his other clay titles, that definitely eclipses Federer's clay resume

And even if Nole doesn't take out Rafa, 2 French Open titles is greater then 1. Fed had a ton of French Open finals, but there is no points for second place. .. At the end of the day, Djoker will have had more titles more then likely and Fed only managed one french open title. . Hes only 24-25 years old, he has an easy 3-5 more years of opportunities to grab 2 titles there.


Now if Nole just ends up with one French Open title, then there would be still room for argument. But I bet he grabs two anyways before its all said and done. And chances are he will have beaten Rafa more times on clay then Fed managed to.

TMF
11-04-2012, 10:09 AM
Dumbest thing I've ever heard!Soderling made 2 FO finals, you can argue Nole is behind him, let alone Federer. And don't even get started with who had greater competition. Roger had a much better version of Nadal on clay from 2005-2009. Nole will benefit from a declining Nadal(especially his movement), so he does have an easy chance to win the FO in the future.


Care to elaborate why you think Nadal will have the similar run on clay like he did from 2005-09.

MTF07
11-04-2012, 10:10 AM
lol @ this talk of Djokovic winning multiple RG titles when he hasn't won any yet and only been to 1 final.

And don't just assume that because Nadal's days of domination are up that the next great clay champion isn't right behind him

Towser83
11-04-2012, 10:13 AM
Nadal can't possibly continue his French Open domination to the same extent. Sure he probably will end up with another 1 or 2.. But thats where it ends. (especially if these constant injuries continue to derail him where he has to take off half the year, he will just call it a career in a season or two).

Its just not reasonable to think Nadal will own RG for another 4-5 years. Thats about the window Djoker has at managing 2 French Open titles. In fact, Im willing to bet Djokovic does beat Nadal at the French in the next year or two (Something Fed was unable to do). Djoker actually had his chance this year to take out Rafa before rain kind of saved Rafa. (though its not 100 percent that was the case).

So in the end if Djoker manages two RG titles (and manage to take out Rafa in the process at least once), along with his other clay titles, that definitely eclipses Federer's clay resume

And even if Nole doesn't take out Rafa, 2 French Open titles is greater then 1. Fed had a ton of French Open finals, but there is no points for second place. .. At the end of the day, Djoker will have had more titles more then likely and Fed only managed one french open title. . Hes only 24-25 years old, he has an easy 3-5 more years of opportunities to grab 2 titles there.


Now if Nole just ends up with one French Open title, then there would be still room for argument. But I bet he grabs two anyways before its all said and done. And chances are he will have beaten Rafa more times on clay then Fed managed to.

What will be interesting though is if Djokovic does beat an old washed up Nadal and gets a better RG haul than Federer, the weak era argument people use to rate Sampras above Federer despite of record will turn on it's head and people will use it to put Fed above Djokovic at RG :lol:

TMF
11-04-2012, 10:16 AM
Nadal can't possibly continue his French Open domination to the same extent. Sure he probably will end up with another 1 or 2.. But thats where it ends. (especially if these constant injuries continue to derail him where he has to take off half the year, he will just call it a career in a season or two).

Its just not reasonable to think Nadal will own RG for another 4-5 years. Thats about the window Djoker has at managing 2 French Open titles. In fact, Im willing to bet Djokovic does beat Nadal at the French in the next year or two (Something Fed was unable to do). Djoker actually had his chance this year to take out Rafa before rain kind of saved Rafa. (though its not 100 percent that was the case).

So in the end if Djoker manages two RG titles (and manage to take out Rafa in the process at least once), along with his other clay titles, that definitely eclipses Federer's clay resume

And even if Nole doesn't take out Rafa, 2 French Open titles is greater then 1. Fed had a ton of French Open finals, but there is no points for second place. .. At the end of the day, Djoker will have had more titles more then likely and Fed only managed one french open title. . Hes only 24-25 years old, he has an easy 3-5 more years of opportunities to grab 2 titles there.


Now if Nole just ends up with one French Open title, then there would be still room for argument. But I bet he grabs two anyways before its all said and done. And chances are he will have beaten Rafa more times on clay then Fed managed to.

