Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
It would be a surprise if he doesnt win atleast 2 more Australians (quite possibly more), probably atleast 2 French Opens (even if Nadal somehow recovers enough to win another 2, that leaves 2 for Djokovic until the end of 2016, which is the earliest one could see another winner there), and probably atleast 1 more U.S Open. That already takes him to 11. That is the minimum he is going to win IMHO. It wouldnt even take dominance, that is only 5 of the next 15 or so slams, which is far removed from dominance, and way below his recent ratio of 5 of the last 9, and this is all before he even turns 29 still. Arent you the one who predicted before last year that you couldnt see Serena ever getting past even 14 slams too.
Ha, I may have predicted that, but then I hate Serena. I don't hate Djokovic, but I'm generally more conservative in my estimations. If Nadal comes back somewhere near his 2008-2012 form, then he'll be the favorite for the French and he'll be more likely to win Wimbledon than Djokovic (and so will Murray and Federer). Murray has shown that he can trouble and even beat Djokovic at the hard court slams, and I wouldn't count out Nadal or Federer either - assuming neither of them suffers a severe drop in form. Plus, if guys like Tsonga and Wawrinka continue to trouble Djokovic the way they have, he's not always going to be the victor in those matches. He'll have his Rosol moment sometime.
But of course he's got a good shot at getting double digits. I'm just fairly conservative. If Federer wins another slam, Nadal another two or three, and Murray another three or four, and
Djokovic reaches double digits, that means there will be no other slam winners outside of those four for the next three years at the earliest. And I know there aren't a ton of promising up-and-comers, but people are going to break through at some point.