PDA

View Full Version : How many more Slams do you think Nadal will win?


Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 04:52 PM
Once he's back. And, if you could, predict what they'll be.

I think he's gonna win 3 or 4 more but I'm gonna be an optimist and say 4.

3 French Open titles
1 Wimbledon

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 04:53 PM
I am going to say either 0 or 8. Either he wont return at all or if he does he will be ready:

4 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
1 Australian Open
1 U.S Open

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 04:58 PM
I am going to say either 0 or 8. Either he wont return at all or if he does he will be ready:

4 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
1 Australian Open
1 U.S Open

:confused: Wow

kishnabe
10-20-2012, 05:01 PM
Hopefully zero.

Most likely 4 more.

Tammo
10-20-2012, 05:06 PM
2 fo's at the least
1 Wimbledon at the least
1 AO
maybe 1 USO

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:06 PM
Zero.

10zeros

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:13 PM
Nadal's got the weirdest fans.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:26 PM
Nadal's got the weirdest fans.



Why's that?

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:30 PM
Why's that?

Because one extreme is 10 and the other is zero LOL

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:32 PM
Because one extreme is 10 and the other is zero LOL

Clarky is not a Nadal fan, lol! I am not sure who he is a fan of but it definitely isnt **** or Nadal.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Nadal will probably end up with 10 RG titles, other GS tournaments I do not know...maybe 1 W and 1 AO

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:39 PM
Clarky is not a Nadal fan, lol! I am not sure who he is a fan of but it definitely isnt **** or Nadal.



Yes I am,and once again I am not a "he".

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 05:42 PM
3 more RG, one Wimbledon, one AO.

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:44 PM
Zero. Just because I want Nole to win more, but in all honesty, maybe 3.

I agree! But Can Nole beat Rafa at RG that is the question

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:45 PM
I agree! But Can Nole beat Rafa at RG that is the question



Yes. There's your answer.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:46 PM
Yes. There's your answer.

That is what you said this year, strangely after Djokovic had lost 4 straight sets to Nadal on clay going into RG, and were mistaken.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:51 PM
That is what you said this year, strangely after Djokovic had lost 4 straight sets to Nadal on clay going into RG, and were mistaken.


True,but unless time is standing still Nadal is not getting any younger,and is well past his prime. ******* is in his prime and is practically unstoppable. He will win RG next year,and can and will beat Nadal at RG.


And you yourself said that you though ******* would win RG this year,and repeated it over and over again. Seems like you were mistake as well. Lol.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:52 PM
True,but unless time is standing still Nadal is not getting any younger,and is well past his prime. ******* is in his prime and is practically unstoppable. He will win RG next year,and can and will beat Nadal at RG.


And you yourself said that you though ******* would win RG this year,and repeated it over and over again. Seems like you were mistake as well. Lol.

Djokovic has won 1 Grand Slam this year. Let's not get carried away.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 05:53 PM
******* is in his prime and is practically unstoppable. He will win RG next year,and can and will beat Nadal at RG.


You really believe that or you're trying to jinx him?:razz:

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:06 PM
Djokovic has won 1 Grand Slam this year. Let's not get carried away.



So what that he only won 1 this year? He was also in 2 other slam finals,and is lock to win the AO for at least the next 3 years,if not more. He will also always be the favorite to win the USO,and also RG.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:07 PM
You really believe that or you're trying to jinx him?:razz:


No I really believe that.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:08 PM
True,but unless time is standing still Nadal is not getting any younger,and is well past his prime. ******* is in his prime and is practically unstoppable. He will win RG next year,and can and will beat Nadal at RG.


And you yourself said that you though ******* would win RG this year,and repeated it over and over again. Seems like you were mistake as well. Lol.

He's been stopped many times this year and has only just managed to grab the top ranking from a 31 year old Federer (well he virtually has the top ranking in the bag) He's only won 5 titles, meaning he's been stopped about 8 times out of 13, including 6 times in a row from MC to the olympics.

He could come out next year and dominate. Or 2011 could have been a bit of a one off.

But yeah NadalAgassi thought he'd win RG as well (at least before the start of the clay season) now he's gone back to nadal as his pick for next year. I actually think Novak has a 40% chance of winning RG next year, nadal a 60% chance but it will change as 2013 unfolds.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:17 PM
He's been stopped many times this year and has only just managed to grab the top ranking from a 31 year old Federer (well he virtually has the top ranking in the bag) He's only won 5 titles, meaning he's been stopped about 8 times out of 13, including 6 times in a row from MC to the olympics.

He could come out next year and dominate. Or 2011 could have been a bit of a one off.

But yeah NadalAgassi thought he'd win RG as well (at least before the start of the clay season) now he's gone back to nadal as his pick for next year. I actually think Novak has a 40% chance of winning RG next year, nadal a 60% chance but it will change as 2013 unfolds.



He's still practically unstoppable. He's the favorite to win each and every tournament he enters regardless of how many times he's lost this year.



He will.



No way are Nadal's chances that high. No way in h*ll.

hisrob777
10-20-2012, 06:18 PM
I think he will win at least 2 more slams. His health is the real issue here.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:19 PM
He's still practically unstoppable. He's the favorite to win each and every tournament he enters regardless of how many times he's lost this year.



He will.



No way are Nadal's chances that high. No way in h*ll.

With Dr. Igor, right? :)

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 06:19 PM
No way are Nadal's chances that high. No way in h*ll.

Impossible to know now. Depends on what happens in Rome, MC, Barcelona and Madrid.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:22 PM
So what that he only won 1 this year? He was also in 2 other slam finals,and is lock to win the AO for at least the next 3 years,if not more. He will also always be the favorite to win the USO,and also RG.

Good heavens, next thing we know you'll be saying he's a lock for the Calendar Year Grand Slam!

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:36 PM
With Dr. Igor, right? :)



You know it. :wink:

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:37 PM
Good heavens, next thing we know you'll be saying he's a lock for the Calendar Year Grand Slam!



Well,why isn't he? Who's going to beat him? I still think you're worried about Fed's slam count,and you should be.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:40 PM
He's still practically unstoppable. He's the favorite to win each and every tournament he enters regardless of how many times he's lost this year.



He will.



No way are Nadal's chances that high. No way in h*ll.

Who cares if he's favourite when he gets beaten? You're sort of saying he's unstoppable because he's favourite for everything, even if he actually got beaten in everything.

