PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 04:55 PM
This one's tougher to say, too many variables. And again, give your predictions as well, if you would.

I'll say he's gonna win 5 more. But I'm pretty sure I'll be wrong.

3 Australian Open
2 US Open

kishnabe
10-20-2012, 05:01 PM
3-5 more.

1 AO, 1FO,1 US.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:05 PM
12-14.


10char

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:08 PM
12-14.


10char

Even if he won 3 an year for the next 4 years, he'd still not win 14 more. You can not be serious.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:13 PM
8 more:

4 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
2 U.S Opens

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 05:15 PM
Even if he won 3 an year for the next 4 years, he'd still not win 14 more. You can not be serious.


Well I am. He has no competition so what makes you think he can't win that many?


And meant as a total he will win 12-14 slams. Not 12-14 more on top of the 5 he already has.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:16 PM
8 more:

4 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
2 U.S Opens

So, between them, Djokovic and Nadal are gonna win 6 more FOs, 5 more AOs, 3 more USOs, and 2 more Ws? That's 16 Grand Slams, exactly as many as they've won already.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:16 PM
Well I am. He has no competition so what makes you think he can't win that many?

So do you think he will break Federer's slam mark? I dont know how many more (if any) you predict Federer to win but he currently has 17 and your prediction for Djokovic would take him to 17 to 19.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:17 PM
So, between them, Djokovic and Nadal are gonna win 6 more FOs, 5 more AOs, 3 more USOs, and 2 more Ws? That's 16 Grand Slams, exactly as many as they've won already.

Well lets see, we have a worthless crop of players aged 20-23, a rather worthless group of teenagers (the few that exist) trying to make their way on the ATP tour now, an uninspiring junior group. Other than Murray who else is going to win any slams the next 5 years. Bernard Tomic, Kei Nishikori, Ryan Harrison, LOL! At some point some new talent (real talent not just a Raonic level who might win 1 slam someday if he is really lucky) will emerge but be prepared to wait a long time since there is no indication there is any on the near horizon and expect atleast 2 if not all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray to win ALOT more slams. I guess Del Potro "could" win another slam or two before he retires, but dont bet on it happening either, and dont expect him to win alot of future slams, that is for sure.

The French Open prediction looks especialy right. Unless his body falls off Nadal can win French Opens into his 30s, and when was the least up and comer that emerged on clay of any ilk since Nadal.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:21 PM
Well lets see, we have a worthless crop of players aged 20-23, a rather worthless group of teenagers (the few that exist) trying to make their way on the ATP tour now, an uninspiring junior group. Other than Murray who else is going to win any slams the next 5 years. At some point some new talent (real talent not just a Raonic level who might win 1 slam someday if he is really lucky) will emerge but be prepared to wait a long time since there is no indication there is any on the near horizon and expect atleast 2 if not all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray to win ALOT more slams. I guess Del Potro "could" win another slam or two before he retires, but dont bet on it happening either, and dont expect him to win alot of future slams, that is for sure.

The French Open prediction looks especialy right. Unless his body falls off Nadal can win French Opens into his 30s, and when was the least up and comer that emerged on clay of any ilk since Nadal.

The Del Potros and Murrays could make a big dent on your predictions even with a couple of wins at the wrong Grand Slams. And there could be a Nadal-lite out there somewhere.

smoledman
10-20-2012, 05:23 PM
I think 5-6 is reasonable.

2 AO
1 FO
1 Wimby
2 US Opens

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:24 PM
The Del Potros and Murrays could make a big dent on your predictions even with a couple of wins at the wrong Grand Slams. And there could be a Nadal-lite out there somewhere.

People have making grand predictions for Del Potro and his "comeback" (which is now over 2 years old and is still referred to as such oddly) for years now. He is 24 and has won exactly 1 title over 500 level in his career. As I said I guess it is possible he could win another slam or even two before he retires, but it also should surprise nobody if he wins zero more, and even the former will barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things.

I already accounted for Murray winning about another 4 slams in my predictions. As I said other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray there might be 2 slams at best going somewhere else in the next 5 years, maybe even 0. There is nobody coming up at all who is champion calibre other than a 1 time fluke sort. That person will emerge at some point but certainly arent on the scope yet.

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:25 PM
I just hope Djokovic can win the most slams ever at the end of his career. More than Federer, that's the goal.

he will probably end up with 7-9 but im pretty sure hes not going to break the 11 mark (not that i dislike hes my second fav tied with Murray) But he was an extremely Late Bloomer and that cost him

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:25 PM
I just hope Djokovic can win the most slams ever at the end of his career. More than Federer, that's the goal.

13 more is too tough. There might be no challengers on the horizon but 13 is more than anybody except Sampras and Federer have won over their entire careers! And Djokovic's best is behind him, I don't think he has another 2011 in him (although me mightn't need one to win 3 Slams).

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:26 PM
People have making grand predictions for Del Potro and his "comeback" (which is now over 2 years old and is still referred to as such oddly) for years now. He is 24 and has won exactly 1 title over 500 level in his career. As I said I guess it is possible he could win another slam or even two before he retires, but it also should surprise nobody if he wins zero more, and even the former will barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things.

I already accounted for Murray winning about another 4 slams in my predictions. As I said other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray there might be 2 slams at best going somewhere else in the next 5 years, maybe even 0. There is nobody coming up at all who is champion calibre other than a 1 time fluke sort. That person will emerge at some point but certainly arent on the scope yet.

Is your sig true?? Did Prisoner of Birth actually say that? doesnt sound like him

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:28 PM
People have making grand predictions for Del Potro and his "comeback" (which is now over 2 years old and is still referred to as such oddly) for years now. He is 24 and has won exactly 1 title over 500 level in his career. As I said I guess it is possible he could win another slam or even two before he retires, but it also should surprise nobody if he wins zero more, and even the former will barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things.

I already accounted for Murray winning about another 4 slams in my predictions. As I said other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray there might be 2 slams at best going somewhere else in the next 5 years, maybe even 0. There is nobody coming up at all who is champion calibre other than a 1 time fluke sort. That person will emerge at some point but certainly arent on the scope yet.

I'm feeling a Berdych win for some reason. Sounds unlikely but I don't know, I can see him winning one if he pulls it together for 2 matches. He's definitely got the game.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:28 PM
13 more is too tough. There might be no challengers on the horizon but 13 is more than anybody except Sampras and Federer have won over their entire careers! And Djokovic's best is behind him, I don't think he has another 2011 in him (although me mightn't need one to win 3 Slams).

The slam counts of Federer and Sampras both are overrated and misleading. Had it been Open tennis for years Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, would all have more slams than both. People were shocked the Sampras slam mark fell so quickly but it was a fairly soft mark to begin with, I always said his best records by far were his 6 year end #1s, his 7 Wimbledons, and his 5 U.S Opens over a 12 year span and 8 finals there. I expect this to become increasingly obvious in the future. Federer's slam mark and its prestige actually benefits from Sampras and his naive inflation of its value to the press.

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:28 PM
I like how you always present your opinions as facts. It's almost funny.

I dont think its behind him but now that Murray has confidence and Nadal is coming back and that Fed is not done quite yet a 2011 like year is not that easy to do

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:30 PM
Is your sig true?? Did Prisoner of Birth actually say that? doesnt sound like him

Yeah, I said that. The greater player is not necessarily better. Tennis in the past 20 years is of a higher standard than back in the 60s.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:30 PM
I'm feeling a Berdych win for some reason. Sounds unlikely but I don't know, I can see him winning one if he pulls it together for 2 matches. He's definitely got the game.

Berdych's problem is Nadal has owned him since 2006, he has 0 wins over Nadal since that year, and Djokovic totally owns him. Isnt his H2H with Djokovic 1-9 now, and his only win was over Djokovic in the worst slump of his career and on his worst surface at Wimbledon 2010. When both Nadal and Djokovic are almost unbeatable for you your odds to win a slam are not that good. What are the odds of avoiding both in a draw on a potential championship run.

I think Tsonga has a better chance since he can atleast beat anyone, although his run of success vs Djokovic was years back and has dried out since (although he should have beaten him at the French this year) and he has only beaten Murray once.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:31 PM
I like how you always present your opinions as facts. It's almost funny.

It's no insult to say a dead man is dead. No player has multiple peaks. Djokovic had one and that was the most of 2011. He's still got an year or two of his prime left atleast.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 05:33 PM
8 more:

4 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
2 U.S Opens

possibly 8 more, but I don't think he'll end up with 7 AOs.

I went for 4 more though. Mainly because he couldn't back up his 2011 season with anything more than a single slam year. To get over 10 slams in total he needs more multi slam years

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:35 PM
Berdych's problem is Nadal has owned him since 2006, he has 0 wins over Nadal since that year, and Djokovic totally owns him. Isnt his H2H with Djokovic 1-9 now, and his only win was over Djokovic in the worst slump of his career and on his worst surface at Wimbledon 2010. When both Nadal and Djokovic are almost unbeatable for you your odds to win a slam are not that good. What are the odds of avoiding both in a draw on a potential championship run.

I think Tsonga has a better chance since he can atleast beat anyone, although his run of success vs Djokovic was years back and has dried out since (although he should have beaten him at the French this year) and he has only beaten Murray once.

Okay, let me present a scenario. Let's say Federer, Nadal and Berdych are on the same side of the draw. Nadal, as we know, is prone to upsets. And he's no longer in his prime. Let's say he's upset. Berdych can deal with Olderer. If he does, he'll likely be in the finals. If Murray manages to beat Djokovic (which he has more than a good shot at on deco turf), we have a Berdych versus Murray final. And we know how that can go. Not saying it will happen but it could.

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:35 PM
Yeah, I said that. The greater player is not necessarily better. Tennis in the past 20 years is of a higher standard than back in the 60s.

OH! in that way from what i read it sounded like Hewitt and Roddick Achieved more LOL

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:36 PM
Okay, let me present a scenario. Let's say Federer, Nadal and Berdych are on the same side of the draw. Nadal, as we know, is prone to upsets. And he's no longer in his prime. Let's say he's upset. Berdych can deal with Olderer. If he does, he'll likely be in the finals. If Murray manages to beat Djokovic (which he has more than a good shot at on deco turf), we have a Berdych versus Murray final. And we know how that can go. Not saying it will happen but it could.

It is possible, but Berdych isnt a lock to beat Federer or Murray, he just is capable of it, he wont always do it. Berdych himself is prone to upsets, and unlike the top 4 he doesnt even always have to be off to be beaten (eg- Gulbis 1st round Wimbledon). Everything happening together like that while possible, will be difficult.

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 05:38 PM
It is possible, but Berdych isnt a lock to beat Federer or Murray, he just is capable of it, he wont always do it. Berdych himself is prone to upsets, and unlike the top 4 he doesnt even always have to be off to be beaten (eg- Gulbis 1st round Wimbledon). Everything happening together like that while possible, will be difficult.

Hes extremely inconsistent thats his problem he gets hot during a few tourneys and thats it but for some reason whenever he meets fed he plays lights out

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:40 PM
Sometimes I wonder if you can even read. Never mind, say whatever you want, I don't care.

Are you saying Djokovic is gonna show a higher level of play than he did in 2011 sometime in the future?

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 05:41 PM
Hes extremely inconsistent thats his problem he gets hot during a few tourneys and thats it but for some reason whenever he meets fed he plays lights out

That is true, and when you add that to always losing to 2 players even when you get hot (Nadal and Djokovic) it isnt a great recipe for big titles.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:42 PM
It is possible, but Berdych isnt a lock to beat Federer or Murray, he just is capable of it, he wont always do it. Berdych himself is prone to upsets, and unlike the top 4 he doesnt even always have to be off to be beaten (eg- Gulbis 1st round Wimbledon). Everything happening together like that while possible, will be difficult.

Federer's 31 and he'll be 32 next year. He's gonna start losing to the Berdychs and Tsongas more often than he did in the past. Beating Murray will be tougher. Also, theoretically, I think Berdych has just the kind of game that can beat Nadal. I'm surprised how ineffective he's become of late.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:46 PM
Why not? He's only 25 now, and with Nadal's knee problem and Fed aging, Murray might be the only one to stop him. So why not?

He could win 4 Slams next year but that wouldn't be his peak, unless you judge peak by success and not level of play.

PS - He's gonna be 26 next year. Most players have their prime between 21-27. If Djokovic is gonna hit his peak soon, he doesn't have much time left to do that. He'll be 26 next year.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 05:47 PM
3 AO
2 RG
1 Wimbledon
2 USO

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 05:54 PM
Read your own post, you are either trying to make up some stupid stuff or your logic behind it is too deep that you might have to explain it clearer. And, since you have noticed Nole will only be 26 next year, don't make it sound like another year of Nole's domination is impossible.

Look at Federer in 2005 (2 Slams) and Federer in 2007 (3 Slams). Which year did he play better Tennis in? You can't be that dumb.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 05:57 PM
Look at Federer in 2005 (2 Slams) and Federer in 2007 (3 Slams). Which year did he play better Tennis in? You can't be that dumb.

Well, exactly. He maybe will not play as good as in 2011, but he can still win 3 slams in a year (or even 4).

As you said, Fed clearly played better in 2005, but he won one more slam in 2007. Same can happen to Novak.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:00 PM
Look at Federer in 2005 (2 Slams) and Federer in 2007 (3 Slams). Which year did he play better Tennis in? You can't be that dumb.

Fed have only 4 losses in 2005 but he didn't play on 4 Masters tournaments! Also, he's USO run isn't that impressive...

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:00 PM
Well, exactly. He maybe will not play as good as in 2011, but he can still win 3 slams in a year (or even 4).

As you said, Fed clearly played better in 2005, but he won one more slam in 2007. Same can happen to Novak.

I'm not saying Djokovic can't win 3 or even 4 Slams an year again. I'm saying it's unlikely. Would you disagree?

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:01 PM
Fed have only 4 losses in 2005 but he didn't play on 4 Masters tournaments! Also, he's USO run isn't that impressive...

