Do you see anybody else surpassing 17 Slams in the sport of tennis at any point?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    It only took 8 or 9 years for 14 to be surpassed officially . Hell if Nadal didn't have reoccuring knee issues for years, he has the record as well and then some.


    You count the pro slams, and some guys have way more then 17 slams like Rosewall who has a 23-24 slam count equivalent. Laver would have had 20 plus EASY if he got to play the slams in his prime..

    All it takes is for a player to dominate his/her era

    Not to mention as already been noted, the chances to break the slam record and win calendar slams and career slams has never been easier then they are now


    Just in the last 5 years alone, already THREE players have won 3 slams in one year. Prior to that it had only been done like twice in 40 plus years

    Records were made to be broken. The only ones I see that never will be are Laver's 200 title count and 2 calendar slams.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #51
  2. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,002
    That's all it takes? Then we should expect another Federer like talent, which would normally only occur once in a lifetime, to show up anytime soon!

    Having such a period of dominance from 2-3 players is not the norm, it's an historical anomaly. Therefore, the likelyhood of this pattern repeating itself is rather low.
     
    #52
  3. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,546
    Location:
    Weak era
    This basically, if the current conditions don't change (and I don't think they will) I reckon either Nadal or the next great baseliner after him will get the slam record (whether it remains at 17 or Fed wins 1 or 2 additional slams), Novak took too long to get going and isn't as dominant at any slam as Fed was at Wimbledon let alone Nadal at the FO.

    Sure, but then you could put anything from ballstriking, hand eye coordination, feel for the ball, impeccable footwork to great serving down to luck, I mean let's be honest, all this talk about hard work and mental toughness is nice (and I'm sure a guy like Michael Russel has both in spades as well) but neither Fed nor Nadal would get anywhere near their current numbers if not for their God given supreme talent.

    Having the "perfect" build for tennis (or any kind of sport) and being less prone to injuries is just another kind of talent.
     
    #53
  4. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525

    Federer is a great talent, but there has been MANY great talents on par with Fed over the last 50 years (People are just too biased to today's players).. Fed hasn't been able to dominate his rival period.

    2-3 players dominating to this degree will be a norm for years to come as long as the conditions stay homogenized. Its not like you have to worry about 4 distinctly different surfaces at slams anymore.
     
    #54
  5. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,674
    Physically more demanding yes. But unclear whether it will shorten career. Remains to be seen.

    Note that net game and attacking game has narrower error margin and demands
    different type of athleticism which declines fast with aging.

    Also note that Federer was considered a bit of late bloomer among great players who tend to win slams as a teenager.
    He was top talent but struggled to win slam until 22-23 (by 2003 when this medium slow condition arrived).
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #55
  6. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,002
    No. There haven't been MANY talents on par with Federer in the past 50 years. That's just silly. As for the last bit, it's just **** nonsense which is irrelevant and I refuse to address

    Logic failure. If conditions are homogenized and favor one specific type of players, then coaches all around the planet will aim to develop that type of player (unless they are 6'4"+) which means more competition.

    Again, unless a Federer type talent pops up (extremely unlikely), I fully expect a wider distribution of slams amongst top players in the future.
     
    #56
  7. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,002
    Well yes, it remains to be seen. Let's see how Djokovic and Murray and perhaps Nadal do in the next few years. Still, and considering that tennis is more demanding now than it's ever been, I really doubt that a baseliner/grinder will get anywhere close to that record under current conditions.

    And forget about teens winning slams. Again, because of the physicality, these times are over.
     
    #57
  8. reaper

    reaper Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,131
    It's not hard to see someone getting to 20. Federer's record could be bettered by someone who wins slams younger than Fed (his first was at 21 which isn't young), and also by someone who doesn't have an adversary with the wood on them as Nadal has on Federer. The perfect candidate would be someone who is a highly talented 16 year old now, who's going to be age 20 when the current established stars are disappearing off the stage.
     