I'm being generous to Djokovic here, Nadal has 7 RG titles, won the last 3 in a row, killed Djokovic in the clay season, and according to Nadal fans only lost a set cos it ws raining. You yourself siad it "got real" for Djokovic in clay season. So really his 2011 clay success over Nadal is a total one off.

So let's recap - Djokovic favourite for everything even if he were to lose 20 matches in a row. Nadal not a chance in hell even when he constantly kills people on clay and there is no sign of this stopping. Incredible reasoning.

Well,why isn't he? Who's going to beat him? I still think you're worried about Fed's slam count,and you should be.

Same people who beat him in 3 out of 4 slams this year?

So what that he only won 1 this year? He was also in 2 other slam finals,and is lock to win the AO for at least the next 3 years,if not more. He will also always be the favorite to win the USO,and also RG.

so? Nadal was in 3 finals in 2011 and made it 4 in a row this year in Australia. But losing in finals meant jack, right? In fact a while ago you were arguing with Veroniquem saying Djokovic had had a terrible 2012 because it was practically the same as Nadal's 2011. So can you make your mind up whether he had a terrible year this yearor whether it was relly good and shows promise for 2013?

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:40 PM
Well,why isn't he? Who's going to beat him? I still think you're worried about Fed's slam count,and you should be.

Tomic is more likely to surpass Federer than Djokovic is. I'm not even kidding. Djokovic left it too late.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:42 PM
Tomic is more likely to surpass Federer than Djokovic is. I'm not even kidding. Djokovic left it too late.

You CANNOT be serious!

Tammo
10-20-2012, 06:43 PM
Well,why isn't he? Who's going to beat him? I still think you're worried about Fed's slam count,and you should be.

Tsonga on red clay had 4MP's pretty sad for Djoko...

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:43 PM
You CANNOT be serious!

Okay, I'm kidding.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 06:59 PM
Tomic is more likely to surpass Federer than Djokovic is. I'm not even kidding. Djokovic left it too late.

or someone Tomic's age with 20 times more his talent and 20000 times more his willpower and a better attitude I would agree. :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 07:01 PM
You are officially the biggest troll on this forum (and the stupidest, of course)

Djokovic won't get to 17 Slams :) Accept it, man. Breathe slowly and purposefully... don't get excited... and accept it.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:02 PM
Who cares if he's favourite when he gets beaten? You're sort of saying he's unstoppable because he's favourite for everything, even if he actually got beaten in everything.

I'm being generous to Djokovic here, Nadal has 7 RG titles, won the last 3 in a row, killed Djokovic in the clay season, and according to Nadal fans only lost a set cos it ws raining. You yourself siad it "got real" for Djokovic in clay season. So really his 2011 clay success over Nadal is a total one off.So let's recap - Djokovic favourite for everything even if he were to lose 20 matches in a row. Nadal not a chance in hell even when he constantly kills people on clay and there is no sign of this stopping. Incredible reasoning.



Same people who beat him in 3 out of 4 slams this year?



so? Nadal was in 3 finals in 2011 and made it 4 in a row this year in Australia. But losing in finals meant jack, right? In fact a while ago you were arguing with Veroniquem saying Djokovic had had a terrible 2012 because it was practically the same as Nadal's 2011. So can you make your mind up whether he had a terrible year this yearor whether it was relly good and shows promise for 2013?


How many times Nadal has won RG is irrelevant. Fed won how many Wimby's straight before he lost to Nadal there? Nadal is on borrowed time at RG,and ******* will win it next year.


I don't think it was,and I also think he can repeat the same success he had against Nadal on clay last year. Especially now that Nadal is practically retired.


He does show promise for next year. His competition is also not as strong. He's more dominant than Nadal ever has been,and is mentally tougher as well.

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:02 PM
To prisoner: Of course not. I'm not sure he will even reach 10.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 07:05 PM
How many times Nadal has won RG is irrelevant. Fed won how many Wimby's straight before he lost to Nadal there? Nadal is on borrowed time at RG,and ******* will win it next year.


I don't think it was,and I also think he can repeat the same success he had against Nadal on clay last year. Especially now that Nadal is practically retired.


He does show promise for next year. His competition is also not as strong. He's more dominant than Nadal ever has been,and is mentally tougher as well.

LOL, yeah. Cause not winning any of the last 3 Slams is more dominant than winning 3 consecutive Slams (2010).

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 07:05 PM
To prisoner: Of course not. I'm not sure he will even reach 10.

Yeah, I'm saying that to No1e :) Just to make baby boy cry :twisted:

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:08 PM
To prisoner: Of course not. I'm not sure he will even reach 10.



Oh,please. He will get to 10 with his eyes closed and one arm tied behind his back.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:09 PM
LOL, yeah. Cause not winning any of the last 3 Slams is more dominant than winning 3 consecutive Slams (2010).



Overall ******* has been more dominant. He can go on another run easily,but do you see Nadal doing that? I sure don't.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 07:10 PM
How many times Nadal has won RG is irrelevant. Fed won how many Wimby's straight before he lost to Nadal there? Nadal is on borrowed time at RG,and ******* will win it next year.


I don't think it was,and I also think he can repeat the same success he had against Nadal on clay last year. Especially now that Nadal is practically retired.


He does show promise for next year. His competition is also not as strong. He's more dominant than Nadal ever has been,and is mentally tougher as well.

Nadal gave himself a big hope at Wimbledon 2007 though and after destroying Fed at RG 2008, it was a big sign Nadal was going to beat Federer at Wimbledon. What has Novak done? He's taken one measly set off Nadal in 4 meetings at RG. Where Nadal improved year by year vs Fed at Wimbledon, Djokovic has gone backwards from his success in 2011 to getting wiped out by Nadal in 2012. If he could have managed to push Nadal to 5 that would have been another story. But he won one set because it rained. That's not any basis for thinking Nadal will lose to him next year. The only reason I think he might is cos one day he will lose there again and Djokovic is capable of doing it, but the odds are still in Nadal's favour.

And dunno how next year looks promising after Novak had such a terrible year in 2012, especially considering Murray had even the confidence of winning a slam til the US Open, meaning he will probably be tougher right from the AO next year.

also do you mean he has been more dominant than nadal ever has, THIS YEAR?