It's still way better than his 2007. He started losing to players he'd have destroyed in 2005 during the later parts of 2007.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 06:02 PM
I'm not saying Djokovic can't win 3 or even 4 Slams an year again. I'm saying it's unlikely. Would you disagree?

4 yes, very unlikely.

3 not so much. If Nadal doesn't came back strong, I would say he has big chances.

kaku
10-20-2012, 06:03 PM
I'd say 4-5 more, most of them AO's and USO's and maybe a FO or 2

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:04 PM
4 yes, very unlikely.

3 not so much. If Nadal doesn't came back strong, I would say he has big chances.

But don't you think Murray is a pretty big challenger now? I'd say Murray now is definitely better than Djokovic on Grass and marginally better on US Open Hards.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:04 PM
It's still way better than his 2007. He started losing to players he'd have destroyed in 2005 during the later parts of 2007.

Nalbandian??????? Nalby beat him on TMC!!!!!

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:05 PM
Again, this is ONLY your opinion. NOT A FACT. We are talking about the likelihood here, and the fact is yes it is possible for him to outdo his-2011-self. You can argue that it probably won't happen, but you can't reject the possibility that it can, because you are not a ****ing psychic, you do not know the future.

I never said it's impossible. Stop crapping your pants and start reading.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:06 PM
Nalbandian??????? Nalby beat him on TMC!!!!!

Look at who beat him in 2007. Nalbandian's a much better player than he's given credit for.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 06:06 PM
Nalbandian??????? Nalby beat him on TMC!!!!!

True. But he lost to Caņas twice. I don't think he would've lost to him in 2005. Or against Volandri (and the way he did).

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 06:07 PM
But don't you think Murray is a pretty big challenger now? I'd say Murray now is definitely better than Djokovic on Grass and marginally better on US Open Hards.

So that just means if Nadal doesnt come back strong Djokovic wins the Australian, the French, and possibly wins one of Wimbledon or the U.S Open, as even if Murray were the favorite for both he wouldnt neccessarily win both.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:08 PM
yeah, tell yourself that. None of the things you said is fact. Get over yourself.

Okay, I'll give you a fact. Djokovic will NEVER match (or surpass) Federer's Grand Slam count. That is a fact. And yes, I'm a psychic. And now I can laugh in your face every single time you post.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:09 PM
Look at who beat him in 2007. Nalbandian's a much better player than he's given credit for.

True. But he lost to Caņas twice. I don't think he would've lost to him in 2005. Or against Volandri (and the way he did).

PoB said "later parts in 2007"! And Nalby beats him in Madrid and Paris, that was the later parts i think :confused:

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:10 PM
So that just means if Nadal doesnt come back strong Djokovic wins the Australian, the French, and possibly wins one of Wimbledon or the U.S Open, as even if Murray were the favorite for both he wouldnt neccessarily win both.

But Nadal is coming back and coming back strong enough to win the French. If he retires anytime in the next year, then I'll change my mind and my predictions.

hisrob777
10-20-2012, 06:10 PM
I think he'll win 4 to 6 more grand slams. He is a threat on every surface.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 06:11 PM
So that just means if Nadal doesnt come back strong Djokovic wins the Australian, the French, and possibly wins one of Wimbledon or the U.S Open, as even if Murray were the favorite for both he wouldnt neccessarily win both.

And who else do you think can stop him?? Bo5 Federer only can on Wimbledon I think. And Del Potro don't think so (you even said it, he has poor fitness, and no way you beat Djokovic in a Bo5 match with bad fitness).

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:11 PM
Okay, I'll give you a fact. Djokovic will NEVER match (or surpass) Federer's Grand Slam count. That is a fact. And yes, I'm a psychic. And now I can laugh in your face every single time you post.



Sounds like you're getting a little worried about Fed's slam count. :) With the lack of competition,******* has a great chance to catch Fed when it's all said and done.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:11 PM
PoB said "later parts in 2007"! And Nalby beats him in Madrid and Paris, that was the later parts i think :confused:

I said "he started losing to players he would've destroyed in 2005." He's always lost to Nalbandian, he didn't start losing to him in 2007.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:12 PM
But Nadal is coming back and coming back strong enough to win the French. If he retires anytime in the next year, then I'll change my mind and my predictions.


How do you know he is coming back strong enough to win anything much less another slam? All arrows point to the complete opposite of what you are saying when it comes to Nadal's career.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 06:12 PM
And who else do you think can stop him?? Bo5 Federer only can on Wimbledon I think. And Del Potro don't think so (you even said it, he has poor fitness, and no way you beat Djokovic in a Bo5 match with bad fitness).

Pretty much. As it is he should win 1-3 slams next year, and if Nadal doesnt come back in decent shape he should win 2 or 3 (with an outside shot at 4).

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:13 PM
Sounds like you're getting a little worried about Fed's slam count. :) With the lack of competition,******* has a great chance to catch Fed when it's all said and done.

No way. Nadal is the only one who's got a shot, and I haven't ruled him out yet. I think he's got about a 20% chance he'll go past Federer's count. Djokovic, maybe a 5%.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:14 PM
How do you know he is coming back strong enough to win anything much less another slam? All arrows point to the complete opposite of what you are saying when it comes to Nadal's career.

Don't listen to the ****s on here. They're only saying what they like to believe. Nadal may not return as strong as he used to be but he'll be back strong enough for a few more Slams as far as I'm concerned. He's still just 26, not 28 or 29.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:15 PM
But don't you think Murray is a pretty big challenger now? I'd say Murray now is definitely better than Djokovic on Grass and marginally better on US Open Hards.

Murray has probably always been better on grass, but Djokovic when he's on form is a better player and that sometimes renders the surface unimportant (as we've seen with Nadal vs several players)

At the US Open, I totally disagree. Murray could have lost to Lopez, Cilic and Berdych and maybe someone else at the US Open this year. I'm not saying they almost beat him but given the way each match went, it wouldn't be surprising if thay had won. Novak pretty much strolled through apart from a dodgy set to Ferrer.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 06:16 PM
No way. Nadal is the only one who's got a shot, and I haven't ruled him out yet. I think he's got about a 20% chance he'll go past Federer's count. Djokovic, maybe a 5%.

I agree that I dont think Djokovic ever could catch Federer's slam record. He is just too far away. I agree with the percentage odds you give both Nadal and Djokovic at this piont to do that. Then again what would the odds people have given Djokovic before 2011 of having the year he did. Probably less than 5%. He might have another surprise for us, this one a longer term one.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:17 PM
I said "he started losing to players he would've destroyed in 2005." He's always lost to Nalbandian, he didn't start losing to him in 2007.

Please, you said "later parts in 2007"! I'm not blind!!! And Fed didn't play against Canas in 2005!:) i'm not serious on this...:)

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:18 PM
I agree that I dont think Djokovic ever could catch Federer's slam record. He is just too far away. I agree with the percentage odds you give both Nadal and Djokovic at this piont to do that. Then again what would the odds people have given Djokovic before 2011 of having the year he did. Probably less than 5%. He might have another surprise for us, this one a longer term one.

Well, this is my first prediction (and a safe one). Djokovic won't reach 17 Slams. No1e, feel free to make my prediction your signature :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:19 PM
Please, you said "later parts in 2007"! I'm not blind!!! And Fed didn't play against Canas in 2005!:) i'm not serious on this...:)

I don't think you understood my post. Read it again. Slowly.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:19 PM
Sounds like you're getting a little worried about Fed's slam count. :) With the lack of competition,******* has a great chance to catch Fed when it's all said and done.

Djokovic is a good player but he's not good enough to win 17 slams, I don't even care who the competition is, he's left it too late and he's not even going to catch Nadal nevermind Federer. Nadal could catch Federer but I reckon he wont. Djokovic will do well to crack 10. I just don't see he can bring it to the table day in day out. You saw how he lost most of the big matches this year after his 2011 fairytale.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:20 PM
Shake my head:shock:

26 is young enough to win 1-2 Slams an year for a few years.

25 is not young enough to win 12 more Slams.

Get it, dumbo?

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:22 PM
Don't listen to the ****s on here. They're only saying what they like to believe. Nadal may not return as strong as he used to be but he'll be back strong enough for a few more Slams as far as I'm concerned. He's still just 26, not 28 or 29.



Yeah,with 80 year old knees. He's older in tennis year than his real age by several years.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:23 PM
I don't think you understood my post. Read it again. Slowly.

Be nice and explain to me please! It's late and i'm sleepy, maybe I don't get it best...:cry:

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:24 PM
Djokovic is a good player but he's not good enough to win 17 slams, I don't even care who the competition is, he's left it too late and he's not even going to catch Nadal nevermind Federer. Nadal could catch Federer but I reckon he wont. Djokovic will do well to crack 10. I just don't see he can bring it to the table day in day out. You saw how he lost most of the big matches this year after his 2011 fairytale.



******* will catch Nadal,and probably even surpass him. That's pretty much a given.

Catching Fed will be tougher,but he can do it. Again,with the lack of competition for him,he's pretty much a lock to win anything and everything he enters over the next several years.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:26 PM
Be nice and explain to me please! It's late and i'm sleepy, maybe I don't get it best...:cry:

Federer lost to some rather ordinary players in 2007. The Federer in 2005 would have utterly destroyed them. Not everyone he lost to in 2007, just the less-than-stellar ones.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:27 PM
Yeah,with 80 year old knees. He's older in tennis year than his real age by several years.

You're not a Nadal fan. I just remembered that you were the one who called Nadal a snob back in that "Djokovic being nice to fans in Shanghai" thread. I don't know why you pretend to be.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:30 PM
Federer lost to some rather ordinary players in 2007. The Federer in 2005 would have utterly destroyed them. Not everyone he lost to in 2007, just the less-than-stellar ones.

not to split hairs but you did say in the latter half of 2007, and the Canas losses were in IW and Miami.So maybe that'swhere the confusion lies

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 06:30 PM
You're not a Nadal fan. I just remembered that you were the one who called Nadal a snob back in that "Djokovic being nice to fans in Shanghai" thread. I don't know why you pretend to be.



I AM a Nadal fan. Since 2005 to be exact.

And I don't think I called him a snob,but I do think he is cold with fans. He doesn't even make eye contact with them much less speak to them,or kid around with them. I was actually complementing ******* for how well he behaves with fans,and believe me,it's hard for me to come up with anything good to say about him. Lol.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:31 PM
Federer lost to some rather ordinary players in 2007. The Federer in 2005 would have utterly destroyed them. Not everyone he lost to in 2007, just the less-than-stellar ones.

Ok, he lost to Canas and Volandri, but Volandri played match of his life in front of the home crowd! He lost to Gonzo on WTFs, but it is not so important...

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:32 PM
not to split hairs but you did say in the latter half of 2007, and the Canas losses were in IW and Miami.So maybe that'swhere the confusion lies

I said, "later parts" not "latter half." I was referring to post-AO Federer. My apologies, I should've been clearer I guess.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:33 PM
******* will catch Nadal,and probably even surpass him. That's pretty much a given.

Catching Fed will be tougher,but he can do it. Again,with the lack of competition for him,he's pretty much a lock to win anything and everything he enters over the next several years.

Djokovic winning the calendar slam this year, the clay sweep without losing a set, and whatever else was also a given according to you.

Plus even with no competition I don't think Djokovic has the ability to be focused for every big match. Murray could deny him a lot too.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 06:34 PM
I said, "later parts" not "latter half." I was referring to post-AO Federer. My apologies, I should've been clearer I guess.

oh I see. No problem just thought maybe that's where the confusion was and why the other poster thought you meant nalbandian

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 06:36 PM
Well, he is the youngest among the big 4, and the closest to his prime (even if he is some years past that). Quoting your words, he is only 25 now, and it's not like he's 30 something with Nadal's knees and Fed's old butt. Out of the big 4, he is the most likely to dominate next year. Period.

He was even more likely to dominate this year and look what happened. If Djokovic is gonna dominate an year more than he did in 2011, it's gotta be next year. 27 year-old Djokovic won't dominate 2014 the way 24 year-old Djokovic did 2011.

Djokovic is smack in the middle of his prime, but past his peak. Murray, on the other hand, has just entered his peak. While he's more likely to dominate than Murray is (just because he has a proven track-record), it's not gonna be easy. Even if he dominates the next 3 years, he'll still be a ways behind Federer.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 06:41 PM
He was even more likely to dominate this year and look what happened. If Djokovic is gonna dominate an year more than he did in 2011, it's gotta be next year. 27 year-old Djokovic won't dominate 2014 the way 24 year-old Djokovic did 2011.



Rain and wind stopped his domination!

merwy
10-20-2012, 06:46 PM
I think 8 more is pretty realistic. If he plays for another 6 years, he would only have to win 1 or 2 a year. I don't know if Nadal will get back to his old level but I don't see him winning any grand slams except for RG on a regular basis.

So only Federer and Murray in his way. Lets presume that Federer's level will slowly drop in the following years. He might win 2 or 3 slams max in the next 6 years (obviously he won't play that long).

Well this still leaves lots of slams for Djokovic and Murray. Murray isn't good on clay so I don't think he will ever win RG. Djokovic, though, might beat Nadal there once in a while. On other surfaces I'd say it's 50/50 between Djokovic and Murray.

You see how he could easily get 8 or more slams by this logic?

However, it could go completely differently if some new guy shows up and starts competing for Grand Slams, it would make life a lot harder for Djokovic and Murray.

PS: Is Djokovic - Murray going to be the new Federer - Nadal from now on? I prefer the latter to be honest.

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 06:55 PM
I agree that Djoko was more precocious than Murray. He won his first master title at 19. Murray won his first at 21. It doesn't necessarily mean that Murray will last longer but for sure he was a late bloomer, Djoko wasn't.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 06:57 PM
Djokovic is a good player but he's not good enough to win 17 slams, I don't even care who the competition is, he's left it too late and he's not even going to catch Nadal nevermind Federer. Nadal could catch Federer but I reckon he wont. Djokovic will do well to crack 10. I just don't see he can bring it to the table day in day out. You saw how he lost most of the big matches this year after his 2011 fairytale.

