Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Nadalgaenger, Mar 29, 2013.
I sense that Nadal will equal it in the next 5 years.
It cannot possibly be broken until USO 2014. If Nadal doesnt break it by 2016/17 then it should stand for a further 4/5 years minimum.
Nadal will never reach fed's slam record. Worry about Cvac instead.
Forever. :lol: No one can win 17 slams in the next forthcoming so-called strong era.
If Nadal doesnt break it in the next 4 or 5 years it will be broken sometime in the 2020s. It is really not such a strong record, or even one of his best ones. People forget that about 5 guys would have more slams than both Federer and Sampras had the format of the Game with Open Tennis and everyone playing all 4 slams been like today, some over 20 for sure. Federer has Sampras to thank for naively hyping up his own Slam record (when in reality his Wimbledon record and 6 straight year end #1s were always far better records) for it being such an overrated mark. Unfortunately for Federer, he and Sampras have hyped up the mark as their be all so much that the moment someone reaches 18 (or in Nadal's case even 17 given his total H2H ownage of Roger) his GOAT claims and backers will evaporate completely immediately, while guys like Laver with their Calendar Grand Slams will remain strongly in the mix.
All it takes is one strong player amongst a sea of clowns and they can be racking up Slam after Slam.
Federer's record will be broken in our lifetimes I bet. Probably even in the next 10 years if Nadal doesn't do it.
Look how quickly Sampras' Slam record was broken. Only 7 years it took.
At Nadal's age, Roger was only 2 slams behind Pete's 14 slams. Nadal is now 6 slams behind Roger, and since Fed is still active he can add another slam. Nadal can pass Pete's 14 but not Roger.
Oh great. Given your track record of predictions (proven in my sig and countless other times, lol) that is almost a guarantee Nadal is going to break Federer's slam record. I actually thought it was slightly on the unlikely side myself until now, but you just made it certain to happen.
If Nadal doesn't win 2 slams this year and/or Federer gets to 18 I think it's beyond his reach. I find it hard to see Nadal dominating the whole tour 2014 and beyond.
A truly epic prediction,just like your prediction of Fed getting to 18 slams(which he most likely will). So, how do you do it,Professor?
It's like you're Nostradamus reborn or somethin. :lol:
No, it's just a prediction which make more sense than you who said Serena can reach 27 slams. :shock:
And show me where I said from your signature? You keep making up false quote from me and other posters.
Where's the option that Federer himself will break it by winning an 18th?
Federer is still very much active, and last time I looked won the most recent slam between Nadal and Federer. And since he can add to his record, I find it funny people are assuming that only Nadal can add to his tally at this point.
Hmm, but there was significant changes in tour condition between 2001-2004.
This homigeneous condition is giving inflation on slam counts, IMHO.
So I would say it all depends on tour condition. If it stays as it is, I agree.
Federer would better add more slams if he wants to make his record last
Who would have won more than 20 slams? If you count Rosewall's and Laver's pro slams, then you can't include their amateur slams, since they likely wouldn't have won any of those had tennis always been open. On top of that, it's hard to say if they would have won all the same pro slams if they'd been open and seven rounds long. Obviously, the strength of the pro tour was greater than that of the amateur tour, but the depth was not. Look at what happened to Laver in his first U.S. Open.
If Laver won 2-3 slams a year from 1964-1968 and four slams in 1969, he'd have somewhere between 14 and 19 slams.
Note I did not say just say had it been Open Tennis but also had everyone played all 4 slams each year the way they do today (keep in mind the Australian and French especialy were not as valued back then). I agree had it just been 1961 to 1969 Open Tennis the whole time Laver wins around 17 or 18 slams only. However from 1970-1973 many still considered him the best player in the World but he skipped alot of slams for money exhibitions as did many others, the ATP was a mess then. He likely would have won a few more slams had he played them all, atleast 1 of the French Opens Kodes won he would have won for sure for instance.
Rosewall and Gonzales though would have easily cleared 20 slams, and far more certain to have done so than Laver for that matter. Gonzales would have won atleast half the slams played from 1953 to 1961, and some others in other years, while Rosewall would have won atleast 1 slam most years for about 20 years, with a few years of dominance. PS- while Laver is the consensus GOAT today, I concede had it been Open Tennis then it would most likely have been Gonzales and Rosewall above him, despite that Rosewall's reign tri;u on top would have been shorter.
Tilden playing all 4 slams would have easily gone over 20, even if everyone else played all 4.
Budge and Vines are even possabilities although less likely than the others mentioned.
I don't think it's a lock that anyone will pass Pete Sampras at 14 slams, much less catch Federer.