Let's wait until he can win 2 FO. You're just jinxing him.

And since you're always obsessed with today's weak/strong era between the top 4, don't forget to mention Nole will have any easy time than Roger(2005-09) since Nadal will never play at that level.:)

Towser83
11-04-2012, 10:18 AM
What do you mean he didn't have a chance to win a set? He absolutely did have chances to win sets. What's funny is people bleated on about **** winning this & that,and when I agree with them about it,you act like I'm crazy. You're a funny guy,Towser. :lol:


And you thought after all the beatdowns Nadal took from **** over the past year and half,that Nadal would beat him again? I highly doubt you did.

You've said numerous times if the rain hadn't come Djokovic would not have won a set in that final. So you must be pretty sure there was nothing Djokovic could have done to nadal to take a set off him.See on one hand when people say that Djokovic could have won you get mad inside and post that Djokovic was lucky to win a set, but then you remember you have to act like Djokovic isn't generally owned by Nadal on clay.

And hang on. I said many, many times that Nadal would eventually beat Djokovic again, both to you and *********s like DFTW. The idea that Nadal would never win another match against him was totally crazy. I gave him a chance at the AO, probably even earlier than that and before the MC final I said Nadal would win, I also said it before Rome and RG, though I hoped that at RG Djokovic could somehow turn it around.

I said all this multiple times, so yes I though Nadal would win again.

zagor
11-04-2012, 10:23 AM
Soderling made 2 FO finals, you can argue Nole is behind him, let alone Federer. And don't even get started with who had greater competition. Roger had a much better version of Nadal on clay from 2005-2009. Nole will benefit from a declining Nadal(especially his movement), so he does have an easy chance to win the FO in the future.

Disagree, not everything is about slams, Novak has 3 CC masters titles and a FO final, Soderling had two great runs at FO but he never even reached a CC masters final.

Regarding how much better version of Nadal on clay Fed faced is also debatable, in 2008? Definitely but it's debatable (to say the least) whether 2005 & 2006 version of Nadal is equal let alone better than say 2012 version of Nadal (this whole CC season Nadal lost only one single set IIRC).

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 10:24 AM
lol @ this talk of Djokovic winning multiple RG titles when he hasn't won any yet and only been to 1 final.

And don't just assume that because Nadal's days of domination are up that the next great clay champion isn't right behind him



Who will win them other than Cvac? There's no one else who is even close to him on clay that can do it.

Gonzo_style
11-04-2012, 10:30 AM
Care to elaborate why you think Nadal will have the similar run on clay like he did from 2005-09.

First, after that injury in 2009, Nadal in 2010 won 3 MS on clay, that wasn't happened in 2005-2009, and win RG without losing a set ( that only happened in 2008)!

Second, he lost only one set on RED clay this year, that's never happened before! And before RG final destroyed every player ( perhaps more convincingly than 2008)!

Nadal even in 2020 (if he still playing of course) will be one of the favorites for the title in RG!

Than why woild we belittle the importance of eventual Djokovic's victory vs Nadal and title in RG? Btw Djokovic is only ONE year younger than Nadal.

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 10:30 AM
(answer to clarky) What are you talking about? A lot of players can upset Djoko at RG (and have in the past). Djoko is not even remotely unbeatable at that event. The only way Nadal is not the massive favorite at RG is if he doesn't enter the tournament. Which is unlikely to happen any time soon.

tudwell
11-04-2012, 10:32 AM
Disagree, not everything is about slams, Novak has 3 CC masters titles and a FO final, Soderling had two great runs at FO but he never even reached a CC masters final.

Regarding how much better version of Nadal on clay Fed faced is also debatable, in 2008? Definitely but it's debatable (to say the least) whether 2005 & 2006 version of Nadal is equal let alone better than say 2012 version of Nadal (this whole CC season Nadal lost only one single set IIRC).