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.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 07:03 PM
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.

Pretty much agree. Though I think Delpo definitely looked like a future multi slam winner in 2009. Since his return though he has been pretty average apart from some good matches where he ultimately failed to take out a top guy. The world of tennis has seemed to have left him behind - Murray winning a slam is further proof of this.

oy vey
10-20-2012, 07:09 PM
I just hope Djokovic can win the most slams ever at the end of his career. More than Federer, that's the goal.

I am a Novak fan but I don't really believe he even wants to try to beat a Fed or Nadal. I don't think that is his goal. I think he would like a RG and to complete the masters set. He'll just try to win as many as he can and have a good career. He's got other aims IMO.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 07:13 PM
Pretty much agree. Though I think Delpo definitely looked like a future multi slam winner in 2009. Since his return though he has been pretty average apart from some good matches where he ultimately failed to take out a top guy. The world of tennis has seemed to have left him behind - Murray winning a slam is further proof of this.

He needs to work harder on his fitness and get in alot better shape. Not sure why he hasnt done this. Maybe he gets injured when he tries to do too much physical work. Taller players are usually most prone to injuries.

90's Clay
10-20-2012, 07:28 PM
Taken into consideration the abundance of mugs coming up in the ranks of this new generation of players.. The sky could be the limit for Djoker if he keeps healthy. He could get manage getting a final slam count of 9-10 (maybe more) barring injury

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 07:41 PM
Taken into consideration the abundance of mugs coming up in the ranks of this new generation of players.. The sky could be the limit for Djoker if he keeps healthy. He could get manage getting a final slam count of 9-10 (maybe more) barring injury


THIS.

Some people do not realize the mediocrity of the next generations I think. People are still talking aboute the "future" in players like Raonic and Dimitrov who are 20 something and have done NOTHING. Not even close to win a Masters 1000 or reach a final. Did anybody see what Djokovic or Nadal were doing when they were teenagers. Nadal was wining RG and dominating clay and Djokovic was going toe to toe with prime Federer in the USO final.

The worrying thing is not that the young 20's (Raonic, Harrison, Dimitrov, etc) do not look promising enough, also there is not a single teenager that seems will have a great career. Tomic has no big weapons and it's a headcase.

So when people say someone is going to appear and defeat Djokovic or Murray, i'd like to know in which player they are thinking. Because he should be at least be doing something promising now. Players like Berdych or Tsonga can't compete with Djokovic and Nadal. And they are certainly a lot better than any of the youngest hopes.

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:43 PM
But prodigious teenagers could pop up at any time from the junior circuit.

librarysteg
10-20-2012, 07:49 PM
I missed Novak's amazing 2011 so I'm crossing my fingers that he'll match or top it in 2013. I think he has a very good chance to win a significant number of Grand Slams over the next few years. I want to see Nadal come back and play at the top of his game, but I have a sinking feeling he might never be top form again. I see an endless stream of Djokovic-Murray finals that they'll split fairly evenly. I'd be surprised if he doesn't end up with at least five more.

90's Clay
10-20-2012, 07:52 PM
But prodigious teenagers could pop up at any time from the junior circuit.

Great players generally show some major promise at teenagers. Fed was beating Sampras at wimbledon, Marat beat Pete at the USO, Djoker going toe to toe with Prime Federer, Becker winning wimbledon, Sampras winning the USO at 19, Nadal dominating clay, Agassi doing damage as a teenager etc. etc.. the list goes on..

These young guys can't today can't even win a freakin tournament.. Much less do any major damage at slams and show the world they are to be reckoned with in the future

veroniquem
10-20-2012, 07:52 PM
It won't be an endless stream of Murray finals at RG though...

Towser83
10-20-2012, 07:57 PM
He needs to work harder on his fitness and get in alot better shape. Not sure why he hasnt done this. Maybe he gets injured when he tries to do too much physical work. Taller players are usually most prone to injuries.

True. Plus he's seemed to have skipped events most top players have played, i mean masters for instance. He skipped Shanghai and went to play in Vienna I think. I don't get a lot of confidence coming from him

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 08:08 PM
True. Plus he's seemed to have skipped events most top players have played, i mean masters for instance. He skipped Shanghai and went to play in Vienna I think. I don't get a lot of confidence coming from him

He was injured, that's why he skipped Shangai.

Towser83
10-20-2012, 08:09 PM
He was injured, that's why he skipped Shangai.

what happened? I didn't hear about that. I assume it wasn't too bad since he is back now.

Mainad
10-20-2012, 08:13 PM
THIS.
Did anybody see what Djokovic or Nadal were doing when they were teenagers. Nadal was wining RG and dominating clay and Djokovic was going toe to toe with prime Federer in the USO final.

Djokovic was actually 20 when he played his first Slam final against Federer at the 2007 USO, so no longer a teenager but I take your point.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 08:29 PM
THIS.

Some people do not realize the mediocrity of the next generations I think. People are still talking aboute the "future" in players like Raonic and Dimitrov who are 20 something and have done NOTHING. Not even close to win a Masters 1000 or reach a final. Did anybody see what Djokovic or Nadal were doing when they were teenagers. Nadal was wining RG and dominating clay and Djokovic was going toe to toe with prime Federer in the USO final.

The worrying thing is not that the young 20's (Raonic, Harrison, Dimitrov, etc) do not look promising enough, also there is not a single teenager that seems will have a great career. Tomic has no big weapons and it's a headcase.

So when people say someone is going to appear and defeat Djokovic or Murray, i'd like to know in which player they are thinking. Because he should be at least be doing something promising now. Players like Berdych or Tsonga can't compete with Djokovic and Nadal. And they are certainly a lot better than any of the youngest hopes.

That is why I predicted so many future slams for Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. There are going to be 4 majors awaded each year no matter what (or 5 if they add the China Open or something, lol) and who else is going to win them over the next 5 years atleast if not those 3. Santa Clause.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 07:17 AM
That is why I predicted so many future slams for Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. There are going to be 4 majors awaded each year no matter what (or 5 if they add the China Open or something, lol) and who else is going to win them over the next 5 years atleast if not those 3. Santa Clause.

Had to quote this for the bolded part. Made me LOL.

As for the poll. I said 3 more for him. I was stuck between saying 3 or 4, and probably, looking back on it 4 might be more likely. He could break 10 slams total with 5 more, but I don't think so.

I think he'll complete the career GS, and win 1 RG, I also will give him 1 more AO, and 1-2 more USO. I don't think he'll win Wimbledon again. Although if I've learned anything at all from following tennis, it's that long term predictions are often very hard to make, and that includes looking at younger generations, no matter how "bad" the next crop seems to be.

WilsonWand12
10-21-2012, 09:13 AM
When it comes to the current young players trying to make a breakthrough, I believe it's not just that they are not performing as well as they should/can, but that the current top players are just TOO GOOD right now. It's so much harder to make a breakthrough with the amount of skill and talent possessed at the top, and the younger players can't rise to that challenge yet. Or it could be a generational gap. This generation of players may not be the best, the next one will spur even greater players than before. Who knows. But I hold fast to the belief that our current mainstays in the top 20 have made it near impossible for any youngster to make a breakthrough up until this point.

tudwell
10-21-2012, 02:39 PM
I'm going to guess he wins four more.

MSK
10-21-2012, 04:00 PM
2 more, Murray has his number now.
Djoko can have the french now Nadal is gonesville

Agassifan
10-21-2012, 04:21 PM
50% chance he reaches 10 slams total.
20% chance he reaches 12
5% chance he gets more than 12.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 04:45 PM
Maybe three or four more.

oy vey
10-21-2012, 06:30 PM
2 more, Murray has his number now.


2 more in 16 slams? Murray is winning 14? I doubt it.

TopFH
10-21-2012, 07:24 PM
Even if Djokovic retired on 2018 (6 more seasons), he would need to win at least 2 per year to equal Federer. I see him being an important factor until 2016 at the most, so yeah, I'm pretty sure Federer's mark is safe from Djokovic.

Of course, Nole may well win 5-6 of the next 8 slams to skew my predictions, and make me look like a big, fat dumbass.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 07:52 PM
Even if Djokovic retired on 2018 (6 more seasons), he would need to win at least 2 per year to equal Federer. I see him being an important factor until 2016 at the most, so yeah, I'm pretty sure Federer's mark is safe from Djokovic.

Of course, Nole may well win 5-6 of the next 8 slams to skew my predictions, and make me look like a big, fat dumbass.

Even if he does win 6 of the next 8, he'd be 27.5 years old and 6 Slams behind Federer.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 08:18 PM
Even if he does win 6 of the next 8, he'd be 27.5 years old and 6 Slams behind Federer.



Fed is 31 and still winning slams,so what makes you think ******* can't do the same?

The-Champ
10-21-2012, 08:27 PM
Fed is 31 and still winning slams,so what makes you think ******* can't do the same?

True, he is a year younger than Nadal and infinitely healthier. ******* can run until he's 35 at least. He is thin and doesn't carry much weight.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 08:38 PM
Fed is 31 and still winning slams,so what makes you think ******* can't do the same?

1. Djokovic isn't Federer.
2. I think he can't sustain his physical style of play. Less longevity than Federer.
3. Federer won 4 Slams (so far and he's likely done) ever since he was 27.5 years old. So even if Djokovic replicates that (after winning 6 of the next 8 Slams), he'll still be 2 Slams short of Federer.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 08:41 PM
1. Djokovic isn't Federer.
2. I think he can't sustain his physical style of play. Less longevity than Federer.
3. Federer won 4 Slams (so far and he's likely done) ever since he was 27.5 years old. So even if Djokovic replicates that (after winning 6 of the next 8 Slams), he'll still be 2 Slams short of Federer.

You forget that Federer at 27 and beyond faced Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic at 27 and beyond will face a possibly burnt out/declining Nadal and Murray. Nadal isnt nearly as tough an opponent for Djokovic as he is for Federer either. If Djokovic is playing tennis even similar to Federer at that age (not certain if he can do that of course) he has a good chance to win more slams at that age than Federer did.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 08:52 PM
You forget that Federer at 27 and beyond faced Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic at 27 and beyond will face a possibly burnt out/declining Nadal and Murray. Nadal isnt nearly as tough an opponent for Djokovic as he is for Federer either. If Djokovic is playing tennis even similar to Federer at that age (not certain if he can do that of course) he has a good chance to win more slams at that age than Federer did.

I can see Murray becoming to Djokovic what Djokovic became to Nadal. Djokovic is past his peak and Murray looks to be coming into his. Again, I just have this feeling there's this guy out there, who we haven't heard of yet, who can win multiple Slams. He (or they), obviously, won't be coming in anytime soon (not until 4 years maybe) but the possibility is always there. And I'm not ruling out Raonic and Del Potro. Djokovic will only decline from here on out and the "talentless mugs" can only improve, for atleast a couple of years. I can see Del Potro winning 2 more Slams. And Berdych winning 1.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 09:19 PM
1. Djokovic isn't Federer.
2. I think he can't sustain his physical style of play. Less longevity than Federer.
3. Federer won 4 Slams (so far and he's likely done) ever since he was 27.5 years old. So even if Djokovic replicates that (after winning 6 of the next 8 Slams), he'll still be 2 Slams short of Federer.



Sounds to me like you're desperate to come up wth any reason you can that ******* can't catch Fed. With the competition the way it is now,and ******* not being injury prone,I believe he has a very good chance of catching Fed's slam count,and maybe even surpassing him. Who else is going to win the majority of the slams over the next 5-6 years? Murray could snag a few but no more than that. Nadal is done and won't win anymore slams,and is just cannon fodder for ******* anyway. Fed isn't getting any younger. ******* will sleep walk his way to Fed's slam count at this rate. There is absolutely no one to stop him.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 09:22 PM
Sounds to me like you're desperate to come up wth any reason you can that ******* can't catch Fed. With the competition the way it is now,and ******* not being injury prone,I believe he has a very good chance of catching Fed's slam count,and maybe even surpassing him. Who else is going to win the majority of the slams over the next 5-6 years? Murray could snag a few but no more than that. Nadal is done and won't win anymore slams,and is just cannon fodder for ******* anyway. Fed isn't getting any younger. ******* will sleep walk his way to Fed's slam count at this rate. There is absolutely no one to stop him.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Djokovic will need another life to go past Federer's count. Signed, sealed, delivered.

It's funny how Nadal is supposedly no longer a threat. Nadal is about 10 times as likely to beat 17 as Djokovic is. I mean, don't you understand that Djokovic is 12 freaking Grand Slams behind? That's more than twice as many Slams as Djokovic has won so far! More than Nadal and Borg have won throughout their entire careers! Only Sampras and Federer have won more than 11 Slams over an entire career! You're trolling or are simply being stupid to say Djokovic is gonna do that in his sleep.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 09:28 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Djokovic will need another life to go past Federer's count. Signed, sealed, delivered.

It's funny how Nadal is supposedly no longer a threat. Nadal is about 10 times as likely to beat 17 than Djokovic is.




If anything is funny it's this. :lol:

And I still think ******* has the best shot at catching Fed. You're just trying to play down his chances because you know he's the one who is the biggest threat to chase down Fed's slam count. Mentioning Nadal as the one with most likely chance to catch him is preposterous. You already know that which is why you suggested it. Fed's slam count is as safe as Fort Knox with Nadal trying to catch him,and you couldn't be happier. Lol.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 09:37 PM
If anything is funny it's this. :lol:

And I still think ******* has the best shot at catching Fed. You're just trying to play down his chances because you know he's the one who is the biggest threat to chase down Fed's slam count. Mentioning Nadal as the one with most likely chance to catch him is preposterous. You already know that which is why you suggested it. Fed's slam count is as safe as Fort Knox with Nadal trying to catch him,and you couldn't be happier. Lol.

Jesus Christ. I would prefer it if Nadal didn't go past Federer's 17 but I won't lose sleep over it. Nadal is my second favorite player and I'm far from happy that he's been sidelined. I was waiting for Nadal to return and silence some of the *******s and Djotards but looks like he needs to silence his "fake fans" like you, first.