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Overall ******* has been more dominant. He can go on another run easily,but do you see Nadal doing that? I sure don't.

Djokovic is more likely to dominate in the future. But Nadal has had twice as much success as Djokovic in the past. Seriously, it sounds like you're a Djotard masquerading as a fan of Nadal's. You know what, I'm convinced.

PCXL-Fan
10-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Barring a disastrous injury that takes away his capabilities fro good:

4 FO+ at least
1-2 HC
1-2 Wimbledon

6-9 slams... Nadal has many more years ahead of him.

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:13 PM
Oh,please. He will get to 10 with his eyes closed and one arm tied behind his back.

Lol no top player has ever won more titles after 25 than before/at 25, so his best results are already behind him. I say it will be a feat if he reaches the double digits. But the odds are against it.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:17 PM
Djokovic is more likely to dominate in the future. But Nadal has had twice as much success as Djokovic in the past. Seriously, it sounds like you're a Djotard masquerading as a fan of Nadal's. You know what, I'm convinced.


No way. I loathe ******* and always have. If you think I am a fan of him,even though I have made it very clear that I cannot stand the guy,then I don't know what to tell you.


And I have been a Nadal fan since 2005.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 07:19 PM
Lol no top player has ever won more titles after 25 than before/at 25,


http://www.posters57.com/images/andre.jpg

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 07:19 PM
No way. I loathe ******* and always have. If you think I am a fan of him,even though I have made it very clear that I cannot stand the guy,then I don't know what to tell you.


And I have been a Nadal fan since 2005.

The more you argue against it, the more you strengthen my point :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 07:20 PM
http://www.posters57.com/images/andre.jpg

That's because he wasted half his prime snorting.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:24 PM
Nadal gave himself a big hope at Wimbledon 2007 though and after destroying Fed at RG 2008, it was a big sign Nadal was going to beat Federer at Wimbledon. What has Novak done? He's taken one measly set off Nadal in 4 meetings at RG. Where Nadal improved year by year vs Fed at Wimbledon, Djokovic has gone backwards from his success in 2011 to getting wiped out by Nadal in 2012. If he could have managed to push Nadal to 5 that would have been another story. But he won one set because it rained. That's not any basis for thinking Nadal will lose to him next year. The only reason I think he might is cos one day he will lose there again and Djokovic is capable of doing it, but the odds are still in Nadal's favour.

And dunno how next year looks promising after Novak had such a terrible year in 2012, especially considering Murray had even the confidence of winning a slam til the US Open, meaning he will probably be tougher right from the AO next year.


also do you mean he has been more dominant than nadal ever has, THIS YEAR?


He lost to him,but I don't think he was "wipedout". He still pushed Nadal and made their matches close. He can and will end up beating Nadal on clay again,including at RG.



Wait a minute. Didn't you say Nadal had a great year last year even though he lost final after final to the same guy? Why do you think ******* had a bad year when his year has been very similar?


No.


No,I mean ******* has been more dominant than Nadal ever has throughout their careers. Even though ******* peaked later,he has dominated practically every tournament he has played for nearly 2 years now. Nadal has never done that throughout his whole career.

90's Clay
10-20-2012, 07:27 PM
2 More French Opens
1-2 more wimbledons
1 more AO.

4-5 more possibly. Giving him 15-16 slams to end his career.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:32 PM
The more you argue against it, the more you strengthen my point :)



Whatever you want to believe,but you are definitely way off on this one.

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:37 PM
http://www.posters57.com/images/andre.jpg


No, not even Agassi. Agassi won 32 titles before he turned 26. And 28 from 26 onwards. You can check, it works for all the tennis greats. You can take the # of titles Rafa or Novak win by their 26th birthday and be pretty confident that whatever they win afterwards will be less than that. So Rafa will win less than 50 titles in the future :( :)

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 07:46 PM
No, not even Agassi. Agassi won 32 titles before he turned 26. And 28 from 26 onwards. You can check, it works for all the tennis greats. You can take the # of titles Rafa or Novak win by their 26th birthday and be pretty confident that whatever they win afterwards will be less than that. So Rafa will win less than 50 titles in the future :( :)

But we're talking about slams here. He won 3 before the slump and 5 afterwards. And you said 25 first, not 26:). So even for overall titles it would work.

Even the AO that was the last GS he won before the slump was in 1995, the year he turned 25 (but a few months before his birthday).

Towser83
10-20-2012, 07:49 PM
He lost to him,but I don't think he was "wipedout". He still pushed Nadal and made their matches close. He can and will end up beating Nadal on clay again,including at RG.



Wait a minute. Didn't you say Nadal had a great year last year even though he lost final after final to the same guy? Why do you think ******* had a bad year when his year has been very similar?


No.


No,I mean ******* has been more dominant than Nadal ever has throughout their careers. Even though ******* peaked later,he has dominated practically every tournament he has played for nearly 2 years now. Nadal has never done that throughout his whole career.

oh come on MC was a slaughter, Rome a bit better but still straight sets. RG was looking like that too til Novak got better for a while and was screwed by the match being taken off, or was allowed to win a set only cos of the rain- you choose which reason.

And I don't think Djokovic has had a terrible year in 2012, i'm just going by what you said about nadal's 2011 and djoko's 2012.

I don't know what you mean by dominated every tournament. Can't be winning the same event all the time, so must be winning it easily. Which is only true of the AO and Wimbledon in slams, perhaps some some masters too. Still Nadal has won RG, MC, Rome, Madrid and Barca easily multiple times.

MichaelNadal
10-20-2012, 07:50 PM
I think he'll get 4 more slams before he retires if he comes back healthy and ready to go. He doesn't want to retire till 2016 so it's feasible if he's healthy.

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:51 PM
But we're talking about slams here. He won 3 before the slump and 5 afterwards. And you said 25 first, not 26:). So even for overall titles it would work.

Even the AO that was the last GS he won before the slump was in 1995, the year he turned 25 (but a few months before his birthday).

I said : before and at (meaning until the player turns 26). Sure it only works for titles overall. Novak can still try to emulate Agassi in slams :)

Towser83
10-20-2012, 07:53 PM
The more you argue against it, the more you strengthen my point :)

She's not a Djokovic fan. And no offence but it's kind of frustrating when people say "you are this and if you deny it, that proves my point!" cos if it's not true, of course they will deny it.. so it's a no win situation for the accused :lol:

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 07:54 PM
I said : before and at (meaning until the player turns 26). Sure it only works for titles overall. Novak can still try to emulate Agassi in slams :)

So I guess it depends where the 25 goes, if in the "before" or the "after", :) haha.