Three sets. He lost in Madrid.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 10:33 AM
(answer to clarky) What are you talking about? A lot of players can upset Djoko at RG (and have in the past). Djoko is not even remotely unbeatable at that event. The only way Nadal is not the massive favorite at RG is if he doesn't enter the tournament. Which is unlikely to happen any time soon.



Who?


10char

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 10:33 AM
Madrid had nothing to do with a clay court. Smurf turf.

db10s
11-04-2012, 10:34 AM
Yes, considering his age and other players.

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 10:35 AM
Who?


10char


Look at the list of guys who beat him all those years he didn't make the RG final... And no, it's not just Fed and Nadal...

Gonzo_style
11-04-2012, 10:35 AM
Three sets. He lost in Madrid.

On RED clay!

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 10:38 AM
Look at the list of guys who beat him all those years he didn't make the RG final... And no, it's not just Fed and Nadal...



I'm not talking about in the past; I am talking about now. So,again,who is going to beat him there in the future?

Gonzo_style
11-04-2012, 10:56 AM
I'm not talking about in the past; I am talking about now. So,again,who is going to beat him there in the future?

Let's say Del Potro have a chance, logical choice would be JWT but i wouldn't be surprised if Djokovic beat him next time in RG in 3 easy sets...

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 10:57 AM
I'm not talking about in the past; I am talking about now. So,again,who is going to beat him there in the future?


The same guys who beat him in the past.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 10:58 AM
I'm not talking about in the past; I am talking about now. So,again,who is going to beat him there in the future?

lol Seppi was 2 sets to 0 up, Tsonga had 4 match points. Basically draw a name out of a hat. Djokovic could win RG or he could lose to anyone. He's getting older, picking up more milage :lol: US Open proved he's already declined from the AO this year

Gonzo_style
11-04-2012, 11:00 AM
The same guys who beat him in the past.

Fillip Kohlcreiber? Coria? Melzer? :) just kidding...

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:14 AM
The same guys who beat him in the past.



Really? So you think Melzer,Kohlslaw,and company are going to beat **** at RG these days? You have got to be kidding me,Vero. :lol:

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 11:15 AM
Sure. Why not? Djoko has always shown vulnerability at RG. Not that he cannot win it. He can, no doubt. But he's also plenty beatable there.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:16 AM
lol Seppi was 2 sets to 0 up, Tsonga had 4 match points. Basically draw a name out of a hat. Djokovic could win RG or he could lose to anyone. He's getting older, picking up more milage :lol: US Open proved he's already declined from the AO this year



:lol: No way,Towser. Just because he's not double bageling folks doesn't mean he's declining. You're just being silly saying things like that.

90's Clay
11-04-2012, 11:19 AM
It took Fed playing out his skin, and the clay GOAT to take out Djoker at RG the last two years.. Rest assured, Nadal won't be around forever.. And Fed isn't going to play out of skin at the French vs. Djoker again.


And there is no one else right now, besides Nadal who can take Nole out at the French.. Nole has a good half a dozen chances to grab a few French Open titles. Unless people think Nadal will continue his domination at the French for another 4-6 years.. That aint happening

The clay field is pretty weak right now.. Even Murray sucks on clay.. So that leaves Djoker with a TON more opportunities

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:21 AM
Sure. Why not? Djoko has always shown vulnerability at RG. Not that he cannot win it. He can, no doubt. But he's also plenty beatable there.


Because it's ridiculous to suggest those guys are going to outlast him in a best of 5 match. They would be fortunate to push him to a tiebreaker,and taking even just one set would take an intervention from God himself. They will never,ever beat **** at a slam again.

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 11:24 AM
Because it's ridiculous to suggest those guys are going to outlast him in a best of 5 match. They would be fortuante to push him to a tiebreaker,and taking even just one set would take an intervetion from God himself. They will never,ever beat **** at a slam again.


Lol you're funny. Djoko got beaten in slams this year (and every year that was not 2011) and he will get beaten again and no alien or supernatural intervention will be required :)

Towser83
11-04-2012, 11:25 AM
:lol: No way,Towser. Just because he's not double bageling folks doesn't mean he's declining. You're just being silly saying things like that.