    #58
  9. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Crazy sentence...
     
    #59
  10. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525

    Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Pancho,and Tilden etc.. Id say thats a few on par with Rog.


    You make it like Fed is so far and above beyond everyone in tennis history with is UTTER NONSENSE. Hes not the Gretzky or Phelps of tennis. He doesn't have "earth shattering" records that will last 1000 years and then some. Not to even close but.. In fact, the ONLY records that will last are Laver's. Since its a physical impossibility to win 200 titles and probably 2 calendars (though more likely winning 200 titles in a career)
    PROOF shows its not logic failure either. As I already said THREE guys, have managed 3 slams in one year in just the last 5 years alone.. You really think maybe other then Fed, Nole and Rafa would have accomplished this feat in say the 80s or 90s? ROFLMAO


    And also.. His main rival has owned his carcass on the big stage his ENTIRE CAREER and has the advantage on the big stage on ALL SURFACES (where as some guys in the past weren't owned by their main rivals in the way Rafa has owned Rog)
    IF you are among the best baseliners in today's era you're going to see quite a bit of success. And if the conditions remain the same, the opportunities will be there for many guys in the future

    You can win all 4 slams playing from the baseline, whereas before that was much more crazy difficult because of the polarization of surfaces between the slowest of the slow clay, right on to slipper fast low bouncing grass, and rebound ace.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #60
  11. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Ah, the desperation :lol:
     
    #61
  12. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    No its FACTS.

    ****s like to place Fed on some unattainable level that no one can touch.. ROFLMAO.. Like he has records that are impossible to break. Again.. Nonsense.. Utter nonsense. Again.. They aren't records that will never be broke.. In fact, outside of perhaps Feds SF streak, they will ALL be broke sooner or later.

    If we factor in pre open era, Fed doesn't even have records.

    1. Pancho has the most years and weeks at #1 unofficially , And Sampras has more YE#1 then Fed officially
    2. Rosewall has more slams then Fed if we count Pro slams. In fact, he has about 7-8 more slam equivalent titles then Roger.
    3. Laver has WAYY more titles then Fed.
    4. Laver has two calendars while Rog with ZERO
    5. Fed has no Davis Cup or Olympic Singles Gold. Other greats do
    6. Fed was DEMOLISHED by his main rival, Sampras, laver and others weren't demolished by their main rivals
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #62
  13. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,546
    [​IMG]


     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #63
  14. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,002
    90's Clay

    Stop comparing open era with pre open era, it's nonsensical and irrelevant. The fact that you seem to dislike Federer so much is also irrelevant. And Sampras is not at the same level talent wise as Federer, which, in the Open era, leaves... nobody...

    The rest of your post is still one gigantic logical failure. Read this again:

    "If conditions are homogenized and favor one specific type of players, then coaches all around the planet will aim to develop that type of player (unless they are 6'4"+) which means more competition."

    I see junior baseliners by the boatload at the National Tennis Center (Canada) and I guarantee you it's the same damn thing all over the world. And yet, you expect this domination by 2-3 players, which, one more time, is an anomaly, to continue... Makes no sense whatsoever.

    And with that, I'm done with you...
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #64
  15. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,476
    Location:
    Australia
    In many years to come, yes.
     
    #65
  16. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525

    Stop comparing Pre-Open era and Open era huh?? So tennis didn't exist prior to the late 60s. ROFLMAO. We are talking "all time here". I know ****s think tennis started in 2003 and everything that happened before that didn't exist..

    But it did.. Especially when we are talking "records".


    I know you're done with me.. I owned you.. Now go cry on your Fed blanket
     
    #66
  17. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,564
    Disagree, while it could be argued that everything has some basis in genetics (nature) and environment (nurture), one's basic anatomy or build really shouldn't be describe as a talent. A player has no control over that. All one can do is augment what one is given, but not change it inherently...
     