Djokovic is not going past Federer. You know it. I'm not saying it's impossible but his odds of doing that or not much better than mine, LOL.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 09:42 PM
Sounds to me like you're desperate to come up wth any reason you can that ******* can't catch Fed. With the competition the way it is now,and ******* not being injury prone,I believe he has a very good chance of catching Fed's slam count,and maybe even surpassing him. Who else is going to win the majority of the slams over the next 5-6 years? Murray could snag a few but no more than that. Nadal is done and won't win anymore slams,and is just cannon fodder for ******* anyway. Fed isn't getting any younger. ******* will sleep walk his way to Fed's slam count at this rate. There is absolutely no one to stop him.

No way Clarky. Djokovic does not have that longevity/drive factor in him the way a Federer or a Nadal does and never has. He is already 25 and probably has another 2-3 good years but he has Murray, Nadal and to a much lesser extent Federer around as well, not to mention whoever else will come into the picture in the next few years. Djokovic only has 5 slams now. I think the most Djokovic will win is 8-9 slams total. Nadal now has 11 and I think he will likely get to Sampras' slam total.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 09:50 PM
No way Clarky. Djokovic does not have that longevity/drive factor in him the way a Federer or a Nadal does and never has. He is already 25 and probably has another 2-3 good years but he has Murray, Nadal and to a much lesser extent Federer around as well, not to mention whoever else will come into the picture in the next few years. Djokovic only has 5 slams now. I think the most Djokovic will win is 8-9 slams total. Nadal now has 11 and I think he will likely get to Sampras' slam total.

If you see Djokovic winning only 3-4 more slams how much do you see Nadal or Murray winning. I got the impression before you expected him to be the most successful of those three in the future (not career wise in case of Nadal or Federer, just from here on out out) and it is hard to see only 8-9 slams total from those three given the lack of people coming up.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 09:56 PM
If you see Djokovic winning only 3-4 more slams how much do you see Nadal or Murray winning. I got the impression before you expected him to be the most successful of those three in the future (not career wise in case of Nadal or Federer, just from here on out out) and it is hard to see only 8-9 slams total from those three given the lack of people coming up.

My rough estimates (I'll likely be wrong but whatever)

Djokovic - 5
Nadal - 4
Murray - 4
Federer - 1
Del Potro - 1
Berdych - 1

That's 4 years' worth of Slams accounted for. I just don't see Djokovic, Nadal or Murray dominating once they get to 29. There will be others taking over.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 09:58 PM
My rough estimates (I'll likely be wrong but whatever)

Djokovic - 5
Nadal - 4
Murray - 4
Federer - 1
Del Potro - 1
Berdych - 1

That's 4 years' worth of Slams accounted for. I just don't see Djokovic, Nadal or Murray dominating once they get to 29. There will be others taking over.

I could see it possibly pan out like that for sure. I just think 8 slams estimate for the current players is way too low, but 16 is definitely possible. Do you see Raonic or Tomic or any player born after 1989 winning a slam? I could see Raonic win 1 or even 2 if he is lucky. Tomic I dont see winning one anymore, he is too much a mental weakling even considering how young he is.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 09:59 PM
If you see Djokovic winning only 3-4 more slams how much do you see Nadal or Murray winning. I got the impression before you expected him to be the most successful of those three in the future (not career wise in case of Nadal or Federer, just from here on out out) and it is hard to see only 8-9 slams total from those three given the lack of people coming up.

No I never thought Djokovic would be the most successful of those three (Djoke, Murray and Nadal.) I think Djokovic will win three or four more, maybe five. I think Nadal will probably win three more to equal Sampras' record and Murray? I think he will win a few more, maybe two or three? It is so hard to predict. I think Nadal will end his career with more slams than Djokovic whatever happens in the next couple of years. I don't think any of these guys will catch Federer's slam total. Let's see how Nadal is when he comes back at the AO 2013 first and then at the FO in 2013, then we will have a better idea of what he is still capable of. I don't think Nadal is done like so many people do.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 10:01 PM
Jesus Christ. I would prefer it if Nadal didn't go past Federer's 17 but I won't lose sleep over it. Nadal is my second favorite player and I'm far from happy that he's been sidelined. I was waiting for Nadal to return and silence some of the *******s and Djotards but looks like he needs to silence his "fake fans" like you, first.

Djokovic is not going past Federer. You know it. I'm not saying it's impossible but his odds of doing that or not much better than mine, LOL.


Only time will tell and I think you might be in for a surprise when it's all said and done.

As for being a "fake fan",I guess I have been doing a whole lot of faking for the past 7 years. Lol.

No way Clarky. Djokovic does not have that longevity/drive factor in him the way a Federer or a Nadal does and never has. He is already 25 and probably has another 2-3 good years but he has Murray, Nadal and to a much lesser extent Federer around as well, not to mention whoever else will come into the picture in the next few years. Djokovic only has 5 slams now. I think the most Djokovic will win is 8-9 slams total. Nadal now has 11 and I think he will likely get to Sampras' slam total.


I don't agree with that. By ******* peaking late while Fed and Nadal are in decline is going to benefit him. He's got no competition whatsoever outside of Murray. Why wouldn't he have the drive to keep going considering how easy winning slams is going to be for him?


People need to stop counting Nadal as part of *******'s competition at this point because he is not. He's got Murray to contend with and no one else.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 10:02 PM
No I never thought Djokovic would be the most successful of those three (Djoke, Murray and Nadal.) I think Djokovic will win three or four more, maybe five. I think Nadal will probably win three more to equal Sampras' record and Murray? I think he will win a few more, maybe two or three? It is so hard to predict. I think Nadal will end his career with more slams than Djokovic whatever happens in the next couple of years. I don't think any of these guys will catch Federer's slam total. Let's see how Nadal is when he comes back at the AO 2013 first and then at the FO in 2013, then we will have a better idea of what he is still capable of. I don't think Nadal is done like so many people do.

Well that comes out to the three winning only about 8 between them in future years and I still think that is impossibly low given the lack of people coming up able to win slams. I believe the cummulative # of future slams for those three has to be higher than that. We will see though.

BTW what I said was I was under the impression before you thought Djokovic would win the most FUTURE slams of those three (the most from now onwards only, nothing to do with final career totals) and based on the projections you just gave you still do. That is how I concluded if you were picking only 3-4 more for Djokovic, you were picking only 8-9 total at most for that group of three.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:02 PM
My rough estimates (I'll likely be wrong but whatever)

Djokovic - 5
Nadal - 4
Murray - 4
Federer - 1
Del Potro - 1
Berdych - 1

That's 4 years' worth of Slams accounted for. I just don't see Djokovic, Nadal or Murray dominating once they get to 29. There will be others taking over.

I don't see them dominating at age 29 either. They have two to three good years left where they can still win some slams and they will probably share the pie in slam wins in the next two to three years.

I don't see Berdych winning a slam and I for sure don't see Del Potro winning another unless they get really lucky and the top four are defeated early or are injured. I see a guy like Raonic possibly moving in there to win a slam before Berdych or Del Po.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:04 PM
I could see it possibly pan out like that for sure. I just think 8 slams estimate for the current players is way too low, but 16 is definitely possible. Do you see Raonic or Tomic or any player born after 1989 winning a slam? I could see Raonic win 1 or even 2 if he is lucky. Tomic I dont see winning one anymore, he is too much a mental weakling even considering how young he is.

Raonic, sure. Maybe 1 or 2 Slam around four years later. Tomic, no, I think he'll be a fairly consistent top 10 player but not a Grand Slam winner. Like I said, I have no idea. Everything is so uncertain.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:07 PM
Only time will tell and I think you might be in for a surprise when it's all said and done.

As for being a "fake fan",I guess I have been doing a whole lot of faking for the past 7 years. Lol.




I don't agree with that. By ******* peaking late while Fed and Nadal are in decline is going to benefit him. He's got no competition whatsoever outside of Murray. Why wouldn't he have the drive to keep going considering how easy winning slams is going to be for him?


People need to stop counting Nadal as part of *******'s competition at this point because he is not. He's got Murray to contend with and no one else.

You said you "loathed" Djokovic, right? If you really do, breathe easy, rest assured, he'll never go past Federer. And it's very unlikely he goes past even Nadal.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:07 PM
Well that comes out to the three winning only about 8 between them in future years and I still think that is impossibly low given the lack of people coming up able to win slams. I believe the cummulative # of future slams for those three has to be higher than that. We will see though.

BTW what I said was I was under the impression before you thought Djokovic would win the most FUTURE slams of those three (the most from now onwards only, nothing to do with final career totals) and based on the projections you just gave you still do. That is how I concluded if you were picking only 3-4 more for Djokovic, you were picking only 8-9 total at most for that group of three.

I think Murray, Djokovic and Nadal will split the slams in the next two years or so. Federer may win one as well. Let's see how Nadal is when he comes back and how he does on non-clay surfaces. Who knows is right! It is all a guessing game.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 10:11 PM
I think Murray, Djokovic and Nadal will split the slams in the next two years or so. Federer may win one as well. Let's see how Nadal is when he comes back and how he does on non-clay surfaces. Who knows is right! It is all a guessing game.

So you think after 2 or 3 years they will all retire or all be done winning slams? I guess I just cant imagine Murray or Djokovic especialy (Nadal's body might be broken by then) retiriing or not winning slams even at 28ish and beyond unless someone good enough comes in to knock them off. Federer was winning slams up to 31 facing great players 5 or 6 years younger than him, so I could definitely see Djokovic or Murray or if he isnt broken Nadal winning slams even into their 30s if all they face is the caliber of players we see now outside the top 4. Hopefully things will have changed alot by then with the state of the up and comers and a generation of slam winning caliber players will be established on the scene by then, as obviously that will change alot and make that trio winning into old age far more unlikely. So hard to project so far ahead. It will be intersting to revist this conversation in a few years time.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:11 PM
I don't agree with that. By ******* peaking late while Fed and Nadal are in decline is going to benefit him. He's got no competition whatsoever outside of Murray. Why wouldn't he have the drive to keep going considering how easy winning slams is going to be for him?


People need to stop counting Nadal as part of *******'s competition at this point because he is not. He's got Murray to contend with and no one else.

Nah, I think Nadal will still be competition for Djokovic and Murray but let's see.
I think they will split the slams in the next two years or so. Maybe a guy like Raonic will improve what he needs to improve and win one or two. ?????

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:11 PM
I think Murray, Djokovic and Nadal will split the slams in the next two years or so. Federer may win one as well. Let's see how Nadal is when he comes back and how he does on non-clay surfaces. Who knows is right! It is all a guessing game.

I can't wait for the Australian Open. I'm fairly sure Nadal still has 2 good years left in him.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:13 PM
You said you "loathed" Djokovic, right? If you really do, breathe easy, rest assured, he'll never go past Federer. And it's very unlikely he goes past even Nadal.

I don't think Djokovic will ever get beyond Nadal's slam total let alone Federer's.
Let's see. I hope I am not embarrassed too much by these predictions, lol.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:14 PM
I can't wait for the Australian Open. I'm fairly sure Nadal still has 2 good years left in him.

I think he probably does too. I think people are writing him off way too soon. This kid is a beast.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:16 PM
So you think after 2 or 3 years they will all retire or all be done winning slams? I guess I just cant imagine Murray or Djokovic especialy (Nadal's body might be broken by then) retiriing or not winning slams even at 28ish and beyond unless someone good enough comes in to knock them off. Federer was winning slams up to 31 facing great players 5 or 6 years younger than him, so I could definitely see Djokovic or Murray or if he isnt broken Nadal winning slams even into their 30s if all they face is the caliber of players we see now outside the top 4. Hopefully things will have changed alot by then with the state of the up and comers and a generation of slam winning caliber players will be established on the scene by then, as obviously that will change alot and make that trio winning into old age far more unlikely. So hard to project so far ahead. It will be intersting to revist this conversation in a few years time.

30 year-old Djokovic, Murray and Nadal will still be better any of the current field in their prime but you're missing a key point. They'll become very prone to upsets. I can't think of anyone who's been as consistent as Federer past 27. Federer made 18/19 Slam finals from 2005 to 2010 and then he didn't make another final till over an year later. The same thing's gonna happen to Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. They're gonna beat any player outside of themselves more often than not but winning 7 matches in a row at 28/29/30 will not be as easy as Federer made it look.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 10:17 PM
I don't think Djokovic will ever get beyond Nadal's slam total let alone Federer's.
Let's see. I hope I am not embarrassed too much by these predictions, lol.

The *********s would be unbearable if Djokovic ever somehow beat Federer's slam record. Worse than the worst of the ****s and ***** combined. I wouldnt even go near the forum for that reason if that ever happened, despite that I like Djokovic himself more than Federer. Heck if he even surpasses Nadal's mark they will become unbearable.

adil1972
10-21-2012, 10:18 PM
he will end with 9-11 grandslam in total

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:20 PM
The *********s would be unbearable if Djokovic ever somehow beat Federer's slam record. Worse than the worst of the ****s and ***** combined. I wouldnt even go near the forum for that reason if that ever happened, despite that I like Djokovic himself more than Federer. Heck if he even surpasses Nadal's mark they will become unbearable.

The only way Djokovic can go past Nadal's mark is if Nadal doesn't win another Slam again. Which is very unlikely to happen.

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:21 PM
So you think after 2 or 3 years they will all retire or all be done winning slams? I guess I just cant imagine Murray or Djokovic especialy (Nadal's body might be broken by then) retiriing or not winning slams even at 28ish and beyond unless someone good enough comes in to knock them off. Federer was winning slams up to 31 facing great players 5 or 6 years younger than him, so I could definitely see Djokovic or Murray or if he isnt broken Nadal winning slams even into their 30s if all they face is the caliber of players we see now outside the top 4. Hopefully things will have changed alot by then with the state of the up and comers and a generation of slam winning caliber players will be established on the scene by then, as obviously that will change alot and make that trio winning into old age far more unlikely. So hard to project so far ahead. It will be intersting to revist this conversation in a few years time.