I'm just using your logic. Nadal winning MC, Rome, Barca and RG dropping only one set and he's apparently declining. I guess cos he needs to win them all in straight sets tripple bagelling people. He's a hardcourt mug who always needed a miracle to beat Djokovic according to you but pushing Djokovic to the edge in IW, Miami and AO apparently means he's declining..

And you must be able to see Djokovic had a long 5 set with Murray at the US open and then beat Nadal in 6 hours, but at the US Open he couldn't outlast Murray in the final. 2011 was his peak and he will never play like that again.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:25 AM
Lol you're funny. Djoko got beaten in slams this year (and every year that was not 2011) and he will get beaten again and no alien or supernatural intervention will be required :)



Barely. He's practically unbeatable in best of 5 matches,and has been for nearly 2 years now.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 11:28 AM
It took Fed playing out his skin, and the clay GOAT to take out Djoker at RG the last two years.. Rest assured, Nadal won't be around forever.. And Fed isn't going to play out of skin at the French vs. Djoker again.


And there is no one else right now, besides Nadal who can take Nole out at the French.. Nole has a good half a dozen chances to grab a few French Open titles. Unless people think Nadal will continue his domination at the French for another 4-6 years.. That aint happening

The clay field is pretty weak right now.. Even Murray sucks on clay.. So that leaves Djoker with a TON more opportunities

He is a big favourite to make the final every year but he can be beaten and was almost beaten by Seppi and Tsonga. So he is not totally immune to a shock loss. Let's not forget in 2011 Bellucci and Murray almost beat him in Rome. Djokovic is a good clay court player but he is not safe from being upset

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:29 AM
I'm just using your logic. Nadal winning MC, Rome, Barca and RG dropping only one set and he's apparently declining. I guess cos he needs to win them all in straight sets tripple bagelling people. He's a hardcourt mug who always needed a miracle to beat Djokovic according to you but pushing Djokovic to the edge in IW, Miami and AO apparently means he's declining..

And you must be able to see Djokovic had a long 5 set with Murray at the US open and then beat Nadal in 6 hours, but at the US Open he couldn't outlast Murray in the final. 2011 was his peak and he will never play like that again.


Nadal IS hardcourt mug. He sucks on hc and always will. He was very fortunate to win what he has on hc because of it.


I definitely disagree with that. I think we will see Cvacman again starting at the AO next year. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:30 AM
He is a big favourite to make the final every year but he can be beaten and was almost beaten by Seppi and Tsonga. So he is not totally immune to a shock loss. Let's not forget in 2011 Bellucci and Murray almost beat him in Rome. Djokovic is a good clay court player but he is not safe from being upset


Yes he is.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Barely. He's practically unbeatable in best of 5 matches,and has been for nearly 2 years now.

yeah, he's won 1 out of the last 4 slams and was a break down in the final set of the only one he did win. 2 of his losses didn't even go to a 5th.

That's the poorest use of the words "barely" and "practically". You should look them up in a dictionary

Nadal IS hardcourt mug. He sucks on hc and always will. He was very fortunate to win what he has on hc because of it.


I definitely disagree with that. I think we will see Cvacman again starting at the AO next year. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

Well if he was always a mug on hardcourt who needed a miracle to beat djokovic, what exactly is your complaint about his 2011-2012 hc losses to Djokovic? He lost as a mug should have. What was your expectations is he's such a mug?

You mean he played even worse than his usual mug level but somehow managed to give Djokovic harder matches than he did 2007-2009?

Yes he is.

No he isn't. He lost to his "pigeon" Tipsy on clay this year.

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Clarky: What do you mean "barely"? It didn't even take grandpa Fed 5 sets to beat him at RG and Wimby. (and Novak was very close to losing at AO to both Murray and Nadal) Anyway, when Rafa is done winning RGs which should be in 8 years or so (haha), I hope Djoko will get one. He has shown great effort on clay. Maybe Delpo will get one too.