    #67
  18. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,002
    You're a tad slow witted aren't you? No we're not talking "all time", read the damn thread title... We're discussing the probability of a current/future player breaking 17 slams, which is Federer's record. And I'm pretty sure current/future players will still be playing in the Open Era and not in some kind of time warp... So yes, bringing pre Open era players/achievements within the context of this discussion is irrelevant. get it?

    That's funny.

    Pathetic, but funny nonetheless...
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #68
  19. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,564
    Why is that a crazy sentence :confused:

    Nadal already has 11 slams (I wont throw in the SOG knowing how that makes some go crazy), in 5 years a healthy Nadal would most likely win at least 4 more French Opens -- that equals 15 slams right there. I'm sure he would win 2/5 Wimbys and at least 2/10 USO/Aussies. Thats a conservative 19 slams; now of course some phenom might show up (baby Federer :)), but thats more than offset by Federer's probable retirement...

    So I don't find my sentence crazy at all. If anything its a conservative conjecture!
     
    #69
  20. always_crosscourt

    always_crosscourt Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    496
    Shut up. This statement proves you're little over 13 years old, and thus have no clue about 90s clay. Or anything.

    Phelp's records will be broken.
     
    #70
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    Try to stay on topic. Fed holds the slam record at 17(and counting), and the question is will his record be broken in the future.
     
    #71
  22. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525


    And I already said.. The "17 slam" nonsense is flawed since it really isn't even a "record" Just a so called "official" one but it still doesn't take into account ALL TIME..

    Really the slam record is held by Rosewall as I already pointed out.

    The slam record itself is questionable since guys didn't get to play official pro slams before. Hell, slam count wasn't even important until the early 00's when Sampras broke Emerson.


    So will the official 17 count slam record? Sure why the hell not? The importance of the slam count only began 13 years ago.

    Now its something everyone has the chance to shoot for.. Before it wasn't
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #72
  23. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,476
    Location:
    Australia
    I don't see Nadal taking away Federer's record. He's already struggling with injury, has had to basically cut a year and a half's worth of tennis out to get better and at one point, they were talking about operations on his knee. I say he wins the 2013 RG and then is hit by another big injury that requires surgery, which means that he will need to withdraw from more tournaments and truth is, he would never play the same again anyway. That is what happens to players who have a similar style to Nadal, so why not him?
     
    #73
  24. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    -Nadal has a 40% chance of doing it IMO.
    -Djokovic a 5% chance

    Then I don't think someone can do it for a very long time.
     
    #74
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    What's this, revision of history ??

    Rosewall only has 8 slams, and 4 of them are from the amateur.
    Fed holds the record at 17, Sampras is in second at 14.
     
    #75
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    That's crazy. Let see if he can win 7 more MS.

    And don't forget he hasn't won a non-clay title since 2010, so that doesn't look promising.
     
    #76
  27. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,546
    well he has to be over 13, he's a die hard Sampras defender
     
    #77
  28. Ralph

    Ralph Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,048
    This made me laugh aloud :) All that text from 90s Clay, yet P of Birth managed to sum it up entirely with three words.
     
    #78
  29. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    It's so annoying when all the *******s join together to attack someone just because he doesn't like to lick Federer's balls like they do.

    Can't you just accept someone that has a different opinion?
     
    #79
  30. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571

    You edited this but still didn't correct the bolded part?

    Also - That isn't a record. Not getting demolished by your main rival does not fall under that category. You start trying to list records but get into the usual anti Fed agenda. What next? Sampras didn't cry after losing a final. Yeah, that well known record :lol:

    Also Sampras has some embarrassing losses to players who werent his main rival. Not sure about Laver but in 1964 at 25/26 he struggled vs Gonzales who was 10 years his senior and I think had a losing H2H that year. And people go on about Agassi pushing Fed to 5 sets once.