I think Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have two or three good years left in which they can still win a few slams or more each. Beyond that it will get trickier for them as it has for every other player, even a player as talented as Federer. Once a player reaches 28 or so, his slam winning potential goes down and they don't dominate. Let's see if any of the guys like Raonic can make any progress. I think Raonic has a good head on his shoulders but he has obvious work to do on his game. None of the younger guys are going to be a Federer or a Nadal and win 10 plus slams I don't think but a guy like Raonic may sneak in there if he improves??? Let's see. It is a crapshoot for sure right now. Things may look a lot differently in six months even.

Tony48
10-21-2012, 10:23 PM
I say he'll win 6 more.

AO: +2 (5)
FO: +2 (2)
WB: +0 (1)
USO: +2 (3)

For a grand total of 11. Perhaps he may win another Wimbledon (instead of a 5th Australian Open) if he had a good draw.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:24 PM
I say he'll win 6 more.

AO: +3 (6)
FO: +2 (2)
WB: 0 (0)
USO: +2 (3)

For a grand total of 11. Perhaps he may win another Wimbledon (instead of a 6th Australian Open) if he had a good draw.

That's 7 Slams.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 10:29 PM
There are only 3 predictions I am going to make for certain on Djokovic:

-At careers end he will be regarded as the greatest Australian Open player ever.

-He will win the French atleast once.

-He will end up with more slams than Agassi's 8 and generally be regarded higher than Agassi in history (which pains me to say as I think Agassi had more potential but he didnt always use it the way Djokovic is now maximizing his, for the record Agassi had more overall potential than Nadal too, Nadal being someone who has even already greatly overachieved and gone well beyond his potential, potential wise Agassi had more than almost everyone in history).

Tony48
10-21-2012, 10:31 PM
That's 7 Slams.

Yeah, I made a couple of mistakes with that post. :) It's corrected now (I originally meant to give him only 2 more Australian Opens and I forgot to account for his Wimbledon title)

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:32 PM
There are only 3 predictions I am going to make for certain on Djokovic:

-At careers end he will be regarded as the greatest Australian Open player ever.

-He will win the French atleast once.

-He will end up with more slams than Agassi's 8 and generally be regarded higher than Agassi in history (which pains me to say as I think Agassi had more potential but he didnt always use it the way Djokovic is now maximizing his, for the record Agassi had more overall potential than Nadal too, Nadal being someone who has even already greatly overachieved and gone well beyond his potential, potential wise Agassi had more than almost everyone in history).

I think Agassi could've won 15 Slams if he'd pulled his shorts up and focused on his Tennis.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 10:33 PM
Yeah, I made a couple of mistakes with that post. :) It's corrected now (I originally meant to give him only 2 more Australian Opens and I forgot to account for his Wimbledon title)

I'm not sure. Just 2 at his best Slam and 2 again at the one where he's never won at (not that he's bad on it)?

Tony48
10-21-2012, 10:37 PM
I'm not sure. Just 2 at his best Slam and 2 again at the one where he's never won at (not that he's bad on it)?

You're right. I could easily trade one of his FO titles for an Australian Open or a USO title (instead of it going toward a 2nd Wimbledon)

cc0509
10-21-2012, 10:38 PM
There are only 3 predictions I am going to make for certain on Djokovic:


-He will end up with more slams than Agassi's 8 and generally be regarded higher than Agassi in history

Oh no, not more NA predictions! :)

That pretty much means that Djokovic will not surpass Agassi's 8 and I hope he does not because I am an Agassi fan. :mrgreen:

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 10:47 PM
Oh no, not more NA predictions! :)

That pretty much means that Djokovic will not surpass Agassi's 8 and I hope he does not because I am an Agassi fan. :mrgreen:

I will be happy if he doesnt too since I am also an Agassi fan. I am a Djokovic fan too, but an even bigger Agassi fan, and anyway the only small hope of Nadal passing Federer's total is if Djokovic surprisingly didnt even reach 8. :)

I am biased but I admit I really think Agassi should have won atleast 12 slams, even with having to share an era with Sampras. One of the most talented players ever IMO. Still the best combined groundstroker (forehand and backhand) ever and possibly the best returner ever as well. I can only imagine if he had the same focus his whole career he had in late 94/95 and 99 onwards, or if he had won that 95 U.S Open final with Sampras which destroyed him emotionally.

BauerAlmeida
10-21-2012, 11:02 PM
I will be happy if he doesnt too since I am also an Agassi fan. I am a Djokovic fan too, but an even bigger Agassi fan, and anyway the only small hope of Nadal passing Federer's total is if Djokovic surprisingly didnt even reach 8. :)

I am biased but I admit I really think Agassi should have won atleast 12 slams, even with having to share an era with Sampras. One of the most talented players ever IMO. Still the best combined groundstroker (forehand and backhand) ever and possibly the best returner ever as well. I can only imagine if he had the same focus his whole career he had in late 94/95 and 99 onwards, or if he had won that 95 U.S Open final with Sampras which destroyed him emotionally.

Agassi is the player with the biggest potential ever IMO. At least considering the players who had huge careers (Sampras, Federer, Borg, Lendl, Agassi, etc.).

Maybe Safin had more potential than Agassi but he was far away from him and the other top guys in terms of achievements.

On Topic: I think it's almost impossible for Djokovic to catch up with Federer. If he had a better luck this year and didn't have that slump in 2009-2010 maybe he would have a chance considering the crappy next generation. But now it's impossible unless Nadal doesn't come back at all, Murray goes back to his choking and pushing days, Federer fades away too son and Del Potro doesn't improve his fitness. A lot of variables. I can see him cathing up with Nadal though. Unlikely but if he dominates the HC slams and can find a way to beat him in RG it may happen eventually.

5555
10-22-2012, 03:36 AM
Oh no, not more NA predictions! :)

That pretty much means that Djokovic will not surpass Agassi's 8 and I hope he does not because I am an Agassi fan. :mrgreen:

Steve Flink said that Djokovic will reach double digits
http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10327

joeri888
10-22-2012, 03:38 AM
There are only 3 predictions I am going to make for certain on Djokovic:

-At careers end he will be regarded as the greatest Australian Open player ever.
-He will win the French atleast once.

-He will end up with more slams than Agassi's 8 and generally be regarded higher than Agassi in history (which pains me to say as I think Agassi had more potential but he didnt always use it the way Djokovic is now maximizing his, for the record Agassi had more overall potential than Nadal too, Nadal being someone who has even already greatly overachieved and gone well beyond his potential, potential wise Agassi had more than almost everyone in history).

Plexicushion player that is;

Wilander Fan
10-22-2012, 04:15 AM
Plexicushion player that is;

I would be surprised. No player taxes his body like Nole. He puts so much pressure on his knees and ankles its shocking he hasnt broken down yet. Also, he wins more through lack of weakness than any one true weapon. If his level goes down just a little but or if he loses even half a step his performance will be drastically affected.

CMM
10-22-2012, 08:43 AM
At least 42. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=375064)

dimeaxe
10-22-2012, 10:22 AM
Last year after US open, Djokovic told the press, that his goal is winning 11 slams, matching Borg, and playing until age of 28.He said that the game in general become too much taxing, and that he doesn't know how long he will last.

At time, he was evidently injured and burned out, so it is reasonable to speak in such a way.This year before Olympics, he changed his story and said he believes he'll play for a long time even in the thirties.I believe, that he's going to win 6 more, at least.

If you just compare him and Agassi, with quite similar playing styles, we know that Agassi played great even in his thirties.He reached 4 slam finals in a row, winning three of them, and he was 29/30 at time.He won 2 more after that, so it's 5 in total from age 29-33.And Agassi had much more troubled career than Novak, injury wise(wrist surgery, back injuries, girls...:-))Novak is much better treating his career than Agassi ever did.Even Agassi himself considers Novak as a better player:)

So, to conclude this, I want to say that it's achievable for him to win 6 more before he retires, he's not going to dominate the game in late twenties, but it's not going to stop him of winning slams from time to time.

TheF1Bob
10-22-2012, 10:56 AM
More than Nadal.

cknobman
10-22-2012, 11:04 AM
Right now I am going to say 6. The potential for more is certainly there though.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 11:14 AM
Right now I am going to say 6. The potential for more is certainly there though.

I agree, probably 4 or 5 on HC and 1 or 2 on RG/W

timnz
10-22-2012, 12:03 PM
No player has multiple peaks.

I disagree. Agassi 1995 and 1999/2000 and Connors 1974, 1976, 1982 are two players that quickly come to mind.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 12:25 PM
I disagree. Agassi 1995 and 1999/2000 and Connors 1974, 1976, 1982 are two players that quickly come to mind.

"Multiple peaks" is an oxymoron. I mean, a peak is the best you've ever been.

kragster
10-22-2012, 02:27 PM
Plexicushion player that is;

You can complain all you want but at the end of the day it is meaningless what a surface USED to be. Thats like saying Usain Bolt is the fastest guy with the next gen Nike shoes..

That being said, Djokovic is still only at 3 so for now , Fed is still the better AO player.

kragster
10-22-2012, 02:30 PM
Last year after US open, Djokovic told the press, that his goal is winning 11 slams, matching Borg, and playing until age of 28.He said that the game in general become too much taxing, and that he doesn't know how long he will last.

At time, he was evidently injured and burned out, so it is reasonable to speak in such a way.This year before Olympics, he changed his story and said he believes he'll play for a long time even in the thirties.I believe, that he's going to win 6 more, at least.

If you just compare him and Agassi, with quite similar playing styles, we know that Agassi played great even in his thirties.He reached 4 slam finals in a row, winning three of them, and he was 29/30 at time.He won 2 more after that, so it's 5 in total from age 29-33.And Agassi had much more troubled career than Novak, injury wise(wrist surgery, back injuries, girls...:-))Novak is much better treating his career than Agassi ever did.Even Agassi himself considers Novak as a better player:)

So, to conclude this, I want to say that it's achievable for him to win 6 more before he retires, he's not going to dominate the game in late twenties, but it's not going to stop him of winning slams from time to time.

Although they are both great ball strikers off both wings, the comparison ends there. Agassi played first strike tennis, Djokovic plays mad defense combined with offense. Djokos game is far more taxing and I will be very surprised if he plays beyond 30.

He still has 5 years though and at 1 slam a year for the next 3 plus 1 more in his last 2 years, he can still make 9-10.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 02:38 PM
You can complain all you want but at the end of the day it is meaningless what a surface USED to be. Thats like saying Usain Bolt is the fastest guy with the next gen Nike shoes..

That being said, Djokovic is still only at 3 so for now , Fed is still the better AO player.



Not for long.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 02:39 PM
Although they are both great ball strikers off both wings, the comparison ends there. Agassi played first strike tennis, Djokovic plays mad defense combined with offense. Djokos game is far more taxing and I will be very surprised if he plays beyond 30.

He still has 5 years though and at 1 slam a year for the next 3 plus 1 more in his last 2 years, he can still make 9-10.



There is no way that ******* will have that many one slam years. He will easily do many multiple slam years in the future.

SLD76
10-22-2012, 02:41 PM
There is no way that ******* will have that many one slam years. He will easily do many multiple slam years in the future.

looks like ******* is back on the stuff of late.

back in beast mode.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 02:54 PM
You can complain all you want but at the end of the day it is meaningless what a surface USED to be. Thats like saying Usain Bolt is the fastest guy with the next gen Nike shoes..

That being said, Djokovic is still only at 3 so for now , Fed is still the better AO player.

if Djokovic wins the Australian Open this coming January (and he should) I would rate him the best Australian Open player already, and I think most others will as well. He would have tied Agassi and Federer with 4 titles, but neither Agassi or Federer ever won 3 in a row which would give him the edge. Also that Djokovic has smacked Federer down twice in convincing straight sets there, even if it wasnt peak Federer, it was still emphatic enough to be telling IMO. Agassi IMHO might have won 4 in a row had he played 2001, but ultimately we will never know, and subjectively speaking Agassi did kind of vulture a couple incredibly weak Australian Opens in 2002 and 2003.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 04:03 PM
if Djokovic wins the Australian Open this coming January (and he should) I would rate him the best Australian Open player already, and I think most others will as well. He would have tied Agassi and Federer with 4 titles, but neither Agassi or Federer ever won 3 in a row which would give him the edge. Also that Djokovic has smacked Federer down twice in convincing straight sets there, even if it wasnt peak Federer, it was still emphatic enough to be telling IMO. Agassi IMHO might have won 4 in a row had he played 2001, but ultimately we will never know, and subjectively speaking Agassi did kind of vulture a couple incredibly weak Australian Opens in 2002 and 2003.

No offence meant here, but you have the years wrong. Agassi won the AO in 01. 2002 was the year he missed, and he did beat Rafter in a 5 set SF in 2001. He also beat Todd Martin in the QF's so his 01 AO is pretty legit, but his 2003 one.... I'd have to agree with you there.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:11 PM
if Djokovic wins the Australian Open this coming January (and he should) I would rate him the best Australian Open player already, and I think most others will as well. He would have tied Agassi and Federer with 4 titles, but neither Agassi or Federer ever won 3 in a row which would give him the edge. Also that Djokovic has smacked Federer down twice in convincing straight sets there, even if it wasnt peak Federer, it was still emphatic enough to be telling IMO. Agassi IMHO might have won 4 in a row had he played 2001, but ultimately we will never know, and subjectively speaking Agassi did kind of vulture a couple incredibly weak Australian Opens in 2002 and 2003.

LOL, no way. Federer's got 9 consecutive AO semifinals. Djokovic has 2. Federer's got 5 finals. Djokovic has 3. He'll need 2 more titles to make it debatable (but in his favor) and 3 more to be the undisputed best.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 04:16 PM
LOL, no way. Federer's got 9 consecutive AO semifinals. Djokovic has 2. Federer's got 5 finals. Djokovic has 3. He'll need 2 more titles to make it debatable (but in his favor) and 3 more to be the undisputed best.

You mean, if Djoko got 5 AO titles, you would say Federer is better AO player?

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 04:21 PM
You mean, if Djoko got 5 AO titles, you would say Federer is better AO player?