But I wast just referring at the Slams anyway. He will probably end up winning less titles from now on than he already did, but he will focus mainly in slams (specially RG).

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:56 PM
Novak will turn 26 next May, so he can still win plenty before the inexorable descent starts...

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 07:59 PM
She's not a Djokovic fan. And no offence but it's kind of frustrating when people say "you are this and if you deny it, that proves my point!" cos if it's not true, of course they will deny it.. so it's a no win situation for the accused :lol:


No I'm not. And I have no idea how anyone could even remotely think I am. Lol.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:00 PM
Novak will turn 26 next May, so he can still win plenty before the inexorable descent starts...



This is silly. He will only be 26,and still in young in tennis years. He won't have any trouble winning slams/titles after this mythical number you keep talking about comes and goes.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:01 PM
She's not a Djokovic fan. And no offence but it's kind of frustrating when people say "you are this and if you deny it, that proves my point!" cos if it's not true, of course they will deny it.. so it's a no win situation for the accused :lol:

If she weren't a Djokovic fan masquerading as a Nadal fan, she'd just be like, "Meh, whatever dude" when I accuse her. She wouldn't be like, "ZOMG I HATE ******* AND LOVEZZZ NADALZZ SINCE I WAS BORN."

librarysteg
10-20-2012, 08:01 PM
This one is too hard to predict until he comes back. Like I saw in the Djokovic thread, I'm afraid Nadal is never going to come back as strong as he was. I hope I'm wrong. I think there's a good chance he'll win no more or only one, but I'm going to be optimistic and say three.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:07 PM
This is silly. He will only be 26,and still in young in tennis years. He won't have any trouble winning slams/titles after this mythical number you keep talking about comes and goes.

Nadal's "just" 26 as well and you're calling him a fossil :twisted:

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 08:10 PM
Nadal is one year older than Djoko and Murray, that's why he's already in the fossilized stage of his career ;-)

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:14 PM
Nadal's "just" 26 as well and you're calling him a fossil :twisted:



It's about the mileage,and Nadal has a lot of miles on him.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:16 PM
It's about the mileage,and Nadal has a lot of miles on him.

He's rested now. Either way, noone expects him to win 10 more Slams (except *** but even he's just trolling). It's just silly to say he's not gonna win any more, even at the Slam he's lost just once before. Besides, it's not like Djokovic is too far behind in milage.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:17 PM
If she weren't a Djokovic fan masquerading as a Nadal fan, she'd just be like, "Meh, whatever dude" when I accuse her. She wouldn't be like, "ZOMG I HATE ******* AND LOVEZZZ NADALZZ SINCE I WAS BORN."



This is some of the dumbest logic I have ever seen on here. If someone accused you of being something you're not you would defend yourself and say the opposite. I seriously cannot believe you think I am a ******* fan considering he is my least favorite player. I loathe him and his family. How anyone who reads my posts could think I am a fan of his is mindblowing since I have made it abundantly clear that he is a boil on the a** of the ATP that needs lanced with a quickness.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:19 PM
This is some of the dumbest logic I have ever seen on here. If someone accused you of being something you're not you would defend yourself and say the opposite. I seriously cannot believe you think I am a ******* fan considering he is my least favorite player. I loathe him and his family. How anyone who reads my posts could think I am a fan of his is mindblowing since I have made it abundantly clear that he is a boil on the a** of the ATP that needs lanced with a quickness.

Because you attack him personally but not as a player. On the other hand, you attack Nadal both personally and as a player. I'll take the lesser of the two evils, thanks.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:19 PM
He's rested now. Either way, noone expects him to win 10 more Slams (except *** but even he's just trolling). It's just silly to say he's not gonna win any more, even at the Slam he's lost just once before. Besides, it's not like Djokovic is too far behind in milage.



It doesn't matter how rested he is if he's hobbling around on 80 year old knees. I also don't think he's nearly as mentally tough as he used to be either,and his mental toughness is what has kept him in matches against far better and more talented players over the years. Losing that is nearly as bad as his knees turning to Jell-O.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:21 PM
Because you attack him personally but not as a player. On the other hand, you attack Nadal both personally and as a player. I'll take the lesser of the two evils, thanks.



Whatever you want to think,but like I already said,you are way off on this one.

Also,I think ******* is a better all around player than Nadal. That's why I don't say much about his weaknesses because he has very few. He's the more talented of the two,but that doesn't mean I have to like him because I don't.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:29 PM
Whatever you want to think,but like I already said,you are way off on this one.

Also,I think ******* is a better all around player than Nadal. That's why I don't say much about his weaknesses because he has very few. He's the more talented of the two,but that doesn't mean I have to like him because I don't.

Your reasons for hating Djokovic are flimsy at best.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:46 PM
Your reasons for hating Djokovic are flimsy at best.



I don't think they are. At least not to me. I don't like his on court celebrations,his family,his arrogance,his rope-a-doping,his shady character,his over the top patriotism,his hypocrisy,his foul mouth,the way he treats linesmen,his on court demeanor,etc... He's just the type of player that rubs me the wrong way,and when you add in his obnoxious Hillfolk family,it's over for him with me.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:52 PM
I don't think they are. At least not to me. I don't like his on court celebrations,his family,his arrogance,his rope-a-doping,his shady character,his over the top patriotism,his hypocrisy,his foul mouth,the way he treats linesmen,his on court demeanor,etc... He's just the type of player that rubs me the wrong way,and when you add in his obnoxious Hillfolk family,it's over for him with me.

Nadal (who is apparently your favorite player) celebrates just as heavily as Djokovic. Arrogance, well, he's extremely humble and gracious in defeat so that evens it out. His rope-a-doping also isn't too unlike Nadal or Murray for that matter. I don't recall his patriotism being "over the top" but even if it was, that's not a terrible thing at all. Linesmen, I'll give you that. His on-court demeanor, I don't even know what you mean by that. He applauds his opponent's good shots. His family, yeah, they're better off with their mouths shut, but that doesn't have anything to do with him, personally.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 09:05 PM
Nadal (who is apparently your favorite player) celebrates just as heavily as Djokovic. Arrogance, well, he's extremely humble and gracious in defeat so that evens it out. His rope-a-doping also isn't too unlike Nadal or Murray for that matter. I don't recall his patriotism being "over the top" but even if it was, that's not a terrible thing at all. Linesmen, I'll give you that. His on-court demeanor, I don't even know what you mean by that. He applauds his opponent's good shots. His family, yeah, they're better off with their mouths shut, but that doesn't have anything to do with him, personally.