    He also lost about 12 matches in a row to Rosewall in 1963. Federer has never lost 12 matches in a row to his main rival.

    The H2H that year between Rosewall and Laver was 33 - 12!

    Also looking at the H2H (it is incomplete but this is all we have to go on and could be be more in favour of either player) , Rosewall led in 6-4 pro slams, even in slams 1-1 , he also led 8-4 on hardcourts (the leading surface of today) even on clay at 4-4, slightly behind on grass at 15-16 and had his worst matchup on indoor 15-20. Can you imagine Federer getting to play Nadal 35 times on indoor and only 8 times on clay? :lol:

    Looking at it I don't see how laver can be the GOAT when vs Rosewall he has a losing H2H in slams (including pro slams) losing H2H by a 2 to 1 ratio on the leading surface of today, only a marginal lead on grass, a decent lead only indoors which isn't real tennis anyway and never had a slam.

    Given that his first calendar slam came one year before Rosewall killed him all season, that makes it seem very weak and given that his second was only the second open year, it makes that seem oportunistic...

    end counter trolling
     
    #80
  31. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    It's crazy because you arent SURE and it's not a FACT.

    I am sure if Federer didn't have mono in 2008 he would have won every slam since then and beaten Nadal in every slam too. You see how that works?

    You are all for facts when it suits you but wild conjecture when it suits you. WILD conjecture, predicting Nadal would not win 19+ slams without injury is not conservative conjecture at all. In 2007 people would have said that about saying Federer might not win 20 slams. It's also a fact that an Olympic medal is not a slam. That's like me saying a lion is a tiger. Don't worry though, even if you did try and count that I won't go as mad as you do when someone spells Nadal wth a lower case n :lol:

    Djokovic beat Nadal in 3 slam finals in a row and though Nadal won RG, he was still expected to win there. If you seriously think only injury can stop Nadal from winning 11 RG titles in a row (because the 2009 loss was only due to injury, right?) then you're a bigger **** than even I thought. There is such a thing as age and getting slower/older. Nadal had a hard enough time vs Federer in 2011 and that's a guy who is 5 years older than him and one he "owns". Plus didn't you add Nadal's parents' divorce to reasons Nadal lost in 2009? Might have been someone else but if that was you then you have to accept Djokovic lost to Nadal in clay season cos his grandfather died.

    He would win 2 to 5 wimbledons? What planet are you living on? :lol: In his best years he is always having to fight his way to 5 set wins vs journeymen, has lost 3 of 5 finals and lost to a guy who people don't even rate on grass. Yet he will possibly win Wimbledon at 31 IF he wins the next 5 in a row?? If not then it's 32+.. are we really saying Nadal would win 19+ slams if he defied the laws of physics, biology and aging? And as I thought you re just as bad as ****s, basically putting Djokovic's rise as a player down to Nadal being terrible, because no way does Nadal win 2 to 3 slams every year for the next 5 years with Djokovic and Murray playing well.

    When a player hits 27+ there is no knowing how much they will win, predicting a "conservative" (hahaha laughing at the complete misuse of the word.. you are seriously competing with mcenroeartist for the complete worship of a player) NINETEEN slams, is ridiculous. Proclaiming "you are sure" is deluded and just a sign that having given up the hope your idol will eclipse 17 slams, you are now making excuses by saying he would have done if he was not so dreadfully unlucky.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #81
  32. Candide

    Candide Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Yabba, the greatest little place on Earth
    Forget the pre-open era. What about the pre-pre-open era? Prince Harry was/is the undisputed G.O.A.T. He took on the French on their own home turf and left Roland Garos awash with clay dog blood and the wails of moaning women. Although Lords Gloucester, Bedford and Warwick were strong players and the Prince of France had a stylish (one handed of course) backhand Harry could account for them all handily in three sets. Federer wouldn’t stand a chance.

    KING HENRY V

    What treasure, uncle?

    EXETER

    Tennis-balls, my liege.