Yeah,that doesn't make much sense. I still think Prisoner of Birth is afraid that Fed's records will be broken. He downplays *******'s chances of catching him all the time.

akv89
10-22-2012, 04:24 PM
I'd say Djokovic has 1-2 years of peak play left in him, which can net him 3-4 majors. After that, I think he can win 1-2 majors.
So, I'd guess about 5 majors in total.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 04:29 PM
LOL, no way. Federer's got 9 consecutive AO semifinals. Djokovic has 2. Federer's got 5 finals. Djokovic has 3. He'll need 2 more titles to make it debatable (but in his favor) and 3 more to be the undisputed best.

Sorry but how many semifinals has never been a serious factor for me in who is the best at any slam. In the event it was we would be saying Evert, Lendl, and Connors were the GOATs everywhere. I agree if Djokovic wins 4 it will still be debated between him, Agassi, and to some extent Federer, but he would be my choice personally and probably many others too. In the event Djokovic reaches 5 he would be the undisputed best. How many semifinals do you think is worth 1 title. Since to most people Murray's 4 slam FINALS (and I have lost count how many semis but alot) and 8 Masters titles altogether were worth less than Del Potro's 1 lone slam title.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 04:33 PM
Sorry but how many semifinals has never been a serious factor for me in who is the best at any slam. In the event it was we would be saying Evert, Lendl, and Connors were the GOATs everywhere. I agree if Djokovic wins 4 it will still be debated between him, Agassi, and to some extent Federer, but he would be my choice personally and probably many others too. In the event Djokovic reaches 5 he would be the undisputed best. How many semifinals do you think is worth 1 title. Since to most people Murray's 4 slam FINALS (and I have lost count how many semis but alot) and 8 Masters titles altogether were worth less than Del Potro's 1 lone slam title.



I never understood this fascination with "Oh my god, he has consecutive QF and SF- appearances for years and years". All that says to me is he made it far but didn't win it and eventually kept getting taken out by other top guys

I suppose its impressive for consistency, buts its also about winning. At the end of the day, you either win the tournament or you don't

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:34 PM
You mean, if Djoko got 5 AO titles, you would say Federer is better AO player?

You mean, you can't understand English? I said it would be in Djokovic's favor but still debatable.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:38 PM
Sorry but how many semifinals has never been a serious factor for me in who is the best at any slam. In the event it was we would be saying Evert, Lendl, and Connors were the GOATs everywhere. I agree if Djokovic wins 4 it will still be debated between him, Agassi, and to some extent Federer, but he would be my choice personally and probably many others too. In the event Djokovic reaches 5 he would be the undisputed best. How many semifinals do you think is worth 1 title. Since to most people Murray's 4 slam FINALS (and I have lost count how many semis but alot) and 8 Masters titles altogether were worth less than Del Potro's 1 lone slam title.

Who's the better Claycourter? Gaudio or Federer (had he lost to Soderling)? Who's the better player? A 2-time Grand Slam champion who always lost in the first round in his other appearances or a 1-time Grand Slam champion who made it to 5 other finals? We're talking who's better, not who's more successful. Murray has always been considered a better player than Del Potro, even before 2012.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 04:39 PM
Do you mean you can't understand English? I said it would be in Djokovic's favor but still debatable.

It would be debatable for you even if Djokovic won 10 AO titles!

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:40 PM
Yeah,that doesn't make much sense. I still think Prisoner of Birth is afraid that Fed's records will be broken. He downplays *******'s chances of catching him all the time.

Djokovic is probably gonna end up with the reputation of being a better AO player than Federer but no freaking way he'll get to even 15 Slams. Quit dreaming, you're worse than No1e (the banned kid).

Towser83
10-22-2012, 04:47 PM
Sorry but how many semifinals has never been a serious factor for me in who is the best at any slam. In the event it was we would be saying Evert, Lendl, and Connors were the GOATs everywhere. I agree if Djokovic wins 4 it will still be debated between him, Agassi, and to some extent Federer, but he would be my choice personally and probably many others too. In the event Djokovic reaches 5 he would be the undisputed best. How many semifinals do you think is worth 1 title. Since to most people Murray's 4 slam FINALS (and I have lost count how many semis but alot) and 8 Masters titles altogether were worth less than Del Potro's 1 lone slam title.

I don't get why it would be between Djokovic and Agassi and MAYBE Federer if they all had 4. Federer won the AO on 2 surfaces and had an extra final, so if Djokovic won as many with less finals and on one surface only, that still falls short of Federer. If he wins 5 he's better. 4 and a losing final, still Federer slightly. Agassi also won 4 and didn't make any other finals so really Federer edges both at this moment. I know you don't like this but 5 finals beats 4 finals.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 04:49 PM
I don't get why it would be between Djokovic and Agassi and MAYBE Federer if they all had 4. Federer won the AO on 2 surfaces and had an extra final, so if Djokovic won as many with less finals and on one surface only, that still falls short of Federer. If he wins 5 he's better. 4 and a losing final, still Federer slightly. Agassi also won 4 and didn't make any other finals so really Federer edges both at this moment. I know you don't like this but 5 finals beats 4 finals.

Tell that to Prisoner...

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:49 PM
I don't get why it would be between Djokovic and Agassi and MAYBE Federer if they all had 4. Federer won the AO on 2 surfaces and had an extra final, so if Djokovic won as many with less finals and on one surface only, that still falls short of Federer. If he wins 5 he's better. 4 and a losing final, still Federer slightly. Agassi also won 4 and didn't make any other finals so really Federer edges both at this moment. I know you don't like this but 5 finals beats 4 finals.

Bet he's gonna say, "Finals don't matter, nor do semifinals or consistency or longevity."

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 04:51 PM
Djokovic is probably gonna end up with the reputation of being a better AO player than Federer but no freaking way he'll get to even 15 Slams. Quit dreaming, you're worse than No1e (the banned kid).



I'm not so sure about that. I think he will get there. That doesn't make him more talented than Fed,but since he has no competiton,and no nemesis,he will be able to pass Fed's slam count with ease.


He got banned? I didn't know that because I put him on ignore a long time ago.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:52 PM
Tell that to Prisoner...

Why? Because I can't have an opinion of my own? Djokovic has only made it past the QFs on 3 occasions at the AO. Federer did that 9 times. Federer lost to Djokovic twice but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Better lose to someone like Djokovic than to 0-time Slam Champions like Djokovic has. Really, this isn't rocket science. Are the number of Grand Slams the only thing that matters?

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:58 PM
I'm not so sure about that. I think he will get there. That doesn't make him more talented than Fed,but since he has no competiton,and no nemesis,he will be able to pass Fed's slam count with ease.


He got banned? I didn't know that because I put him on ignore a long time ago.

Okay, I'm done arguing with you. You're the only person on here who thinks Djokovic has even a half-decent shot at reaching Federer's count. And you supposedly "loathe" him :)

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 05:00 PM
I don't get why it would be between Djokovic and Agassi and MAYBE Federer if they all had 4. Federer won the AO on 2 surfaces and had an extra final, so if Djokovic won as many with less finals and on one surface only, that still falls short of Federer. If he wins 5 he's better. 4 and a losing final, still Federer slightly. Agassi also won 4 and didn't make any other finals so really Federer edges both at this moment. I know you don't like this but 5 finals beats 4 finals.

I agree with your basic argument, but Djokovic has straight setted Federer himself twice so that has to count for something especially when talking about one tournament only, although Djokovic has said before that the switch of the courts starting in 2008 helped him win the tournament.

And this is in response to NadalAgassi, and 90's clay:

And while it is important obviously to win the tournament, consistency and winning for Federer go hand in hand. In the 23 consecutive SF's he made, he won 14 of those GS. It would be different if Federer didn't often win the tournament, but obviously that is not the case.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 05:01 PM
Prisoner, many will agree that Djokovic with 5 titles would be better AO player than Federer (of course if he wins 2 more titles), and you can keep your opinion...

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:02 PM
I agree with your basic argument, but Djokovic has straight setted Federer himself twice so that has to count for something especially when talking about one tournament only, although Djokovic has said before that the switch of the courts starting in 2008 helped him win the tournament.

And this is in response to NadalAgassi, and 90's clay:

And while it is important obviously to win the tournament, consistency and winning for Federer go hand in hand. In the 23 consecutive SF's he made, he won 14 of those GS. It would be different if Federer didn't often win the tournament, but obviously that is not the case.

Federer straight-setted Djokovic once at the AO but that was on Rebound Ace.

Also, winning on 2 different AO surfaces is a positive.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:04 PM
Prisoner, many will agree that Djokovic with 5 titles would be better AO player than Federer (of course if he wins 2 more titles), and you can keep your opinion...

You're basically reiterating the same thing I said as if it were an original thought. I clearly said most would believe Djokovic to be the better player at AO if he won 2 more but that it would debatable. What don't you understand about this?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 05:10 PM
Federer straight-setted Djokovic once at the AO but that was on Rebound Ace.

.

Of course you forgot to say how old Djokovic was in that AO, but 31yrs old Fed..

You're basically reiterating the same thing I said as if it were an original thought. I clearly said most would believe Djokovic to be the better player at AO if he won 2 more but that it would debatable. What don't you understand about this?

We finished with this.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:17 PM
Of course you forgot to say how old Djokovic was in that AO, but 31yrs old Fed..



We finished with this.

Prime Federer straight-setted pre-prime Djokovic once. Prime Djokovic straight-setted post-prime Federer twice. Edge to Djokovic.

But already-1-time-Slam-champion Djokovic lost to Roddick and Tsonga in the Quarters of the Australian Open. Neither Roddick nor Tsonga ever won the AO. On the other hand, Federer, since his first win at the AO, only lost to Safin, Nadal, and Djokovic there, all AO champions, and never before the SFs. That's 9 years. Djokovic hasn't even strung together 3 such years (yet).

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 05:19 PM
Federer straight-setted Djokovic once at the AO but that was on Rebound Ace.

Also, winning on 2 different AO surfaces is a positive.

I know. I just chose not to mention it because it was in early 2007. Just like I could say Fed had mono in 2008, or was past his prime in 2011, but then I would be making excuses for both players, and I don't want to do that.

Did I say it wasn't a positive? What I meant was that the faster pre 2008 court favoured Federer, while the slower one favours Djokovic which could be a reason behind why Djokovic is 2-0 against him on the slower court.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:21 PM
I know. I just chose not to mention it because it was in early 2007. Just like I could say Fed had mono in 2008, or was past his prime in 2011, but then I would be making excuses for both players, and I don't want to do that.

Did I say it wasn't a positive? What I meant was that the faster pre 2008 court favoured Federer, while the slower one favours Djokovic which could be a reason behind why Djokovic is 2-0 against him on the slower court.

Didn't say you said it wasn't a positive. I was just making a point.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 05:24 PM
Prime Federer straight-setted pre-prime Djokovic once. Prime Djokovic straight-setted post-prime Federer twice. Edge to Djokovic.

But already-1-time-Slam-champion Djokovic lost to Roddick and Tsonga in the Quarters of the Australian Open. Neither Roddick nor Tsonga ever won the AO. On the other hand, Federer, since his first win at the AO, only lost to Safin, Nadal, and Djokovic there, all AO champions, and never before the SFs. That's 9 years. Djokovic hasn't even strung together 3 such years (yet).

The fact is that Djokovic is 6 years younger, so it's better to discuss later about best AO player!

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 05:25 PM
Didn't say you said it wasn't a positive. I was just making a point.

Yet you had to quote my post to do it. I'm so honoured. :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:27 PM
Yet you had to quote my post to do it. I'm so honoured. :)

The quote was for the first paragraph I posted, which was in response to your post. Didn't think 1 line was worth a separate post so stuck it at the bottom.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:29 PM
The fact is that Djokovic is 6 years younger, so it's better to discuss later about best AO player!

LOL, again so unoriginal. Djokovic isn't simply 1 AO behind. There's more to GOAT-dom than that. He has it in him, though.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 05:33 PM
The quote was for the first paragraph I posted, which was in response to your post. Didn't think 1 line was worth a separate post so stuck it at the bottom.

Ok, I'm joking by the way, in case you can't tell. No hard feelings. Also, just so you know, I stopped responding on the other thread about Fed and Rafa's movement and footwork because I conceded the point.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 05:35 PM
LOL, again so unoriginal. Djokovic isn't simply 1 AO behind. There's more to GOAT-dom than that. He has it in him, though.

Time works for Djokovic!

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:36 PM
Ok, I'm joking by the way, in case you can't tell. No hard feelings. Also, just so you know, I stopped responding on the other thread about Fed and Rafa's movement and footwork because I conceded the point.

Oh no, none at all. Sorry if I came off sorta blunt. What's this place for if not for arguments? :)

PeteD
10-22-2012, 05:37 PM
There will be some greats coming up from the juniors in the next few years at the most. Some of them we have all even heard of already.

okdude1992
10-22-2012, 05:40 PM
I think it will have to do with Federer and Nadal. Both are past their prime, but the question is how long they can compete at the top level for. If they stick around, Djokovic will win less even if he's number 1. The sooner they retire or become irrelevant, the more GS titles Novak will rack up.

I don't see anyone coming up the ranks who can even touch the top guys, so that leaves really leaves Murray to rival Djokovic. I expect he will win a few more slams, but Djokovic will get the best of him most of the time.

slams left:
Federer:1- 3, i predict:3
Nadal:0-4, i predict:3
Djokovic: 3-8, i predict:5
Murray:1-5, i predict:2

Hopefully within 4 years from now some new young guys will start winning, because otherwise tennis will get really really boring.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:45 PM
Sorry but how many semifinals has never been a serious factor for me in who is the best at any slam. In the event it was we would be saying Evert, Lendl, and Connors were the GOATs everywhere. I agree if Djokovic wins 4 it will still be debated between him, Agassi, and to some extent Federer, but he would be my choice personally and probably many others too. In the event Djokovic reaches 5 he would be the undisputed best. How many semifinals do you think is worth 1 title. Since to most people Murray's 4 slam FINALS (and I have lost count how many semis but alot) and 8 Masters titles altogether were worth less than Del Potro's 1 lone slam title.