No. Have you ever seen Nadal strip on court after a win? How about tearing off his clothes like the hulk? How about roaring and beating his chest like a gorilla? His behavior is obnoxious,and put me off right away. He's a horrible winner in every way.


No again. I think his graciousness is all an act. His real character comes out when he wins,and it's ugly.


Well,I think he's the worst about it followed by Andy. He sucks air like a fish out of water and acts dead but then goes out there and runs around like a rabbit. I also wouldn't trust his supposed injuries even if they came notarized.



Well,it is. Another thing that bugs me is how he preaches his love for Serbia all the while living in MC and paying no taxes there. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.


The applauding of his opponents shots is him being a smart*ss,imo. And notice how he usually only does that when he's in a winning postion. It's not sincere,and to me is just more of his arrogance shining through.


Yes they are,but they don't seem bright enough to figure that out. They insult and demean Nadal,Fed,Murray and whoever else the feel like on a regular basis. I'd be ashamed if they were related to me,and would bar them from coming to my matches,or giving interviews about me.


Oh,and I also don't like his car humping,disrespectful coach who also likes to run his gob whenever he feels like it.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 09:12 PM
No. Have you ever seen Nadal strip on court after a win? How about tearing off his clothes like the hulk? How about roaring and beating his chest like a gorilla? His behavior is obnoxious,and put me off right away. He's a horrible winner in every way.


No again. I think his graciousness is all an act. His real character comes out when he wins,and it's ugly.


Well,I think he's the worst about it followed by Andy. He sucks air like a fish out of water and acts dead but then goes out there and runs around like a rabbit. I also wouldn't trust his supposed injuries even if they came notarized.



Well,it is. Another thing that bugs me is how he preaches his love for Serbia all the while living in MC and paying no taxes there. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.


The applauding of his opponents shots is him being a smart*ss,imo. And notice how he usually only does that when he's in a winning postion. It's not sincere,and to me is just more of his arrogance shining through.


Yes they are,but they don't seem bright enough to figure that out. They insult and demean Nadal,Fed,Murray and whoever else the feel like on a regular basis. I'd be ashamed if they were related to me,and would bar them from coming to my matches,or giving interviews about me.


Oh,and I also don't like his car humping,disrespectful coach who also likes to run his gob whenever he feels like it.

Well, okay, but his graciousness in defeat isn't an act. I doubt even Daniel Day-Lewis could fake graciousness that well once he's come out of a long, tiresome match in defeat.

librarysteg
10-20-2012, 09:47 PM
This is some of the dumbest logic I have ever seen on here. If someone accused you of being something you're not you would defend yourself and say the opposite. I seriously cannot believe you think I am a ******* fan considering he is my least favorite player. I loathe him and his family. How anyone who reads my posts could think I am a fan of his is mindblowing since I have made it abundantly clear that he is a boil on the a** of the ATP that needs lanced with a quickness.

How can you *loathe* a tennis player? I don't get when people seem to have such hatred for people they don't know personally. It's weird.

Tony48
10-20-2012, 09:50 PM
You really believe that or you're trying to jinx him?:razz:

She anti-jinxed Nadal so hard that he quit tennis.

Immediately after Rosol loss: "Nadal won't win another tennis match for the rest of his life!"

Oops

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 09:56 PM
How can you *loathe* a tennis player? I don't get when people seem to have such hatred for people they don't know personally. It's weird.



Look,I don't have to like everybody on earth,and I don't like *******. I guess everything I wrote as to why I don't like him went right over your head.


And I never said I hated him. Loathe and hate have two different meanings,you know. Also,have you never disliked someone you didn't know personally? I highly doubt you haven't.

vive le beau jeu !
10-21-2012, 02:53 AM
1 or 2...
















... PGA slams.

batz
10-21-2012, 03:12 AM
Look,I don't have to like everybody on earth,and I don't like *******. I guess everything I wrote as to why I don't like him went right over your head.


And I never said I hated him. Loathe and hate have two different meanings,you know. Also,have you never disliked someone you didn't know personally? I highly doubt you haven't.

Loathe and loath have 2 different meanings, but to loathe is synonymous with to hate.

OverratedIvanovic
10-21-2012, 05:29 AM
I think at most he has 2-3 RGs left. He might win 1 wimbly if he gets lucky with the draw but I dont think he can win a hardcourt slam now.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-21-2012, 05:34 AM
Yes. There's your answer.

Yep, Djokovic's inability to win more than a set in 4 meetings with Nadal at Roland Garros sure indicates that he can beat him there.

This thread is merely wishful thinking, particularly the people who think he won't win a slam ever again.

Nadal will never stop winning Roland Garros; it's his pet slam, and he's the only king of a slam in the Open Era (7 Roland Garros titles, a record). Then the discussion won't be whether or not Nadal can pass 17 slams, but how far PAST 17 slams he can go.

It's all fun and games until Nadal wins 18 slams. That's a permanent fixture on the hearts of all federer fans.

Def
10-21-2012, 05:36 AM
I think at most he has 2-3 RGs left. He might win 1 wimbly if he gets lucky with the draw but I dont think he can win a hardcourt slam now.

Not sure if trolling but... I think that his best bet are the hard court slams, he's made every hard court slam final since the 2010 USO. I think he may win 1-3 more AO, 0-2 RG (More likely just 1), 0-1 Wimbledon (if he is lucky one year), and 1-2 USO. Leaving him with probably around 7-9 slams.

OverratedIvanovic
10-21-2012, 05:47 AM
Not sure if trolling but... I think that his best bet are the hard court slams, he's made every hard court slam final since the 2010 USO. I think he may win 1-3 more AO, 0-2 RG (More likely just 1), 0-1 Wimbledon (if he is lucky one year), and 1-2 USO. Leaving him with probably around 7-9 slams.

Umm No, he lost in QF to Ferrer at AO 2011 so he hasn't made every hardcourt final since 2010 USO.