3fees
11-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Its an uphill battle,however he has a chance, in Slams and elsewhere

Nadal : In Slams -Finals: 16 (11 titles, 5 runners-up),2003-2012
Nole : In Slams- Finals: 9 (5 titles, 4 runners-up),2005-2012




Federer: In Slams-Finals: 24 (17 titles, 7 runners-up)1998-2012

Nole will set records in Pro tennis,,no doubt, If he stays healthy he'll pass nadal in slams ,,to pass federer he would have to stay around a longer time,,,lol

Gonzo_style
11-04-2012, 11:33 AM
. 2 of his losses didn't even go to a 5th.



With a little more luck they could...

TheFifthSet
11-04-2012, 11:34 AM
Because it's ridiculous to suggest those guys are going to outlast him in a best of 5 match. They would be fortunate to push him to a tiebreaker,and taking even just one set would take an intervention from God himself. They will never,ever beat **** at a slam again.

SEPPI almost beat him. SEPPI. TSONGA had 4 match points. This was in 2012. Can you address that? All you do is evade, evade, evade.

TheFifthSet
11-04-2012, 11:35 AM
It took Fed playing out his skin, and the clay GOAT to take out Djoker at RG the last two years.. Rest assured, Nadal won't be around forever.. And Fed isn't going to play out of skin at the French vs. Djoker again.


And there is no one else right now, besides Nadal who can take Nole out at the French.. Nole has a good half a dozen chances to grab a few French Open titles. Unless people think Nadal will continue his domination at the French for another 4-6 years.. That aint happening

The clay field is pretty weak right now.. Even Murray sucks on clay.. So that leaves Djoker with a TON more opportunities

There are lots of people. I say this as a Djokovic fan.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 11:37 AM
yeah, he's won 1 out of the last 4 slams and was a break down in the final set of the only one he did win. 2 of his losses didn't even go to a 5th.

That's the poorest use of the words "barely" and "practically". You should look them up in a dictionary


Hilarious. Nadal has only won 2 out of the last 8 slams yet you don't think he's past his prime and in decline. You then turn around and say **** is declining because he has won only 1 slam out of the last 4. Last year Nadal only won 1 slam out of the 4 as well but you insisted he was still in his prime while he was losing over and over again. Funny how the rules change when it comes to your favorite player. :lol:

The-Champ
11-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Soderling made 2 FO finals, you can argue Nole is behind him, let alone Federer. And don't even get started with who had greater competition. Roger had a much better version of Nadal on clay from 2005-2009. Nole will benefit from a declining Nadal(especially his movement), so he does have an easy chance to win the FO in the future.

Apart from the Söderling thing, this is probably the only time i will agree with you TMF. Peak Fed was very unfortunate to have faced beast Rafa on clay.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 11:50 AM
Hilarious. Nadal has only won 2 out of the last 8 slams yet you don't think he's past his prime and in decline. You then turn around and say **** is declining because he has won only 1 slam out of the last 4. Last year Nadal only won 1 slam out of the 4 as well but you insisted he was still in his prime while he was losing over and over again. Funny how the rules change when it comes to your favorite player. :lol:

I said Djokovic wasn't practically unbeatable because he had lost in 3 out of 4 slams. I didn't ever say Nadal was practiaclly unbeatable or barely lost in a slam while last year,or any year, so your point fails.

And the decling stuff was taking the ****, sarcastically copying you :lol: I do think he peaked in 2011 and will never reach that level again, and I do think he's not as good as he was even at the AO this year meaning that he will probably be more likely to be upset than he was this year where he almost lost to seppi and Tsonga at RG, but I still think he has a few years of winning slams.

Also you still can't make up your mind who my favourite player even is, so once again you are confused.

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 11:56 AM
I don't think ANYONE other that clarky thinks Novak is unbeatable. Let's be serious, please. He just lost to Querrey :)

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:01 PM
I said Djokovic wasn't practically unbeatable because he had lost in 3 out of 4 slams. I didn't ever say Nadal was practiaclly unbeatable or barely lost in a slam while last year,or any year, so your point fails.