LOL, hilarious. Djokovic with 4 AOs will have a better claim than Federer with 4 AOs just because he straight-setted post-prime Federer twice (and having been straight-setted himself in his pre-prime) but apparently Federer is only in the discussions with Agassi "to some extent" even though he straight-setted post-prime Agassi once at the AO. Total inconsistency in reasoning! Only from NadalAgassi!

SoBad
10-22-2012, 05:52 PM
Djokovic is much more talented than Federer, so he should total more than 15 slams, unless he runs into much tougher competition than Federer ever had to face.

Towser83
10-22-2012, 06:06 PM
Djokovic is probably gonna end up with the reputation of being a better AO player than Federer but no freaking way he'll get to even 15 Slams. Quit dreaming, you're worse than No1e (the banned kid).

I agree with you there and he's banned? Thank God for that

I agree with your basic argument, but Djokovic has straight setted Federer himself twice so that has to count for something especially when talking about one tournament only, although Djokovic has said before that the switch of the courts starting in 2008 helped him win the tournament.

And this is in response to NadalAgassi, and 90's clay:

And while it is important obviously to win the tournament, consistency and winning for Federer go hand in hand. In the 23 consecutive SF's he made, he won 14 of those GS. It would be different if Federer didn't often win the tournament, but obviously that is not the case.

Yeah but I just mean who has a better record at the AO. Once you get into who straight setted who it gets too complicated. I mean Federer had a match point over Safin that would have probably sealed another title and only God mode safin beat him. Federerwas out of practice when he lost in 2008, I still think Djokovic would have won but maybe not in straight sets.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:09 PM
I agree with you there and he's banned? Thank God for that.

Yeah, he "retired" ;-)

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:19 PM
LOL, hilarious. Djokovic with 4 AOs will have a better claim than Federer with 4 AOs just because he straight-setted post-prime Federer twice (and having been straight-setted himself in his pre-prime) but apparently Federer is only in the discussions with Agassi "to some extent" even though he straight-setted post-prime Agassi once at the AO. Total inconsistency in reasoning! Only from NadalAgassi!

Djokovic would have won 3 in a row. That is his biggest edge over Agassi and Federer who werent able to do that. ****s claim Federer is better than Sampras at the U.S Open because he won 5 in a row even though Sampras has multiple more finals, more semis, won his titles over an incredible 12 year stretch. That he spanked Federer so decisively twice there is just an added reason to favor him with both winning 4 though. You can moan about post prime Federer all you want, but those matches were January 08 and January 2011, Federer was 26 and 29 so not even in his 30s, and Federer was winning slams up until 2012 (atleast) and was the #1 or #2 seed in both and got crushed both times by the lower seeded and ranked Djokovic, who btw was only 20 at the time of crushing a 26 year old Federer. Had it not been for the mono excuse nobody would say Federer wasnt much more in his prime in Janaury 08 than Djokovic for that matter. Now to compare this with a match against a 35 year old Agassi already a couple years past his final ever slam is simply ridiculous, but to be expected from ****s, who have long acted like Federer's 8-3 record vs a 32-35 year old Agassi is one of the all time most incredible stats and proof of his undisputed GOATness, LOL! If it will provide you with comfort I wont reference a match of a 35 year old Federer ranked 8th in the World vs anyone at any event if it comes to that.

As for Agassi, he has won 4 of his 9 career Australian Opens, an incredible stat, especialy given that 5 of the ones he played he was 30 or older.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:24 PM
Djokovic would have won 3 in a row. That is his biggest edge over Agassi and Federer who werent able to do that. ****s claim Federer is better than Sampras at the U.S Open because he won 5 in a row even though Sampras has multiple more finals, more semis, won his titles over an incredible 12 year stretch. That he spanked Federer so decisively twice there is just an added reason to favor him with both winning 4 though. You can moan about post prime Federer all you want, but those matches were January 08 and January 2011, Federer was 26 and 29 so not even in his 30s, and Federer was winning slams up until 2012 (atleast) and was the #1 or #2 seed in both. Had it not been for the mono excuse nobody would say Federer wasnt much more in his prime in Janaury 08 than Djokovic for that matter. Now to compare this with a match against a 35 year old Agassi is simply ridiculous, but to be expected from ****s, who have long acted like Federer's 8-3 record vs a 32-35 year old Agassi is one of the all time most incredible stats and proof of his undisputed GOATness, LOL!

As for Agassi, he has won 4 of his 9 career Australian Opens, an incredible stat, especialy given that 5 of the ones he played he was 30 or older.

Stop dancing and admit your inconsistency in logic. Do the straight-set wins matter or not? And how do you explain Djokovic losing to Tsonga and Roddick? Is it "better" losing to them than to a multiple AO champion?

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:25 PM
Stop dancing and admit your inconsistency in logic.

There is no inconsistency in my logic. You are the one who is too incredibly STUPID to not see the difference between a 26 year old World #1 losing in straight sets, or even a 29 year old World #2 and defending Champion losing in straight sets, and a 35 year old losing in straight sets. If you cant see such simple things I cant help you, but it says way more about you than it does me.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:28 PM
And how do you explain Djokovic losing to Tsonga and Roddick?

or Federer losing to Nalbandian, Tommy Haas, Marat Safin (who great as that match was in reality is only on par with Roddick in achievements and career greatness in the sport if we are just going to throw around names), losing to non hard court great Nadal twice.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:31 PM
There is no inconsistency in my logic. You are the one who is too incredibly STUPID to not see the difference between a 26 year old World #1 losing in straight sets, or even a 29 year old World #2 and defending Champion losing in straight sets, and a 35 year old losing in straight sets. If you cant see such simple things I cant help you, but it says way more about you than it does me.

Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :) You still haven't explained how Djokovic is supposed to be the best just because he beat Federer while Federer is worse than Agassi even though he's beaten him. And you conveniently ignore Djokovic's losses to Tsonga and Roddick.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:34 PM
or Federer losing to Nalbandian, Tommy Haas, Marat Safin (who great as that match was in reality is only on par with Roddick in achievements and career greatness in the sport if we are just going to throw around names), losing to non hard court great Nadal twice.

Federer's losses to Nalbandian and Haas came BEFORE his first AO win, not after. And Djokovic's came AFTER. Safin is an AO champion and so is Nadal. Neither Roddick nor Tsonga are AO champions. Again, you fail.

Towser83
10-22-2012, 06:38 PM
Djokovic would have won 3 in a row. That is his biggest edge over Agassi and Federer who werent able to do that. ****s claim Federer is better than Sampras at the U.S Open because he won 5 in a row even though Sampras has multiple more finals, more semis, won his titles over an incredible 12 year stretch. That he spanked Federer so decisively twice there is just an added reason to favor him with both winning 4 though. You can moan about post prime Federer all you want, but those matches were January 08 and January 2011, Federer was 26 and 29 so not even in his 30s, and Federer was winning slams up until 2012 (atleast) and was the #1 or #2 seed in both and got crushed both times by the lower seeded and ranked Djokovic, who btw was only 20 at the time of crushing a 26 year old Federer. Had it not been for the mono excuse nobody would say Federer wasnt much more in his prime in Janaury 08 than Djokovic for that matter. Now to compare this with a match against a 35 year old Agassi already a couple years past his final ever slam is simply ridiculous, but to be expected from ****s, who have long acted like Federer's 8-3 record vs a 32-35 year old Agassi is one of the all time most incredible stats and proof of his undisputed GOATness, LOL! If it will provide you with comfort I wont reference a match of a 35 year old Federer ranked 8th in the World vs anyone at any event if it comes to that.

As for Agassi, he has won 4 of his 9 career Australian Opens, an incredible stat, especialy given that 5 of the ones he played he was 30 or older.

Forget about ****s, do YOU think Fed is a better US Open player because he won 5 in a row and Sampras only managed 2?

Cos I actually think Sampras probably has the edge - it's at least debateable, and the only reason it is is because 5 in a row and 6 finals in a row is significantly better than any run Sampras made, plus the match points Federer had to make a 7th and 8th final and how close he got to winning 6 in a row vs Delpo. But that's still not enough for me to say Federer is the better US Open player.

So I think at best Djokovic winning 3 in a row but having the same amount of titles and less finals, makes it debateable. But not clearcut in his favour.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:38 PM
or Federer losing to Nalbandian, Tommy Haas, Marat Safin (who great as that match was in reality is only on par with Roddick in achievements and career greatness in the sport if we are just going to throw around names), losing to non hard court great Nadal twice.

And if you're gonna talk about them before their first wins, Djokovic lost twice in the 1st round. Federer never lost before the 3rd round. Federer's win % at the AO - 88%. Djokovic's - 86.5%

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:40 PM
Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :)

Talking to yourself in the mirror again. If you need to do that to preserve your sanity go ahead, but best not to type while you do it. We all know you are ********, no need to display for all to see.

I dislike both Federer and Djokovic so I have no reason to be biased between them. I like Agassi about five times more than both, so just the fact I am saying Djokovic would have the edge over Agassi for me if he wins the upcoming Australian Open is proof I am putting any personal bias aside.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:42 PM
Forget about ****s, do YOU think Fed is a better US Open player because he won 5 in a row and Sampras only managed 2?

Cos I actually think Sampras probably has the edge - it's at least debateable,

I think in playing level I favor Sampras but I realize that is completely subjective and opinion based. In greatness I think Federer has the slight edge over Sampras at the U.S Open since he was more dominant by winning 5 in a row, even if Sampras has a big edge in longevity at the event for now, and more finals, more semis, so it is close but probably still favoring Federer since Sampras only even defended his title there once. Similarily to how I think Sampras still has the edge in greatness on Federer at Wimbledon since he won 7 in 8 years, as opposed to Federer 7 in 10 years.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:44 PM
Talking to yourself in the mirror again. If you need to do that to preserve your sanity go ahead, but best not to type while you do it. We all know you are ********, no need to display for all to see.

I dislike both Federer and Djokovic so I have no reason to be biased between them. I like Agassi about five times more than both, so just the fact I am saying Djokovic would have the edge over Agassi for me if he wins the upcoming Australian Open is proof I am putting any personal bias aside.

LIAR! You've said before that you liked Djokovic. Either way, you lose. Agassi isn't even in discussions, he was too inconsistent. Djokovic will likely take over with 2 or 3 more wins. If he wins just 1 more, though, forget it.

Towser83
10-22-2012, 06:45 PM
I think in playing level I favor Sampras but I realize that is completely subjective and opinion based. In greatness I think Federer has the slight edge over Sampras at the U.S Open since he was more dominant by winning 5 in a row, even if Sampras has a big edge in longevity at the event for now, and more finals, more semis, so it is close but probably still favoring Federer since Sampras only even defended his title there once. Similarily to how I think Sampras still has the edge in greatness on Federer at Wimbledon since he won 7 in 8 years, as opposed to Federer 7 in 10 years.

Thanks, that is consistant. Personally I find it hard to choose between them, Wimby and the US Open could go either way in my opinion since they both have things in their favour.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:46 PM
So I think at best Djokovic winning 3 in a row but having the same amount of titles and less finals, makes it debateable. But not clearcut in his favour.

I agree it would still be debateable. I did not say he would be the undisputed Australian Open GOAT if he wins this coming year. I said he would be my pick as the best Australian Open player if he wins this coming year. I know there would still be some picking Agassi or Federer, but I imagine there would be alot picking Djokovic. Then if he wins his 5th it would be undisputable IMO. Not what Prisoner of Birth was saying which is that he would have to win a 5th just to make it debateable and a 6th to make it undisputable, LOL!

It pains me to say this too as right now Agassi and Federer are neck and neck, and while it is known I am not a Federer fan, I am a big Agassi fan, and for that reason alone I would hate to see Djokovic eclipse both and take Agassi out of his only possible GOAT claim, but I still think that is how most will perceive Djokovic if he wins the upcoming Australian Open, the Aussie Open GOAT.

timnz
10-22-2012, 06:51 PM
"Multiple peaks" is an oxymoron. I mean, a peak is the best you've ever been.

So by that definition it is possible that Djokovic hasn't reached his peak yet?

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:53 PM
So by that definition it is possible that Djokovic hasn't reached his peak yet?

Possible but improbable, given the trajectory of his career and the incredible level of his currently-presumed peak.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 06:55 PM
BTW a player can definitely have multiple peaks:

Agassi- 1990/early 1991, late 1994/1995, 1999/early 2000, 2001. Agassi is the poster boy for that.

Graf- 87-89, mid 92, late 93/early 94, 95/96

Navratilova- late 77/early 78, 79/early 1980, 1982-1986, 1989

McEnroe- 1980/1981, 1984

Connors- 1974-1976, 1982-1983

Towser83
10-22-2012, 06:56 PM
I agree it would still be debateable. I did not say he would be the undisputed Australian Open GOAT if he wins this coming year. I said he would be my pick as the best Australian Open player if he wins this coming year. I know there would still be some picking Agassi or Federer, but I imagine there would be alot picking Djokovic. Then if he wins his 5th it would be undisputable IMO. Not what Prisoner of Birth was saying which is that he would have to win a 5th just to make it debateable and a 6th to make it undisputable, LOL!

It pains me to say this too as right now Agassi and Federer are neck and neck, and while it is known I am not a Federer fan, I am a big Agassi fan, and for that reason alone I would hate to see Djokovic eclipse both and take Agassi out of his only possible GOAT claim, but I still think that is how most will perceive Djokovic if he wins the upcoming Australian Open, the Aussie Open GOAT.