And how are hardcourt slams his best bet :confused:? At the moment there are 2 better HC players than him - Djokovic and Murray. The only chance I see him winning a HC slam is Federer takes out Djokovic for him in the semis and he can beat Federer. Either way he has to go through either Djokovic or new Murray most probably to win a HC slam which won't be easy. And this is assuming he will be back at the same level where he was and will be consistently making 2nd week. 6-7 months without match practice is a long period and he is no longer 24.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 05:57 AM
Yep, Djokovic's inability to win more than a set in 4 meetings with Nadal at Roland Garros sure indicates that he can beat him there.

This thread is merely wishful thinking, particularly the people who think he won't win a slam ever again.

Nadal will never stop winning Roland Garros; it's his pet slam, and he's the only king of a slam in the Open Era (7 Roland Garros titles, a record). Then the discussion won't be whether or not Nadal can pass 17 slams, but how far PAST 17 slams he can go.

It's all fun and games until Nadal wins 18 slams. That's a permanent fixture on the hearts of all federer fans.

The problem with this is that even if he gets to 18 or more slams he needs more slams away from clay to truly surpass Federer, and I'm not sure he's got many of those left.

NatF
10-21-2012, 06:07 AM
Who cares if Nadal wins 10 French Opens in the grand scheme of things? He's already the greatest claycourter of all time. If he gets upset by Rosols at Wimbledon and falls to Djokovic on the hard courts his legacy won't be that of a GOAT.

Def
10-21-2012, 06:11 AM
Umm No, he lost in QF to Ferrer at AO 2011 so he hasn't made every hardcourt final since 2010 USO.

And how are hardcourt slams his best bet :confused:? At the moment there are 2 better HC players than him - Djokovic and Murray. The only chance I see him winning a HC slam is Federer takes out Djokovic for him in the semis and he can beat Federer. Either way he has to go through either Djokovic or new Murray most probably to win a HC slam which won't be easy. And this is assuming he will be back at the same level where he was and will be consistently making 2nd week. 6-7 months without match practice is a long period and he is no longer 24.

I thought I was on the Djokovic Slam Thread, my bad :oops:

tennisaddict
10-21-2012, 06:29 AM
Nadal will never stop winning Roland Garros; it's his pet slam, and he's the only king of a slam in the Open Era (7 Roland Garros titles, a record). Then the discussion won't be whether or not Nadal can pass 17 slams, but how far PAST 17 slams he can go.

It's all fun and games until Nadal wins 18 slams. That's a permanent fixture on the hearts of all federer fans.

The problem with you is that you are so deluded that even when Rafa retires and probably in his 70's or 80's , you would believe that he will come back from retirement and win the FO.

Tony48
10-21-2012, 07:58 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Clarky and BULLZ1LLA/6-1, 6-3, 6-0 were the same person. They both have extraordinarily different ways of exhibiting their love for Nadal but they both exercise the same degree of delusion.

This must be a fun game for him or her.

librarysteg
10-21-2012, 08:02 AM
Look,I don't have to like everybody on earth,and I don't like *******. I guess everything I wrote as to why I don't like him went right over your head.


And I never said I hated him. Loathe and hate have two different meanings,you know. Also,have you never disliked someone you didn't know personally? I highly doubt you haven't.

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of loathe: "to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance : detest" synonym: hate.

Definition of hate: "extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing"

So yes, they have essentially the same meaning. I expect everyone to have their favorites and least favorites. I just really don't get the hate and loathing and posting about it non-stop. I would enjoy someone explaining the mindset to me so maybe I do understand it. And no, I've honestly never hated someone I don't know. With athletes and celebrities I have my favorites and least favorites, but my least favorites don't generate that level of negative emotion they seem to for a lot of people around here. Psychologically and Sociologically, I'm becoming interested in the phenomenon. Like I said, it seems weird to me, and I'd like a better understanding.

RF20Lennon
10-21-2012, 08:13 AM
Nadal will win 3 or 4 more RG's

kalyan4fedever
10-21-2012, 08:16 AM
what with the icon on every quote , it is distracting to say the least [----------delete post-----------]

tudwell
10-21-2012, 02:41 PM
I predict he'll win three more and match Sampras with 14 slams.

Mike Sams
10-21-2012, 03:54 PM
Nadal has 2 more RGs left in him. Just remember how taxing each season is and the wear and tear of the grind on the tour. 2 years from now, his body will show his age. There's a reason why players are at their ends at 29. Look at the sharp decline of the likes of Davydenko, Blake and Nalbandian. People may consider Federer the exception but Federer has won 2 out of the past 12 Slams and hasn't had even 1/10 as many physical problems as Nadal. Every new season becomes harder and harder. The past has no bearing on the future.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 03:57 PM
Hang on a minute..

I am going to say either 0 or 8. Either he wont return at all or if he does he will be ready:

4 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
1 Australian Open
1 U.S Open

11 + 8 = 19. Fed's record is 17

From the how many slam's will Djokovic win thread

Nadal's chances to catch Federer probably died at Wimbledon this year. Had he won he would only be 4 behind now and would have a real shot, but 6 behind and with all his momentum gone with the combination of a terrible Wimbledon and injury, it will be extremely difficult. I think it is looking more likely the order will stay as it is now. Nadal probably wont catch Federer, Djokovic probably wont catch Nadal, Murray IMO definitely wont catch Djokovic (even if he is the best and most successful player and wins the most slams of all over the next 4-5 years which I dont think will happen, he still wouldnt be 4 or more slams better than Djokovic in that span). Lastly Murray will definitely win more future slams than Del Potro. In a sense I hope Del Potro reaches 2 or 3, but in another sense that would be an injustice, if he does it he deserves it, but looking at players like Roddick and Hewitt who stayed at the top level for so many years and only won 2 or 1, Del Potro doesnt seem worthy of anymore than 1 by comparision.

Classic NadalAgassi :lol:

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 04:45 PM
Federer is probably winning more slams as well. He said he would play until 2016 and with the super field these days he will probably win atleast 2 more, considering there is nobody outside the current top 4 who can win a slam for another 6 years or so probably, the exact same reasons my predictions for all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were so high too, since mugs of the worthless up and coming generation like Raonic and Tomic arent winning squat all except 1 fluke slam amongst them all if lucky. As usual your attempted point is no point.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 04:51 PM
Federer is probably winning more slams as well. He said he would play until 2016 and with the super field these days he will probably win atleast 2 more, considering there is nobody outside the current top 4 who can win a slam for another 6 years or so probably. As usual your attempted point is no point.

