Novak: 6 slams and counting.

[90's Clay]

Anyone else beginning to think he will at least throw his name in the hat with guys like Rafa, Sampras, Federer, Laver, Bog, etc..

Fed will be turning 32 this year and clearly his time will be coming to an end as a top threat. Its inevitable sooner or later. Who knows if Nadal will ever the the same if/when he does return. To come off close to close to a year no tennis and then have to deal with Djokovic is a tough circumstance for anyone.

Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych etc.. are all Nole's whipping boy slaves who pose NO problems whatsoever. Nor will they for the next 3-4 years.


Murray at this point in time seems to be the only realistic threat.. And Murray still can't let go of the demons in his head which constantly affects his confidence. And with no other legitimate threat around at this point in time (depending on Rafa's return), Nole should realistically be mopping up slams for the next 2-3 years at a relentless pace barring injury

[forzamilan90]

Djokovic is the man no doubt. A truly all time great tennis legend. I think he will reach double figures, but whether he surpasses Rafa we'll see. After that it's more climbing (Sampras, Laver, and touching Fed will take a massive effort from Nole, like needs to dominate several more years and win a *****load of titles). He is one of my favorite players though. Very alright in my book (for more than one reason).

[RF20Lennon]

i think nole will end around 12-14 tops

[Hodgey20]

If he can take care of business in the next 3 or 4 years and stay competitive and steal a few in his 30's (he is 25 now) he will have a chance to come close to fed, maybe even pass him. That would be tough but there is really no threat (for now) younger than him. I think it will be him and murray going toe to toe for a while, maybe delpo will get in the mix too.

[Pistol Pete]

Haha challenge or surpass FED haha. The guy has 6. Do you guys understand how quickly things can change in sports?
Last year he won the same event everyone said he would win all 4 that year.
Courier had 4 slams and nole is only 2 more than that.
I would caution people to make far fetched predictions.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Haha challenge or surpass FED haha. The guy has 6. Do you guys understand how quickly things can change in sports?
Last year he won the same event everyone said he would win all 4 that year.
Courier had 4 slams and nole is only 2 more than that.
I would caution people to make far fetched predictions.

Rafa came back to peak form in clay season to knock some of the wind out of Nole's sails last year which kind of haunted Nole until he picked his level back up post USO last year.


Will Nadal even be around this year though? Confidence is also an important element in tennis. If Nadal isn't around, Nole could feel UNTOUCHABLE

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by Hodgey20

If he can take care of business in the next 3 or 4 years and stay competitive and steal a few in his 30's (he is 25 now) he will have a chance to come close to fed, maybe even pass him. That would be tough but there is really no threat (for now) younger than him. I think it will be him and murray going toe to toe for a while, maybe delpo will get in the mix too.

I disagree strongly. A LOT of things can change very quickly. Djokovic has struggled in Slams against lower ranked players like Tsonga, Seppi, Wawrinka, etc. He's been taken out by Federer and Murray. If he draws guys like Tsonga and Federer back to back in a Slam, there's no guarantee he'll make it past the both of them. If he draws guys like Del Potro and Wawrinka at RG, again...no guarantees. And then there's the Nadal factor and Murray who is also getting dangerously close to all of the top guys in Slams. Murray isn't yet physically tough enough to go through 2 of the top guys in consecutive matches but he'll build up to it. For all we know, Murray could dump Djokovic out if they meet in the semifinals of Wimbledon or the USO.

[bluetrain4]

He's clearly entered all-time great territory - but not Nadal, Fed, Laver, Sampras territory - yet?

Djokovic to catch Federer atleast in slam count would have to do something like win 10 of the next 19 slams until the end of 2017 (so roughly half), then win another 2 or more after that, now aged 30 or older. While anything is possible given his current dominance and the lack of up and comers, it would be a real long shot at best. However if he wins the Grand Slam, and multiple slams at every venue, he could be seen as greater than Federer even reaching 14 or 15. The latter is still very tough, but actually not that unrealistic.