I agree with you here, and yes 5 titles beats 4, it's simple maths :lol:

This does confuse me though-

I will be happy if he doesnt too since I am also an Agassi fan. I am a Djokovic fan too, but an even bigger Agassi fan, and anyway the only small hope of Nadal passing Federer's total is if Djokovic surprisingly didnt even reach 8. :)




I dislike both Federer and Djokovic so I have no reason to be biased between them. I like Agassi about five times more than both, so just the fact I am saying Djokovic would have the edge over Agassi for me if he wins the upcoming Australian Open is proof I am putting any personal bias aside.

eh? Not suggesting that you are biased, because although I think sometimes you are a bit, everyone is biased a bit (myself included) and you at least are reasonable and put thought into things, unlike a lot of people. But that confused the hell out of me :lol:

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 07:00 PM
I admit I like him a bit less now than I used to. I am a Nadal fan and I am becoming a Murray fan surprisingly and he is the one who keeps beating them both which I admit doesnt endear me to him, the same reason alot of Federer fans dislike Nadal whether they will admit ir or not. I also find he has gotten alot more cocky since becoming #1. Before I was a mild fan, now I am neutral at best, so I guess I do still like him more than Federer, but alot less than Agassi.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:01 PM
BTW a player can definitely have multiple peaks:

Agassi- 1990/early 1991, late 1994/1995, 1999/early 2000, 2001. Agassi is the poster boy for that.

Graf- 87-89, mid 92, late 93/early 94, 95/96

Navratilova- late 77/early 78, 79/early 1980, 1982-1986, 1989

McEnroe- 1980/1981, 1984

Connors- 1974-1976, 1982-1983

Agassi's peak was 1995. Graf 1988. Connors 1974. McEnroe 1984. Peaks can't be multiple, come on.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 07:04 PM
Agassi's peak was 1995. Graf 1988. Connors 1974. McEnroe 1984. Peaks can't be multiple, come on.

Graf was equally good in 95/96 as 1988/1989. I honestly cant pick which she was better in. Connors's best results were in 1974 but it isnt at all clear that was his best tennis, the field was alot weaker that year then others he played great tennis in. Some would say his best tennis was 76-78, some would even argue 82. Agassi's best results by far were 99/early 2000, but some argue his best tennis was 1995, probably tennis wise alone it is a toss up. He as more agressive and hit more winners in 1995, and more fit and tactically aware in 1999. McEnroe in 1984 was probably better than 1981, but in 1981 everyone would have said that was his peak tennis, especialy by the time 1983 came around, and he showed otherwise.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:10 PM
Graf was equally good in 95/96 as 1988/1989. I honestly cant pick which she was better in. Connors's best results were in 1974 but it isnt at all clear that was his best tennis, the field was alot weaker that year then others he played great tennis in. Some would say his best tennis was 76-78, some would even argue 82. Agassi's best results by far were 99/early 2000, but some argue his best tennis was 1995, probably tennis wise alone it is a toss up. He as more agressive and hit more winners in 1995, and more fit and tactically aware in 1999. McEnroe in 1984 was probably better than 1981, but in 1981 everyone would have said that was his peak tennis, especialy by the time 1983 came around, and he showed otherwise.

Like I said, it's possible Djokovic's peak is still to come. But I have a hard time envisioning it. And everyone has to admit it's unlikely.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:15 PM
You could debate on when a player had his prime, that's sorta subjective, but a player has only one peak. Prime could be divided, though. Nadal is a great example for this, and so is Agassi.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:18 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Djokovic wins 3 GS next year, Murray looks like the only real threat.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Djokovic wins 3 GS next year, Murray looks like the only real threat.



I agree,but 3 is the minimum he will win. He could even win them all considering there's no one to challenge him in the slightest.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 07:22 PM
You could debate on when a player had his prime, that's sorta subjective, but a player has only one peak. Prime could be divided, though. Nadal is a great example for this, and so is Agassi.

For a player who dominates various times at their career I consider them as having more than one peak. That is why I consider Graf at her peak in 88-89, 95-96, and even 93-early 94 all. Selestards take it even further as they argue her peak was 1991-1992 but Graf was better in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 than 91-92 so obviously according to them Graf had a 10 year peak, LOL! Her prime years go beyond even that as 87-96 could all be considered her prime, but obviously not all her peak.

She is just one example but I think of a player who totally dominates for various broken and sometimes widely spaced periods over a long time span as having more than one peak.

Agassi unlike Graf never truly dominated but the periods he was his mostly successful, at the very least 1995 and 1999/early 2000 would have to both be his peak IMO. However periods he was also contending and sometimes winning slams aside from those would have to be his prime years also.

President
10-22-2012, 07:23 PM
I agree. He could even win them all considering there's no one to challenge him in the slightest.

What? Nadal will definitely beat him at RG, and there's others who could as well (i.e. Federer, Ferrer, even Murray considering their Rome match). IMO Djokovic was pretty fortunate to win Wimbledon in 2011, all of the rest of the top 4 are better grass court players than he is. US Open again Federer is very capable of beating him, and Murray as well obviously. Even Nadal has a great shot, and then there's always Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga. Australia is the only major where he is a clear favorite.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 07:24 PM
and then there's always Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga.

Isnt Berydch 1-9 vs Djokovic now. Soderling is basically retired it seems. Tsonga hasnt beaten Djokovic in years.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:26 PM
I agree,but 3 is the minimum he will win. He could even win them all considering there's no one to challenge him in the slightest.

Murray is better grass courter, but in AO and USO Djokovic is the favourite, and RG is ????? depends on Nadal...

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:27 PM
What? Nadal will definitely beat him at RG, and there's others who could as well (i.e. Federer, Ferrer, even Murray considering their Rome match). IMO Djokovic was pretty fortunate to win Wimbledon in 2011, all of the rest of the top 4 are better grass court players than he is. US Open again Federer is very capable of beating him, and Murray as well obviously. Even Nadal has a great shot, and then there's always Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga. Australia is the only major where he is a clear favorite.



Is Nadal even coming back? He has been MIA for 4 months now,and hasn't even been practicing. He's not beating ******* at RG,or anywhere for that matter.

I really don't see any of those guys you listed beating ******* anywhere. He is unbeatable,and with no competition,he is going to mop up slam after slam for years to come.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 07:27 PM
Yeah, you've gone a bit overboard there President, but so has Clarky (multiple times) so it's all good. Kind of like she just did.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:29 PM
Isnt Berydch 1-9 vs Djokovic now. Soderling is basically retired it seems. Tsonga hasnt beaten Djokovic in years.

I agree, btwTsonga have a 6 consecutive losses against Djokovic.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:29 PM
Murray is better grass courter, but in AO and USO Djokovic is the favourite, and RG is ????? depends on Nadal...



Nadal is also a better grasscourter but that didn't stop ******* from beating him at Wimby. He is definitely the favorite to win all the slams next year regardless of the surface.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:30 PM
Yeah, you've gone a bit overboard there President, but so has Clarky (multiple times) so it's all good. Kind of like she just did.



What do mean? Overboard how?

President
10-22-2012, 07:30 PM
Is Nadal even coming back? He has been MIA for 4 months now,and hasn't even been practicing. He's not beating ******* at RG,or anywhere for that matter.

I really don't see any of those guys you listed beating ******* anywhere. He is unbeatable,and with no competition,he is going to mop up slam after slam for years to come.

If he is unbeatable, then why did he only win 1 major this year (and came very close to losing twice in Australia to boot, "should have" lost both matches, in my opinion):confused: :oops:

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:32 PM
For a player who dominates various times at their career I consider them as having more than one peak. That is why I consider Graf at her peak in 88-89, 95-96, and even 93-early 94 all. Selestards take it even further as they argue her peak was 1991-1992 but Graf was better in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 than 91-92 so obviously according to them Graf had a 10 year peak, LOL! Her prime years go beyond even that as 87-96 could all be considered her prime, but obviously not all her peak.

She is just one example but I think of a player who totally dominates for various broken and sometimes widely spaced periods over a long time span as having more than one peak.

Agassi unlike Graf never truly dominated but the periods he was his mostly successful, at the very least 1995 and 1999/early 2000 would have to both be his peak IMO. However periods he was also contending and sometimes winning slams aside from those would have to be his prime years also.

Oops, I meant to say that you can debate on when a player had his peak, not prime. Anyway, both peak and prime are debatable. I just always believed a player only has 1 peak, even if it's better than the other high by just 0.0000000001%.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:32 PM
Nadal is also a better grasscourter but that didn't stop ******* from beating him at Wimby. He is definitely the favorite to win all the slams next year regardless of the surface.

I hope you're right! :)

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:42 PM
If he is unbeatable, then why did he only win 1 major this year (and came very close to losing twice in Australia to boot, "should have" lost both matches, in my opinion):confused: :oops:



He's unbeatable because he's the best hardcourter playing right now on a tour dominated by hardcourts. He is also the best claycourter playing right now as well,so he's also got RG locked down too. The only slam he might not win is Wimby,but he is still the favorite there as well.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:44 PM
I hope you're right! :)



I am so don't worry.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:46 PM
I hope you're right! :)

She's wrong. Don't get your hopes up. Djokovic is gonna be the most successful player of the top 4 from here on out but he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning all 4 Slams next year.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:48 PM
He's unbeatable because he's the best hardcourter playing right now on a tour dominated by hardcourts. He is also the best claycourter playing right now as well,so he's also got RG locked down too. The only slam he might not win is Wimby,but he is still the favorite there as well.

Yeah, that's why he won 4 Slams this year! Oh, wait...

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:51 PM
She's wrong. Don't get your hopes up. Djokovic is gonna be the most successful player of the top 4 from here on out but he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning all 4 Slams next year.

LOL Djokovic has a better chance next year for true GS than Federer in 2006 and 2007

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:54 PM
LOL Djokovic has a better chance next year for true GS than Federer in 2006 and 2007

That's not saying much considering Federer didn't win all 4 in either 2006 or 2007.

But I can say with a straight face that Djokovic only has a slightly better chance at getting to Federer's 17 Slam count than I do ;-)

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 07:54 PM
LOL Djokovic has a better chance next year for true GS than Federer in 2006 and 2007

He had as good a shot this year as he's going to have next year, and look what happened.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:56 PM
That's not saying much considering Federer didn't win all 4 in either 2006 or 2007.

Djokovic has a much better chance vs Nadal on clay than Federer, and Nadal is also injured.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:00 PM
Djokovic has a much better chance vs Nadal on clay than Federer, and Nadal is also injured.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it'll help you sleep at night :)

Joseph L. Barrow
10-22-2012, 08:01 PM
These are the time-spans in which players who have won over five Grand Slams in the Open Era have collected those titles:

Connors:1974-1983.
Borg: 1974-1981.
McEnroe: 1979-1984.
Lendl: 1984-1990
Vilander: 1982-1988
Edberg: 1985-1992
Becker: 1985-1996
Agassi: 1992-2003
Sampras: 1990-2002

This averages out to around an eight-or-nine-year span. Djokovic won his first Major title just under five years ago, and now holds five of them. Supposing, then, that he has four remaining years in which to win more, and continues to average about one per year, then he should wind up with four additional titles, or about nine total. Of course, things cannot be expected to perfectly follow this script, but I think anywhere from three to five more Major titles for Djokovic is a reasonable projection.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 08:04 PM
The problem here is that Djokovic had a tough enough time winning one slam last year. He was 4 MP's down against Tsonga at RG of all places. (I know the crowd may have helped, but still it's by far Tsonga's worst surface). He also went 5 sets with Seppi there, and that's without even mentioning Nadal. He could've lost both the SF and the Final at the AO, he's never been great on grass, and he lost to Murray at the USO, and generally seemed to have infinitely more trouble adapting to the wind than Ferrer or Murray did.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 08:09 PM
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it'll help you sleep at night :)

I'm ok man, but many Fed loverboys would have a nightmares if some player won GS!

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:10 PM
I'm ok man, but many Fed loverboys would have a nightmares if some player won GS!

Would you have nightmares if Federer won all 4 Grand Slams next year?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 08:17 PM
Would you have nightmares if Federer won all 4 Grand Slams next year?

No of course, i'm just a casual fan of many players, Fed is not one them, true, but i have a respect for him! I don't hate any player, i don't like Berdych for example but i'm ok if he wins all big 4! Many ****s will probably stop watching tennis when Federer retires!

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:22 PM
No of course, i'm just a casual fan of many players, Fed is not one them, true, but i have a respect for him! I don't hate any player, i don't like Berdych for example but i'm ok if he wins all big 4! Many ****s will probably stop watching tennis when Federer retires!

It's the same with me. I don't mind Djokovic winning all 4 next year. I don't mind anyone winning all 4 next year. I like most players and dislike very few (probably none from the ATP). But just because I don't mind something doesn't mean I should believe it'll happen. Only the delusional will think it's likely. It's possible, yes, but extremely unlikely.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 08:28 PM
It's the same with me. I don't mind Djokovic winning all 4 next year. I don't mind anyone winning all 4 next year. I like most players and dislike very few (probably none from the ATP). But just because I don't mind something doesn't mean I should believe it'll happen. Only the delusional will think it's likely. It's possible, yes, but extremely unlikely.

Then explain to me why you so vigorously saying that Djokovic has no chance for this, there is no chance for that? Why? And 95% your threads and posts are based on Federer, for example this thread and Nadal GS thread, you want to see do they have a chance to surpass Federer 17?

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 08:34 PM
She's wrong. Don't get your hopes up. Djokovic is gonna be the most successful player of the top 4 from here on out but he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning all 4 Slams next year.



We'll see,but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he did it.

President
10-22-2012, 08:38 PM
We'll see,but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he did it.

I would be, no player since 1969 has won the Grand Slam for a reason. Djokovic isn't even close to dominant enough to win it next season barring a return to 2011 form (which looks unlikely). The other top 3 are fully capable of beating him, and they proved it this year.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:40 PM
Then explain to me why you so vigorously saying that Djokovic has no chance for this, there is no chance for that? Why? And 95% your threads and posts are based on Federer, for example this thread and Nadal GS thread, you want to see do they have a chance to surpass Federer 17?

I would just as vigorously argue that Federer won't get to 21 Grand Slams. It's what I believe.

As to why I discuss Federer so much, that's because he's my favorite player. And I love statistics, comparisons and arguments. That's why I'm here :) And there's nothing more interesting than projecting Grand Slam totals of players as far as statistics and discussions go.

Nadal has a decent chance, even now, of going past Federer. Maybe 15-20%. Djokovic, maybe 3-4%.