    KING HENRY V

    We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
    His present and your pains we thank you for:
    When we have march'd our rackets to these balls,
    We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set
    Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
    Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler
    That all the courts of France will be disturb'd
    With chaces…
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #82
  33. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,564
    Completely ridiculous retort!

    This entire thread is based on a hypothetical or as you put it wild conjecture! If you're so offended by such, don't freaking participate :twisted:

    Even the OP, a known Nadal hater and Federer fan, even stated in his original question if "Nadal is unable to break the record", thus assuming that its certainly possible for Nadal to do so! As a matter of fact that is a fairly broad consensus, so you obviously don't know what the he11 you're talking about!

    Grow the he11 up!

    And if you don't understand my use of conservative in my post; then you clearly are unable to discern context!
     
    #83
  34. dudeski

    dudeski Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,254
    Wow now that was some impressive ownage. Very well done.
     
    #84
  35. rk_sports

    rk_sports Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    soCal
    17 is ridiculous number really... :shock:

    Only possible candidate in this current group is Nadal (ofc assuming his knees hold up)...but even then it may not be possible with 2 players who can beat him - Novak and Andy.

    Maybe Novak has an outside chance...but that too depends on Nadal and Andy's form in coming years

    So, I guess someone new.. if at all :???:
     
    #85
  36. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Federer will

    I don't think Federer will retire with 17 Slams. I think he will win anywhere between 1 and 4 more (Probably 2). Any more wins by Federer will probably make the total out of reach for Nadal. At the moment to exceed Roger (assuming that Roger doesn't add to his total - an assumption that I think is wrong) he has to win 7 more. 7 is a lot. That is the whole of Wilander or McEnroe's career which Nadal would have to win from the age of 27 upwards. No one else in the Open era has so many after the age of 27 to date.
     
    #86
  37. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571

    Of course it's POSSIBLE for Nadal to break the slam record even as it stands now. It's TOTALLY different to state "you are SURE" he would win at least 19 slams (as a conservative estimate no less)

    The fact that you don't understand the difference between something being possible and being certain, points to the fact that your reasoning fails once again and you are blinded by worship for Nadal, and no amount of exclaimation marks after your sentences can make them look any more credible (or credible at all)

    You're telling me to grow up? Someone who freaked out because I spelled Nadal with a lower case n? For someone throwing tantrums over such silly things, that's one hell of a funny statement. If you're so picking about punctuation maybe you can learn to sometimes end a sentence with a full stop instead of an exclaimation mark.

    And there is a difference between realistic conjecture and ridiculous conjecture. You entered the latter. Not only that but you stated it as if it were a fact. I'll participate in any thread I like, if you find my disagreement on your views so offensive then talk to some Nards. Sorry but if we were discussing Federer slams and the era you call weak, and I said Federer would win just as many slams in any era, you would disagree, not say "well ok this is conjecture so it's all fair play" And if I said something like I am sure Federer would win 25 slams in any previous era, or if not for mono he's have 27 slams now, I'd love to see your reaction :lol: Because that'show ridiculous your argument is.

    You know what? without Djokovic's gluten problem and breathing issues and without Murray's knee issue, each one of them would win 20 slams. That's just a conservative guess though..
     
    #87
  38. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Thanks. DRII is one of the most ridiculous posters here. I mean someone going nuts cos you type nadal instead of Nadal? Serious fanboyism there. Someone like NSK/Rafawon/whatever is obviously someone performing an experiment on this board, some sort of pyschology experiment.
     
    #88
  39. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    Nadal has only failed to break the record because of INJURIES.. It sure had nothing to do with anything else. If not for the persistent knee problem, Nadal may have been first to break the slam record. Certainly he would have much more then 11 right now.


    So yes.. It will be broke officially. 17 is a lot of slams but its not like Graf's count or something.. Completely out of reach for someone in the future. Again.. It took less then 10 years to break 14 (heck Nadal may end up with more then 14 too).