Show me where I said what is in your signature!?!? Most of the threads you are involved in, especialy relating to Serena, are deleted due to racism, slang, personal attacks, and your usual array of TW daily routine, so most of your comments are unretrievable, but mine would easily be retrievable if they existed and yet you still cant post a link, lol! 27 was the high end I predicted for Serena, aka the absolute max, I never outright predicted 27 slams or that as the most likely number, which is another of your usual lies. I said she would win atleast 18, and so far my prediction is looking good, while your prediction Serena would sit stuck on 11 after Clijsters beat her at the U.S Open long ago went down the toilet many years ago. There are also your famous predictions that Henin was going to come back and take over womens tennis again, bwaaahahaha, that Federer was going to start beating Nadal on clay in 2010, that Nadal had likely won his final slam after the 2009 season. Also that Wozniacki would have a good shot to beat Serena at the U.S Open once they met (and that one I can definitely find if you insist on being embarassed, and it was one of your few troll infested threads that werent deleted yet AFAIK).
A decade, maybe two. The thing with records is that they create a target for people to chase, and one day someone will come along who's talented enough, athletic enough, and more importantly driven and motivated enough to have a great chance at it.
And even if they don't, they won't be the only one. Plus with the new seeding rules it's easier for these top guys to reach the final rounds.
Not very sensible logic, Nadal is the boss at Roland Garros, could easily win 3+ titles in the future...
possible, but only if Rosolisation happens again
Just as it was quick for Federer to reach his majors count, it can be quickly surpassed, as his main rivals (Nadal & Djokovic) are not leaving the stage anytime soon, and are so above the rest of a frankly inferior field, that more majors is not an impossibility--particularly for Nadal (11 at present), while Federer's wheels are in the process of falling off--so to speak.
Nadal's mastery of the FO already means he should win (at least) another 3 before age and fatigue set in, which would bring him to 14. He certainly knows how to win at Wimbledon (and it is forgiving on the body), so what's to stop him from adding another three there--perhaps four.
The USO and AO can be random victories over the next five years, possibly picking up 2 or three.
All things considered, Federer's record may not last long at all.
What if another slam is added?
Not that long.
People exaggerate greatness by saying things like "There will never be a player as great as [insert current era champion here].
All the great champions of the game like Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal etc. all came, what? Like 5-10 years after each other? Federer is definitely going to have many of his records broken soon over the next 10-20 years.
How isn't sensible? I never said Nadal can't win 3+ slams, but you can't just write Federer off to win another one.
Fed at the same age was 2 slams away from Pete's record who's retire, but Nadal is 6 behind Fed who's still playing. Fed was in much better position to pass Sampras than Nadal is to pass Federer. Don't see how that isn't sensible.
...when it comes to majors count, that happens often--usually by those who (frankly) live in the moment, forgetting majors count has not been difficult to pass. This is one of the reasons Nadal has the ability to win many of the four majors and pass Federer sooner than later.
You mean you think there's a plausible chance Novak could win on-average 2 majors a year for at least 5 more years? Or 3 a year 3 more times in his career plus a few more even?
It's never going to happen.
Homogenous conditions making easier to rack up majors.
Homogenous styles and skill sets.
Still believing Nadal is going to break it.
Chance of Federer is getting nil.
He is fading out naturally.
Surely there's the possibility it could last for a VERY long time. Like 100 or 150 years?
So that is all you have to support you, the two biggest losers and trolls on this forum (along with your fool self of course), ROTFL!!!!! Also isnt DjokovicForTheWin supposably banned from this forum, amazing how you say his name like you are sure he is here, funny how that is. As if anyone (minus yourself) will care what they claim one iota. Unless you have proof of me saying Serena would win 27 slams and the other things you claim, you have nothing, just like you always have nothing. I said Serena would reach atleast 18 slams and she is well on her way. You on the other hand said she was done winning slams after losing to Clijsters at the U.S Open, and she has already won a whole bunch since and shat all over you. I also never disputed stating Djokovic wouldnt win Wimbledon, but it is only desperate trolls like yourself who thinks anyone would be embarssed about making that prediction, when that is what 99% of people (including yourself and FakeDjokovicFan I am sure) would have said before 2011 too. You only proof how desperate and pathetic you are that you keep bringing that up as if it is something meangingful and it even compares to the train wreck predictions you have made. It is like if I were to make fun of someone who predicted Schiavone would probably not win a French Open, haha.
Yes. RM Federer record isnt likely to be broken. He will be the eternal GOAT.
Somebody on here said that Djokovicforthewin is either tennispro or DropdeadArtist .........:twisted:
People said the same thing when Sampras reached his final majors count, but it was not long before it was passed. That will happen to Federer's count as well, since history has proven racking up random majors is not the most difficult task...that would be winning the ultimate example of tennis excellence: Grand Slam--a feat no man has accomplished in 44 years.
Federer's count...Nadal or Djokovic can reach, and eventually pass that.
I think Nadal has a very good chance to atleast equal the slam count.
People always say stuff. Some ppl still believe Sampras can come back and win Wimbledon ...some even stretch and think he can win french.