Six years? That is too long imo. It is true that the current crop of young players seem lacking in talent but there will be somebody who will come in and step up to beat the top four for sure by six years from now! The top four won't be playing in six years from now, they will all be retired! There will be a junior or two who will come in by that time and step up or one of the guys now who is "iffy" such as Raonic may be step up or even Tomic if he can ever get his head together.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 04:53 PM
Six years? That is too long imo. It is true that the current crop of young players seem lacking in talent but there will be somebody who will come in and step up to beat the top four for sure by six years from now! The top four won't be playing in six years from now, they will all be retired! There will be a junior or two who will come in by that time and step up or one of the guys now who is "ify" such as Raonic may be step up or even Tomic if he can ever get his head together.

Who knows how long it will last, but I expect it will be another 3 or 4 years atleast. Raonic and Tomic are 1 slam calibre players at best IMO. The rest of their age group arent even worth talking about. Maybe the generation after that will hold more promise but people I have talked to arent impressed with the current juniors either. The next really good generation will come at some point but they arent on the near horizon of arriving either.

The lack of any decent up and coming talent has been a trend for a number of years now. Donald Young was the youngest player in the top 100 and had never lost to a player younger than him only a couple years ago. Donald freaking Young!

cc0509
10-21-2012, 04:54 PM
Federer is probably winning more slams as well. He said he would play until 2016 and with the super field these days he will probably win atleast 2 more, considering there is nobody outside the current top 4 who can win a slam for another 6 years or so probably, the exact same reasons my predictions for all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were so high too, since mugs of the worthless up and coming generation like Raonic and Tomic arent winning squat all except 1 fluke slam amongst them all if lucky. As usual your attempted point is no point.

He said he may play another 2-5 years most recently. But do you think he really knows how much longer he will play? It will depend on many things in the next few years. For example, his results, whether he is injured, his family, etc. etc.
Personally, I do not think Federer will play until 2016, not even close.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 04:59 PM
Federer is probably winning more slams as well. He said he would play until 2016 and with the super field these days he will probably win atleast 2 more, considering there is nobody outside the current top 4 who can win a slam for another 6 years or so probably, the exact same reasons my predictions for all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were so high too, since mugs of the worthless up and coming generation like Raonic and Tomic arent winning squat all except 1 fluke slam amongst them all if lucky. As usual your attempted point is no point.

Oh Towser has a point, you just don't want to admit it. As it is, 6 years is way too long to project. Long term predictions, especially ones of years rarely work out in tennis. Who thought Djokovic would have the 2011 he did? Who thought Nadal would have a 2010 like he did after all that went on before that?Who thought Federer would return to #1?

cc0509
10-21-2012, 05:05 PM
Who knows how long it will last, but I expect it will be another 3 or 4 years atleast. Raonic and Tomic are 1 slam calibre players at best IMO. The rest of their age group arent even worth talking about. Maybe the generation after that will hold more promise but people I have talked to arent impressed with the current juniors either. The next really good generation will come at some point but they arent on the near horizon of arriving either.


For Federer, I think he has another year or two max. Nadal I think will have another two good years. Djokovic and Murray, who are at the peak of their powers probably have another three good years. But this is only if all of the above are not injured or some other circumstance takes place, i.e. they lose motivation, etc.

I agree that the young guys who are in the top 100 now do not look promising but you never know what is going to happen. Raonic looks the best to me out of a bad lot. He has the most motivation and best attitude imo. Tomic has talent but he seems like he is a head case. We will see if they can get it together or not. There will be a kid or two with some real talent who will eventually come along in the next few years, they always do.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 05:07 PM
Oh Towser has a point, you just don't want to admit it. As it is, 6 years is way too long to project. Long term predictions, especially ones of years rarely work out in tennis. Who thought Djokovic would have the 2011 he did? Who thought Nadal would have a 2010 like he did after all that went on before that?Who thought Federer would return to #1?

I agree 100%. Six years is way too long to project in tennis and you never know what will happen. Somebody could be injured or a top guy like Djokovic may lose motivation, etc. etc.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 05:46 PM
Long term predictions are actually much easier to make than short term, especialy general ones. 5 years ago if one said Federer will have 17 slams 5 years from now (he had 12 at the time), Nadal would have 11 (he had 3 at the time), Djokovic will have 5 (he had 0 at the time but was clearly on the rise and the main upcoming threat to Federer and Nadal) most would have thought those were quite reasonable. All the surprising year to year and the timing of how it all played out wouldnt really matter to the overall scheme of how it turned out. At that point there didnt seem to be much in the way of up and comers but you have thought they would be here by now and if not already starting to win big, be ready to shortly after 2012, but as it turns out that is the not the case either.

As for how long everyone will play I think that will largely be how long they all think they can win, apart from their bodies breaking down so badly they cant play. Djokovic, Murray, or Nadal wont retire before 30 if they are still winning slams, not a chance. Nadal's body "might" break down before he is 31, but I wouldnt be so sure on the other two.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 05:48 PM
Federer is probably winning more slams as well. He said he would play until 2016 and with the super field these days he will probably win atleast 2 more, considering there is nobody outside the current top 4 who can win a slam for another 6 years or so probably, the exact same reasons my predictions for all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were so high too, since mugs of the worthless up and coming generation like Raonic and Tomic arent winning squat all except 1 fluke slam amongst them all if lucky. As usual your attempted point is no point.

I thought you idn't think Federer would win more than 1 more slam at most. I stand corrected.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 05:52 PM
I thought you idn't think Federer would win more than 1 more slam at most. I stand corrected.

I probably made that prediction about a year ago but he surprised me with his play this year. I also thought the mens version of Generation Suck would have made more progress than they are now. They are now mostly around 22 or 23, that is the age each year they make scant or no progress makes them becoming champions more unlikely. I know there are late bloomers, but they arent even in the top 10 yet.

When I see people having Nadal + Djokovic + Murray + Federer all winning a combined 8 slams or less in the future between them all I think to myself WTF who is going to win all those other slams. I know some new people will have to emerge at some point, but even so I just cant see that group amongst all of them winning anywhere near so little.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 05:59 PM
I probably made that prediction about a year ago but he surprised me with his play this year. I also thought the mens version of Generation Suck would have made more progress than they are now. They are now mostly around 22 or 23, that is the age each year they make scant or no progress makes them becoming champions more unlikely. I know there are late bloomers, but they arent even in the top 10 yet.

