PDA

View Full Version : Can Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray get to 50 Slams between them?


Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 09:00 PM
Right now they're at 34 (17+11+5+1). They need 16 more Slams to get to 50. That's 4 years' worth of Slams. With no real contenders coming up anytime soon, can they get to 50? If they do, there'll be no doubt in anybody's mind that these guys are the greatest top 4 in Tennis history.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 09:06 PM
These are the maximum I could see each ending up with, all wont reach these numbers of course, in fact none might:

Federer- 20
Nadal- 19
Djokovic- 15
Murray- 6

All reaching those would require 3 more from Federer, 8 more from Nadal, 10 more from Djokovic, 5 more from Murray, so 26 more total. I dont think all will reach that. However if even 1 of those (no idea which) reaches my projected maximum for them, and the other 3 average 3 below their projected maximum, it would be 17 slams between them. Given that they only need 16, I will vote yes.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 09:10 PM
These are the maximum I could see each ending up with, all wont reach these numbers of course, in fact none might:

Federer- 20
Nadal- 19
Djokovic- 15
Murray- 6

All reaching those would require 3 more from Federer, 8 more from Nadal, 10 more from Djokovic, 5 more from Murray, so 26 more total. I dont think all will reach that. However if even 1 of those (no idea which) reaches my projected maximum for them, and the other 3 average 3 below their projected maximum, it would be 17 slams between them. Given that they only need 16, I will vote yes.

My maximums

Federer - 20 (very unlikely but I guess I'm just being overly optimistic)
Nadal - 18
Djokovic - 13
Murray - 8

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 09:14 PM
My maximums

Federer - 20 (very unlikely but I guess I'm just being overly optimistic)
Nadal - 18
Djokovic - 13
Murray - 8

So basically we both come to maximums of roughly 25 or 26. So they need to be on average not much more than 2 below their maximums to reach 16. Tough but doable. I think it depends more on the generation 1993-1996 than it does on these players themselves. We pretty much all seem to agree generation 1989-1992 is not going to produce many slams. How strong the generation to follow is will determine alot to how effectively Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray can win into old age, along with if Nadal's body breaks down completely anytime soon (or if it has already, for all we know he might be retired as we speak).

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 09:42 PM
So basically we both come to maximums of roughly 25 or 26. So they need to be on average not much more than 2 below their maximums to reach 16. Tough but doable. I think it depends more on the generation 1993-1996 than it does on these players themselves. We pretty much all seem to agree generation 1989-1992 is not going to produce many slams. How strong the generation to follow is will determine alot to how effectively Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray can win into old age, along with if Nadal's body breaks down completely anytime soon (or if it has already, for all we know he might be retired as we speak).

It's funny, if this ends up happening, Federer's era will end up being considered the toughest in history :) Sampras had to deal with Agassi and a few other successful players. Federer would have dealt with a Sampras in Nadal, an Agassi in Djokovic, and an Edberg in Murray. Not to mention, the guys from Federer's generation like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, and Nalbandian. Not too shabby for a "weak era"!

Sim
10-21-2012, 10:03 PM
I think they can reach 50 as no new youngster is shining through yet that is capable of stealing several slams from the current top 4.

You can never be sure though. Things can change very quickly since we don't know how long Djokovic and Murray will last (I think these 2 will last longer than Nadal and especially Federer)

PrinceMoron
10-21-2012, 10:31 PM
Quite a few players around who can take one of these four out early in a tournament now, JMdP, Tsonga, Bird, Raonic, Isner, but that just means one of the others will win I guess.

paulorenzo
10-21-2012, 11:05 PM
i think djokovic and murray have more upside at this stage than nadal and federer, honestly. i do not see federer and nadal amassing more slams than djokovic and murray in, say, the next 5 years. if they have any chance of reaching 50, it would be on djokovic's and murray's collective shoulders from here on out, not federer's or nadal's.

the notion of amassing 50 is looking grim however, since i don't see djokovic and murray having the same staying power as federer and nadal. djokovic's and murray's own "djokovic and murray" will come up faster than they did against the fed and rafa.

joeri888
10-21-2012, 11:23 PM
If this would happen, you could tell that tennis is seriously sick. Homgenization etc. etc. etc. 10+ Slams shouldn't come around 4 times in a generation. It's just sad to see. Sure, an exceptional talent like Federer, Sampras or Borg can win many, but if they all win this many, there's nothing left for the rest. It's never been that way before and it would be sad to see imo.

Dark Magician
10-21-2012, 11:34 PM
Until no young gun steps up, there is no stopping the Big 4! They might reach within themselves 18+16+10+5/6

Sid_Vicious
10-22-2012, 12:52 AM
Until no young gun steps up, there is no stopping the Big 4! They might reach within themselves 18+16+10+5/6

Not necessarily. Back in 2006-2010, no one is stopping the big two (Federer, Nadal). After 2011, it was edited to "No one is stopping the big three" (actually it actually became the "top 2" towards the end of last year because people were debating whether Federer belongs with Djokovic and Nadal in the discussion. Since the second half of 2012, it has become the "big four". Soon it will be the "big 5", "big 6" ...

Russeljones
10-22-2012, 01:50 AM
11 people are deluded.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-22-2012, 04:22 AM
Not necessarily. Back in 2006-2010, no one is stopping the big two (Federer, Nadal). After 2011, it was edited to "No one is stopping the big three" (actually it actually became the "top 2" towards the end of last year because people were debating whether Federer belongs with Djokovic and Nadal in the discussion. Since the second half of 2012, it has become the "big four". Soon it will be the "big 5", "big 6" ...

Eventually it'll be the big 100

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 05:21 AM
Based on a maximum I would say they'll fall just short. I'll give Nadal 5 more at the most, Federer gets 1 more. If Djokovic gets to 10 I will be impressed. That's 5 more, and I'm not sure Murray will be a slam wrecking machine. I'll give him 4 more maximum. That puts them at 49, but keep in mind my totals are what I think will be maximums.

zam88
10-22-2012, 05:41 AM
I think it ends up:

Fed - 18 (i'd love to see 20 like some are predicting, but I just don't see it... barring injuries or sudden retirements from the likes of djoker/nadal)

Nadal 14 - (3 more French Opens - or 2 French, 1 other like AO)

Djoker 9 - (4 more)

Murray 5 - (4 more)

Someone will make the leap to someboday 2.0 by 2014.

This is mid 40's and that's damn impressive.

but it remains to be seen from this top 4:

Federer - any motivation left? if so, why?

Nadal - body... i get that he came back from "severe" injury once and ended up being dominant... but to do it again? The only reason I have him down for more slams is because no one touches the guy on Clay... even 80% Rafa will win RG.

Djokavic - how hungry is the guy? Was a 1 slam 3 finals season a success to him or a bit of a failure?

Murray - with the weight lifted off his shoulders in many ways does he have the drive to push harder or back off? I think he would very much like to win Wimbledon, but I doubt he competes on clay.

The Bawss
10-22-2012, 06:00 AM
Well, some *******s are optimistic. If the guy makes 14 slams I will be shocked, yet some predict 18 LOL. Also Fed will never make 20, stop kidding yourselves. Right now I think it is 50/50 whether he will win one more because he is basically done and no I am not trolling or anti-jinxing or whatever. Djokovic and Murray will win about the same number of slams from now on I think: around 5-6.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-22-2012, 06:02 AM
Unless new blood comes along I don't see anybody stopping the big 4 for four years.