In my opinion ofcourse , Roger Federer's GS record will last an eternity. And I am not a fanboy speaking about this fav player.
this. until i see sampras' count tied, i am not even worried. frankly, can't believe the poll is so split right now
which is possible. it'd mess everything up.
10-20 years and "at least a generation"
Strange poll choices. 10-20 years is enough time to have 2 generations of tennis players.
Only Federer's children have a chance. The great man's DNA will be passed on IF he has a son, tennis records watch out!
Fed however, might come out of retirement if his hypothetical son is on the brink of beating his slam record...
Will be extremely surprise if Nadal can maintain his awesomeness at the French for another 4-5 years. After next year I think his performance there will start to drop off due to natural "wear and tear" of the body.
Presuming the above does indeed happen, he needs to defend RG for the next three years, which puts him at 14. Next best bet would be Wimbledon, if the stars align and Rosol, Petschzner, and other crackers don't upset him, two Wimbys seems like a realistic goal. So that's 16. I cant even imagine him winning another hard court slam, but i'll factor in easy draws, out of form opponents etc and give him 1 from the Australian Open.
Anything more than that Nadal should donate his home, uncle, poker cards and babolat endorsements to some third world country and start pushing for fishing to be part of the Olympics.
Wow, haven't seen you post here in a long time Messarger. How's life? Not been watching as much tennis?
Fair points. 17 is still nothing to sneeze at - and we've yet to see if that's Federer's final count or not.
Nadal's son will destroy Federer's ...
And the cycle continues........:twisted:
BTW, you once never gave Roger a chance to win 2012 Wimbledon, which you still continue to claim your innocent. For him to win W, you said it would be a MIRACLE.
You said Nadal is a most certain to win Wimbledon, more so than the FO. That leaves out Federer
Federer is no good, so it's moot point where ever he's place in the draw.
You gave Roger ZERO chance !
Yes, Federer winning the poll(poll results). These people are stupid to pick Fed winning 2012 Wimbledon, except you are the smart one not to pick him. How can these people can be so clueless, right?
If you did bet, I feel sorry for you.
Oh WOW TMF you spotted him getting a prediction wrong. BIG DEAL.
Seriously, I thought that's what discussion forums are for, opinion and predictions amongst discussing realistic events as well.
It seems that if you make a prediction someone like TMF will bookmark your predictions and then try and make themselves look smart as if he's never predicted anything that has eventuated to be wrong.
Tell me, how many slams did you predict Federer to win? I'll bet you would've been predicting him to win other Wimbledons that he didn't or other majors over the years where he failed to win.
Did you predict peak super power Federer to beat 17 year old Nadal
Come on, be honest now...
nadal winning 3 or 4 more wimbledons ? LOL !!!!!!! he'd might win one or two more , that's it ...
what is to stop him there ?
the way murray played last year on grass, he's a major threat there ... though djokovic's least favorite surface is grass, he knows what it takes to get it done there and beat nadal in 2011 there ...
federer is still a threat ... tsonga is no slouch either
then of course there is the possibility of big server/hitter getting him in the first week ......
wimbledon is more forgiving on the body, but less forgiving on the decline of reflexes/anticipation/returning.... how many 29+ year olds have won wimbledon in the open era ?
only laver in 69, ashe in 75, connors in 82, federer in 2012
I am not amused, as you sound like the same little gang who swore Nadal--a so-called "dirtballer"--did not have the game for Wimbledon, yet won two titles. Stereotype shattered.
With Federer's time on tour coming to a close, who is going to be the biggest threat to his chance of winning another 3 or four?
Do you think as time passes, he will not do what other majors winners have in pacing the schedule (i.e. not playing a ton of meaningless events) to be fresh for the majors?
There's also the possibility of the Death Star opening fire on earth the week Wimbledon begins..there's also the possibility of Hingis becoming a super-villain, stealing a blimp, then flying low over Wimbledon to dump her warehouse of cocaine into the air, thus turning thousands--including players--into bug-eyed addicts...there's also the possiblity of Capriati becoming an obsessed Nadal fan, breaking into Wimbledon (with or without the "lowjack" around her ankles), and hurling a wall of lockers at Nadal (for "ignoring" her)on day one.
The point being that you can dream all kinds of wild possibilities designed to stop Nadal's chances, but they are just fantasies. The reality is that Nadal knows that surface as well as anyone, the relevant result being his victories there.
So, this means it cannot be accomplished beyond this group? We're not talking about winning the Grand Slam (the impossible dream for most), just more Wimbledon titles, and Nadal has the game for it. That, coupled with a surface less punishing on the body could be a perfect chance to add more titles.
It's not making predictions that are the problem (nor being wrong most of the time!). It's the manner in which they are made.
Hey mate. How are you? Yeah I've been pretty busy. Plus 7 months with rafa was a total bore. I just drop by once in awhile when something major happens ie rafa's return. One thing though, the forum hasn't changed a single bit. goat this goat that **** here **** there...sigh.
Separate names with a comma.