And the decling stuff was taking the ****, sarcastically copying you :lol: I do think he peaked in 2011 and will never reach that level again, and I do think he's not as good as he was even at the AO this year meaning that he will probably be more likely to be upset than he was this year where he almost lost to seppi and Tsonga at RG, but I still think he has a few years of winning slams.

Also you still can't make up your mind who my favourite player even is, so once again you are confused.


Sure it was. :lol:



No. Just no,no,no. You don't really believe that anyway.



Huh? I know you're a ******* and a Cvactard. They are both you're your favorites so I don't see the problem in addressing them as such.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 12:01 PM
Sure it was. :lol:



No. Just no,no,no. You don't really believe that anyway.



Huh? I know you're a ******* and a Cvactard. They are both you're your favorites so I don't see the problem in addressing them as such.

It was clarky,sorry you didn't see that.

And how does Djokovic fallaway totally in the 5th set of the US Open if he was as good as in the AO 2012? He doesn't have the same stamina which could be aslight decline from his absolute peak.

No, you claim I'm a ********* who isn't a federer fan, then claim the opposite.

Basically I argue with you, with veroniquem, with NadalAgassi, with GodNovak, F1Bob, have argued with Monfed and I'm over in one of macenroeartist's threads saying he's being biased towards Federer and against Nadal. I'm also having an argument with gonzo because I say Murray who I dislike is better on indoor hard than Djokovic.

I have my favourites but I'm not a ****. But everyone who doesn't agree with you is a ****, despite the fact you are just a weird variety of *******.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:02 PM
I don't think ANYONE other that clarky thinks Novak is unbeatable. Let's be serious, please. He just lost to Querrey :)



I thought that was a tankjob. Look at all the Cvactards,and several *******s who argued till they were blue in the face that it was.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:03 PM
yes but she doesn't even understand the difference between losing one match and being finished :lol:



What are you talking about?

veroniquem
11-04-2012, 12:06 PM
I thought that was a tankjob. Look at all the Cvactards,and several *******s who argued till they were blue in the face that it was.


Didn't it go 3 sets? Definitely not a tank job.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:13 PM
Didn't it go 3 sets? Definitely not a tank job.



I'll admit that I don't think it was a tankjob,either. I still think **** is nearly unbeatable in slams,though.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:17 PM
It was clarky,sorry you didn't see that.

And how does Djokovic fallaway totally in the 5th set of the US Open if he was as good as in the AO 2012? He doesn't have the same stamina which could be aslight decline from his absolute peak.
No, you claim I'm a ********* who isn't a federer fan, then claim the opposite.

Basically I argue with you, with veroniquem, with NadalAgassi, with GodNovak, F1Bob, have argued with Monfed and I'm over in one of macenroeartist's threads saying he's being biased towards Federer and against Nadal. I'm also having an argument with gonzo because I say Murray who I dislike is better on indoor hard than Djokovic.

I have my favourites but I'm not a ****. But everyone who doesn't agree with you is a ****, despite the fact you are just a weird variety of *******.


I'd tell you what I think,but you'll just insult my sanity again so I won't.


When did I say that? I know you like them both.


You think I am a *******? I am harsh on Nadal and never hero worship him so how do I qualify as a *******?

Steve0904
11-04-2012, 12:23 PM
I thought that was a tankjob. Look at all the Cvactards,and several *******s who argued till they were blue in the face that it was.

As I recall, you argued that it wasn't a tankjob as well.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:25 PM
As I recall, you argued that it wasn't a tankjob as well.


Please refer to post 234.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 12:34 PM
I'd tell you what I think,but you'll just insult my sanity again so I won't.


When did I say that? I know you like them both.


You think I am a *******? I am harsh on Nadal and never hero worship him so how do I qualify as a *******?

well you can say what you think happened if you like. Tbh I think he put too much into the first 2 sets that he lost and didn't have enough in the 5th (maybe more mentally) I do think from AO 2011 to AO2011 Djokovic just had more to give, but that wasn't a normal level anyway so I'm fine with him dropping his level a bit.

Nah,I said to you before Federer is my favourite player and you basically said i was talking BS.