    It takes health, domination over the field to a high degree and coming along at the right time to do it.

    Fed came along at the perfect time (transitional era, post Sampras/Agassi, no other great player around until Nadal finally became an all surface threat)

    That next era coming up will be HUGELY transitional too with not much talent around AT ALL (since the field is lacking the most depth it ever has at this point in time) Thus leaving the field open for so much else to accomplish
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2013
    #89
  40. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    At best you can only claim Nadal would have 2-3 extra slams. RG/Wimbledon 2009 if he really was that injured and maybe one other title somewhere. Even Wimbledon 2009 was no sure thing given how many times he's been close to going out to some underdog. At the AO and US Open he's not been consistant enough to suggest he would have won the US Open 2012 or AO 2013, and given his HC success compared to Djokovic's (plus an improved murray) it's more likely he wouldn't win either. Last year's Wimbledon, maybe. But given all the times he has to come through in 5 to nobodies, maybe not. RG 2003 and 2004 is hard to call since in 2004 and 2005 he was still losing to people on clay. AO 2006 no way. AO 2010 - Murray was winning before Nadal got injured, AO 2011 he would have lost to Djokovic anyway. At best Nadal would have 14 in a 3 way tie with Sampras and Federer although he would definitely have a 99% chance of beating this.

    Everyone has injuries/illnesses etc though, so that's just life.
     
    #90
  41. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,131
    Only if they introduced a fifth slam
     
    #91
  42. Harry_Wild

    Harry_Wild Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,192
    On the ladies side; Serena might be able to go over that mark since she has 14 now!

    Not sure about Federer's total slams. But he does not need many either if he has not already went past that now.
     
    #92
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    Staying healthy, injured free is part of the challenge, just as having to win 7 matches at the slam. Fed is doing better on both accounts.

    17 IS a lot of slams. There's only 4 players that have surpassed 10 slams. Racking up slam in the WTA is much easier than in the ATP, and that's just about in any stats.

    Yes good health, gifted talent, domination, hard work, discipline, hunger will determine a player's future.

    Fed is playing in an era where most ex-players have said the field is much deeper/stronger. eg Agassi, Laver, Lendl, Mac...

    No comment for the future. We don't know who will step up. Every generation there's one or two players that owns tour.
     
    #93
  44. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,474
    Location:
    USA
    Djokovic will be lucky to win 9. Also the idea that Fed isn't going to win 1-2 more is absurd.
     
    #94
  45. furryballs

    furryballs Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,065
    seeing how this has become a "how many slams nadal wouldve won if wasnt injured thread" i beg this question....how many slams would nadal have if he played to the 20 second rule????
     
    #95
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    And how many would he won if no player never got injured at all. :)
     
    #96
  47. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,474
    Location:
    USA
    People forget that a big reason Nadal has won several AO/Wimbledon/USO is because he pushed he body beyond the max and got injured for it. He couldn't win those events without redlining his body and writing checks it couldn't really cash.
     
    #97
  48. adil1972

    adil1972 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,435
    emerson record of 12 slams stood for more 32 years, sampras record of 14 slams stood for 7 years, how long will federer record of 17 slams will stand, only future will tell. laver record of 2 CYGS stand for 45 years and on going
     
    #98
  49. adil1972

    adil1972 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,435
    even graf couldnt break or equal laver record of 2 CYGS
     
    #99
  50. SwankPeRFection

    SwankPeRFection Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,509
    I guess the real question is... Will it count (not technically, but ethically) if Nadal was to win 7 more French titles and nothing else over the next 7 years, if he plays that long? After all, can you really be counted as the greatest player in the world if you only hold a single slam record that you won 50 billion times? I think you could regard him as the best clay court player, but that's about it. One trick ponies aren't all that cool. It's like pushers who just constantly win... you won't see anything amazing out of them no matter what.
     

Share This Page