When I see people having Nadal + Djokovic + Murray + Federer all winning a combined 8 slams or less in the future between them all I think to myself WTF who is going to win all those other slams. I know some new people will have to emerge at some point, but even so I just cant see that group amongst all of them winning anywhere near so little.

Well I mean even as a Federer fan I'm not sure he has that many slams left in him. These days someone like Berdych can take him out for instance. I'd like to think he will win another slam, I think there is some chance for 2 more, if he won more than 2 I'd be a bit surprised to be honest because I expect Djokovic, Nadal and even Murray to be just a bit too good over the next few years, plus the odd loss like Berdych. I think Fed's best chances will be Wimbledon and the US Open and he has been patchy at both recently and I think he has a maximum of 2 years to win further slams. Then there's always the chance of a sudden drop in form.

He'll probably be top 4 for ages, but if the other 3 guys are a bit stronger then that stillmeans he might struggle to win a slam. Hope he can though.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 06:04 PM
Well I mean even as a Federer fan I'm not sure he has that many slams left in him. These days someone like Berdych can take him out for instance. I'd like to think he will win another slam, I think there is some chance for 2 more, if he won more than 2 I'd be a bit surprised to be honest because I expect Djokovic, Nadal and even Murray to be just a bit too good over the next few years, plus the odd loss like Berdych. I think Fed's best chances will be Wimbledon and the US Open and he has been patchy at both recently and I think he has a maximum of 2 years to win further slams. Then there's always the chance of a sudden drop in form.

He'll probably be top 4 for ages, but if the other 3 guys are a bit stronger then that stillmeans he might struggle to win a slam. Hope he can though.

Well we probably have alot of differing opinions exactly how the slams will be divided amongst the current top 4. I dont think anyone believes Federer has the most "future" slams of the quartet, some probably have him winning 0, and some probably have him winning 2 or 3 more, we will have to see. All I am pretty sure of is that 4 between them will win alot more than 8 future slams, regardless how they are distributed amongst them.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 06:26 PM
Well we probably have alot of differing opinions exactly how the slams will be divided amongst the current top 4. I dont think anyone believes Federer has the most "future" slams of the quartet, some probably have him winning 0, and some probably have him winning 2 or 3 more, we will have to see. All I am pretty sure of is that 4 between them will win alot more than 8 future slams, regardless how they are distributed amongst them.

Really the biggest threat to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray is that they grind themselves into oblivion and some terrible new guys win slams randomly WTA style, just because those 3 guys are too physically wrecked to compete anymore. If that doesn't happen then they will have several years to pick up more slams, that is true. I did think certain new players would have shown more by now but it's not been the case and say in the case of Djokovic, I saw him and thought he would be a slam winner and future world number one as far back as 2006. Don't get this feeling of a future slam winner with any new player since del potro. I thought Cilic would also win a slam but that hasn't come close to happening.

MichaelNadal
10-21-2012, 06:34 PM
Really the biggest threat to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray is that they grind themselves into oblivion and some terrible new guys win slams randomly WTA style, just because those 3 guys are too physically wrecked to compete anymore. If that doesn't happen then they will have several years to pick up more slams, that is true. I did think certain new players would have shown more by now but it's not been the case and say in the case of Djokovic, I saw him and thought he would be a slam winner and future world number one as far back as 2006. Don't get this feeling of a future slam winner with any new player since del potro. I thought Cilic would also win a slam but that hasn't come close to happening.

I definitely agree, the pipeline looks empty and the gap is way too big.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 06:57 PM
I definitely agree, the pipeline looks empty and the gap is way too big.

I know. Though I still think sometime in the future Djokovic and Murray (maybe not nadal) will all find it hard to get the motivation to win and some surpising winner will come about. It won't be that often though. But given that Djokovic almost lost to tsonga in RG, Murray has had some close calls, Nadal lost to Rosol at Wimbledon. If it all happened at the same slam, or 2 got upset and one beat the other, then we could have a one off winner like a johanson.But like I said, it probably won't happen that much.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 07:00 PM
Long term predictions are actually much easier to make than short term, especialy general ones. 5 years ago if one said Federer will have 17 slams 5 years from now (he had 12 at the time), Nadal would have 11 (he had 3 at the time), Djokovic will have 5 (he had 0 at the time but was clearly on the rise and the main upcoming threat to Federer and Nadal) most would have thought those were quite reasonable. All the surprising year to year and the timing of how it all played out wouldnt really matter to the overall scheme of how it turned out. At that point there didnt seem to be much in the way of up and comers but you have thought they would be here by now and if not already starting to win big, be ready to shortly after 2012, but as it turns out that is the not the case either.

As for how long everyone will play I think that will largely be how long they all think they can win, apart from their bodies breaking down so badly they cant play. Djokovic, Murray, or Nadal wont retire before 30 if they are still winning slams, not a chance. Nadal's body "might" break down before he is 31, but I wouldnt be so sure on the other two.

In regards to your first paragraph, I'm not so sure. I can understand the Federer prediction because he was still dominating in 2007, although at that point people were predicting more than 17 slams at this point for Federer, but if you told me Nadal would have 11 slams now that would've surprised me a bit. I would've given him all the RG titles he has, and 1 Wimbledon, not neccessarily 2. In 2007 I would not have said Nadal would win in Australia, and certainly not at the USO, so I would've given him 8, 9 at most with a second Wimbledon. I'm also not sure I would've predicted Djokovic to have 5 slams at this point, in 2007. He looked destined to be in the long shadows of Federer, and especially Nadal forever. He wasn't winning RG or Wimbledon at the time, and he lost 3 years in a row to Federer at the USO which leaves only the Aussie. At the very least, nobody in their right mind would've predicted Novak's 2011. All I'm saying is 6 years is way too long to say the guys at the top now will still be winning slams IMO.

Anybody can make an easy prediction. I could say that I think Nadal is going to win at least 1 more RG, and there's a high probability I'll be right. That's like the Federer prediction. If you told me in 2007 that the guy was going to have 17 slams by this point, I probably would've laughed, and said only 17?