Yeah you're hard on Nadal even if he steam rollers everyone. You're hard on him when he wins slams dropping only one set. You maintain he is playing total garbage. You claim he is a hardcourt mug but then get annoyed with him when he narrowly loses to "the best hardcourt player in the world" - what did you expect?

Basically what this implies is unless Rafa wins every single event he enters, you can only explain it by claiming he is playing to 1% of his ability. Every time he loses he was playing bad blah blah blah. You are a ******* because you can't except he can have any loss unless he is playing terribly. And you come up with rubbish like djokovic being the best hc player in 2010to bolster nadal's US Open win.

Also i think the 7 losses to Djokovic will never leave you no matter what Nadal has or will achieve, so that's where all the negativity comes from. You'd rather he actually never made those finals.

Btw a lot of the posts you and I argue about is me saying Djokovic won't ever match up to nadal, that he won't do this and that, we're arguing here about him being a sure bet for RG, so how does that make ME a *********? Just using your logic.

Steve0904
11-04-2012, 12:37 PM
Please refer to post 234.

Please refer to post 231. Having trouble making up your mind? How shocking.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 12:43 PM
well you can say what you think happened if you like. Tbh I think he put too much into the first 2 sets that he lost and didn't have enough in the 5th (maybe more mentally) I do think from AO 2011 to AO2011 Djokovic just had more to give, but that wasn't a normal level anyway so I'm fine with him dropping his level a bit.

Nah,I said to you before Federer is my favourite player and you basically said i was talking BS.

Yeah you're hard on Nadal even if he steam rollers everyone. You're hard on him when he wins slams dropping only one set. You maintain he is playing total garbage. You claim he is a hardcourt mug but then get annoyed with him when he narrowly loses to "the best hardcourt player in the world" - what did you expect?

Basically what this implies is unless Rafa wins every single event he enters, you can only explain it by claiming he is playing to 1% of his ability. Every time he loses he was playing bad blah blah blah. You are a ******* because you can't except he can have any loss unless he is playing terribly. And you come up with rubbish like djokovic being the best hc player in 2010to bolster nadal's US Open win.

Also i think the 7 losses to Djokovic will never leave you no matter what Nadal has or will achieve, so that's where all the negativity comes from. You'd rather he actually never made those finals.

Btw a lot of the posts you and I argue about is me saying Djokovic won't ever match up to nadal, that he won't do this and that, we're arguing here about him being a sure bet for RG, so how does that make ME a *********? Just using your logic.



When is the last time Nadal steam rolled anyone? Seriously,it's been years so I don't really think that matters.


Again,he IS a hardcourt mug. He has been hilariously bad on hc throughout his entire career,losing again and again to even the biggest of mugs. Do you think he's a top hardcourt player? If you say yes you have got to be kidding me.


I never said he had to win everything he enters. Where you got that from is a mystery to me.


You got that right. I'd rather someone else make those finals so **** had to actually work to win all those titles. They were gifted to him on a silver platter by Nadal's lousy play. Nadal also has zero business being in a hc final against **** anywhere at anytime or else it's only going ot yet another title for ****.


I meant in the popularity department. It's true that he will never be as popular as Nadal or Fed. I think that probably bugs someone that thrives on attention like **** does.

Ms Nadal
11-04-2012, 12:45 PM
Clarky; Do you want Rafa to come back or stay away? Seems like the latter. You see him as a complete failure.

DunlopDood
11-04-2012, 12:47 PM
Yes, because Nadal's body can't keep up with his game.

Towser83
11-04-2012, 12:54 PM
When is the last time Nadal steam rolled anyone? Seriously,it's been years so I don't really think that matters.


Again,he IS a hardcourt mug. He has been hilariously bad on hc throughout his entire career,losing again and again to even the biggest of mugs. Do you think he's a top hardcourt player? If you say yes you have got to be kidding me.


I never said he had to win everything he enters. Where you got that from is a mystery to me.


