Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Nadalgaenger, Mar 29, 2013.
But how do you like the change of not being able to say ****, but you are allowed to say ****?
The forum hasnt changed in 7+ yrs i been a member. whats 7 months.
I would love to see what happens to this place after Fedal retires:twisted:
I think fed miiiight add one more, but even then he'll have to work his absolute hardest for that to happen at this point. I think Rafa has a small chance, but absolutely nothing beyond 25%. People keep overrating his roland garros chances; he's not getting any younger, or healthier.
How do you know Federer's time on tour is coming to a close? He's won a slam more recently than Nadal has and was number one in the world far more more recently than Nadal was.
The more GS a players wins, the weaker the field they were in... FACT!! LOL
With Nadal's knee problems he probably won't win a slam this year till he gets looking good again.
He'll probably play till he's 33-34 though.
True because if one person wins all the slams (like Fed virtually did) then no one else can have any slams and thus the era didn't have many GS champions.
Think if Nadal didn't exist and Federer had won like 21 slams including 2 CYGS's.
What would they say about the era then?
I did say he could win 1 or 2 more ... but 3 or 4 more is a very remote possibility .... who can stop him ? read on .......
I'm not talking of about wild possibilities here ... I'm talking realistically ...
I'm talking about djokovic who did take him out in 2011 wimbledon
I'm talking about possibility of an early round upset , which did happen in 2012 wimbledon - rosol ( and to which he did come close in other wimbledons - kendrick wimbledon 2006, youzhny/soderling wimbledon 2007, haase/petzschener wimbledon 2010 )
I'm talking about murray who played very well and showed a marked improvement on grass in 2012 giving a very good fight to federer in the wimbledon final, dominating federer while winning the Olympics final in 2012 ( also beat djokovic in the semis in straights)
I'm talking about federer/tsonga who can still be real threats when playing well, even more so if the roof is closed ....
no, all it means is that its not as easy to win wimbledon at 29+ as you think...... even if it is more forgiving on the body , it is less forgiving on decline in reflexes/anticipation/returning than any other slam ........
Before the target to break the record was 16, and now it's 17. It's possible that 18 is target in the future.
There was a recent thread titles why federer is the goat. Most people choose his list of records as the reason, not the 17 slams. So you are employing a classic straw man argument. I agree with you his no1 record is important. Also his 5 win streak in both USO and Wimbledon is very significant and I doubt it will be broken before the 17 slams record is broken. The double five win streaks is far harder than Laver's calendar slam, which is just three grass wins and one clay. I don't get why some people give it so much credit. It is not broken simply because the slams changed to three surfaces from two. If they has remained as three grass and one clay, both fed and nadal might have done it more than once. Just to illustrate how naive it is to think two surface grand slams is in anyway comparable to three surface grand slams (i will leave out the dramatic difference between AO and USO) just think how easy calendar year slam would be if all slams are on one surface.
Not true because that is not the only way for a GOAT type player to win all the slams.
Think if Fed is an even or better clay court player, with nadal still being as good as he is. What would they say about the era then?
Cvac? Not a chance will he even get within sniffing distance of Federer's slam count. Nadal has a much better shot than Djokovic does.
People tend to overreact too much here. Two months ago Nadal was never coming back to win a GS title again, and now people think he will win another 7 GS titles.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I guess he'll end somewhere in the range 13-15.
Djokovic? I would be very surprised to see him end with more than 11 GS, really.
I think the 17 GS figure will last as a record at least for 10 or 15 years (it will depend heavily on factors like homogeneus vs polarized conditions, 16 seed vs 32 seed, baseline game as the only prevalent style vs variety of styles.....it they go back to 90s or 80s conditions that record won't be broken in decades).
When somebody gets to 14 and matches Pete, then we can talk about Federer's mark, whatever it may be at that time.
True. The fact is, Nadal has not yet surpassed Borg, let alone Sampras, or even better, Federer, so these predictions are ridiculously premature....
I doubt that Nadal will equal or better Federer's slam record.
Nadal's record will most likely end up having a big asterisk next to it anyway much like Flo Jo, Roger Clemons, Carl Lewis, Barry Bonds etc
High probability that this occurs in the next 5 years.
Another way to look at it is this: Nadal will turn 27 just before the end of this year's French Open.
If he were to play for the next whole three seasons until he was 30 (and a half) he would need to win 7 of the next 15 majors to pass Federer - basically half of them.
By my estimation it all depends on him winning the next four French Opens on the run for him to have a chance to overtake Federer. Failure in that respect would be a huge dent in his chances given the increasing numbers of players who seem to be maturing physically and mentally.
Can he win the next 4 French Opens - and then some? I doubt it.
I guess this all depends on Nadal's knee. :???:
This homogeneous condition makes it very easy for top players to rack up
slam (or title) counts.
For example, AFAIK, Nadal, at early or mid 20's, broke the masters title record
accumulated by Aggasi during his whole career until 34?, right?
Nadal will probably retire at a much younger age. Can't see him playing GS here and there at ranking of 20+. Plus every time he crashes out in a slam he needs like 6 mos or more to reboot his mental.
If there will be a super player in the 2020's, this guy would have the speed and precisions of Fedal and then some. He must be a super net player + super defender + super counter puncher that every player in the future era no matter how strong will fold quickly in front of him. Must be a quick finisher too otherwise who would have the stamina to grind thru 3 or 4 slam finals per year? To be realistic this guy must win at least 3 majors per year for the first 4 yrs to 5 yrs to start with. Then 18-20 majors by year 9-10.
The record could easily fall to a guy who's about 17 years old now. No, I don't have a name for you. No player aged from 18 to 24 now is destined for greatness, so the top juniors of today have the world at their feet in the post Djoko/Nadal/Murray era.
Yes (and tied the Lendl's record of 22 titles of "M-1000 equivalents tournaments" that existed in the 70s and 80s).
But one important thing to add:
Prior to 2000 (more or less) those type of tournaments (now called M-1000, and previously called Master-Series and earlier Super-9 during the 90s, and earlier called Grand-Prix-Championship-Series in the 70s and 80s) were NOT as important as they are now for two main reasons:
1) They were not mandatory.
2) There were several other tournaments that gave almost the same amount of points (whereas today they give double of points than the next cathegory).
nadal has on only french opens in the last 2 years. he may win others as well but to get to 17 you need a great deal of luck. sooner or later nadal will slow down it is natural so he will not be able to keep it up physically against the best. nobody has won 6 or 7 slams after 26 nobody. if he enters in some more epic matches with djokovic his knees will get crushed.
Separate names with a comma.