You got that right. I'd rather someone else make those finals so **** had to actually work to win all those titles. They were gifted to him on a silver platter by Nadal's lousy play. Nadal also has zero business being in a hc final against **** anywhere at anytime or else it's only going ot yet another title for ****.


I meant in the popularity department. It's true that he will never be as popular as Nadal or Fed. I think that probably bugs someone that thrives on attention like **** does.

Last time he steamrollered someone? Try everyone in clay season. Djokovic 6-1 6-3, Ferrer 7-6 6-0 and 6-2 6-2 6-1, Monaco who you thought would trouble him - 6-2 6-0 6-0 :shock:

And again if he's always been such a hardcourt mug, what did you expect him to do vs Djokovic in IW, Miami, US Open AO? Considering he's so terrible, against prime Novak he did BETTER than you could expect. So all your talk of him playing WORSE then ever is just being sore because you hate the fact he lost to Djokovic.

Well whenever he doesn't win anything you maintain it was because he was mugging it up etc. Even when he wins easily you are never happy. That's basically excuse making - nadal didn't win 6-0 6-0 oh he was playing badly

The thing about djokovic is not quite what i meant.My point is if you criticising nadal means you're not a ******* then me criticising Djokovic means i'm not a *********.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 01:34 PM
Clarky; Do you want Rafa to come back or stay away? Seems like the latter. You see him as a complete failure.



I would rather he just retired since his body can't hack it anymore. If he doesn't quit now he's gonna be hobbling around like he's 90 years old by the time he's 30. He can't compete anymore anyway,so he should cut his losses now while he still can.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 01:40 PM
Last time he steamrollered someone? Try everyone in clay season. Djokovic 6-1 6-3, Ferrer 7-6 6-0 and 6-2 6-2 6-1, Monaco who you thought would trouble him - 6-2 6-0 6-0 :shock:

And again if he's always been such a hardcourt mug, what did you expect him to do vs Djokovic in IW, Miami, US Open AO? Considering he's so terrible, against prime Novak he did BETTER than you could expect. So all your talk of him playing WORSE then ever is just being sore because you hate the fact he lost to Djokovic.

Well whenever he doesn't win anything you maintain it was because he was mugging it up etc. Even when he wins easily you are never happy. That's basically excuse making - nadal didn't win 6-0 6-0 oh he was playing badly

The thing about djokovic is not quite what i meant.My point is if you criticising nadal means you're not a ******* then me criticising Djokovic means i'm not a *********.


Nah,some of those matches were closer than the score indicates. He still managed to mug it up at times during those matches as well. He hasn't been dominant anywhere in years.


I never expected him to beat **** anywhere much less on hc. That's why I said he doesn't belong in any final against **** on hc(or anywhere for that matter) because he is only giving **** a bye to yet another title by being there.


When does Nadal ever win easy? Every match he plays is long and a grindfest because he refuses to be aggressive. The way his body is breaking down is proof enough of that.


When did you ever criticize Cvac? If you did it must have been because he lost to Nadal(even though he shouldn't have). Lol.

Steve0904
11-04-2012, 01:55 PM
Nadal has dominated on clay forever, and he also beat Djokovic in 3 clay finals last year, so evidently he "belongs" in finals against **** on at least one surface. I'd ask you to stop being ridiculous, but I know that's pointless.

Clarky21
11-04-2012, 02:09 PM
Nadal has dominated on clay forever, and he also beat Djokovic in 3 clay finals last year, so evidently he "belongs" in finals against **** on at least one surface. I'd ask you to stop being ridiculous, but I know that's pointless.



No he doesn't. I know you will never agree with me,though.

Ms Nadal
11-04-2012, 02:11 PM
Clarky: When did you become a Rafa fan and what made you become a fan?

TheFifthSet
11-04-2012, 02:11 PM
Ok, now I've lost hope that Clarky is merely a misguided but earnest poster. Clearly, she is pulling everyones leg. No point in even arguing with her.

The Bawss
11-04-2012, 02:12 PM
Clarky: When did you become a Rafa fan and what made you become a fan?

Clarky has been a closet ******** for ever.