His chances of catching and surpassing Nadal are probably more realistic.

[tudwell]

I'm still not convinced he'll hit double digits. He's had one year in which he won a slam outside of the Australian. I don't think he'll win Wimbledon again, and unless Nadal comes back seriously hampered, he'll be hard-pressed to win multiple French Opens (though I do think he'll get one). He's good at reaching the final of the U.S. Open, so he's definitely got chances there, but a 1-3 record in the finals is hardly dominant.

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

I disagree strongly. A LOT of things can change very quickly. Djokovic has struggled in Slams against lower ranked players like Tsonga, Seppi, Wawrinka, etc. He's been taken out by Federer and Murray. If he draws guys like Tsonga and Federer back to back in a Slam, there's no guarantee he'll make it past the both of them. If he draws guys like Del Potro and Wawrinka at RG, again...no guarantees. And then there's the Nadal factor and Murray who is also getting dangerously close to all of the top guys in Slams. Murray isn't yet physically tough enough to go through 2 of the top guys in consecutive matches but he'll build up to it. For all we know, Murray could dump Djokovic out if they meet in the semifinals of Wimbledon or the USO.

Wow I agree with that, but I am surprised coming from you given what a huge ********* you are. Did you have something unusual for breakfast this morning.

[West Coast Ace]

12 looks very likely. 14 - 17... not so much. Hard to believe his body will stand up. He doesn't have a huge killshot to end points quickly.

Originally Posted by tudwell

I'm still not convinced he'll hit double digits. He's had one year in which he won a slam outside of the Australian. I don't think he'll win Wimbledon again, and unless Nadal comes back seriously hampered, he'll be hard-pressed to win multiple French Opens (though I do think he'll get one). He's good at reaching the final of the U.S. Open, so he's definitely got chances there, but a 1-3 record in the finals is hardly dominant.

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.

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Wow I agree with that, but I am surprised coming from you given what a huge ********* you are. Did you have something unusual for breakfast this morning.

We have to be realistic. Djokovic won on his absolute best surface today. He hasn't had nearly as much success at the other Slams.

[Mike Sams]

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.

He hasn't even won a single RG yet and you're talking about him winning 2 French Opens. He was lucky to even make the final last year.

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

He hasn't even won a single RG yet and you're talking about him winning 2 French Opens. He was lucky to even make the final last year.

Lets say Nadal doesnt even return to tennis (and I am a huge Nadal fan, but lets be realistic, his future is a HUGE question mark right now), Djokovic would be the heavy favorite for the French Open for the next 3-4 years atleast, until the next big thing on clay arrives which is nowhere near on the horizon now. It sure as heck aint going to be Raonic or Tomic. Even if Nadal returns he probably isnt going to win Roland Garros the next 4-5 years in a row, and lets say Nadal wins only another 2 titles there (seems a generous estimate at this point), that would probably leave another 2 for Novak. Who else is going to win them. Federer in his 30s winning another French, LOL. Murray winning a French, very unlikely. Del Potro ever winning a French, very unlikely. Djokovic has been by an enormous margin the 2nd best clay courter of the past 2 years, despite the big upset in the 2011 RG semis, and there is no reason to see that changing anytime soon (well other than rising to the best if Nadal doesnt return or falls off any).

I will say it bluntly, I will be very surprised if Djokovic doesnt win atleast 2 French Opens and establish himself the 2nd best clay courter of his era. You can quote me on that.

[tudwell]

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.

Originally Posted by tudwell

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.

1. I definitely dont think there will be another slam winner outside the current top 4 (quite possibly outside of Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal, and who knows with Nadal at this point, it might be nobody outside of Djokovic and Murray even) until atleast 2017. The up and comers stink and none will ever win a slam, so it will have to be someone who is in juniors now, and someone in juniors now will take atleast another 4 years to win a slam IMO. Mens tennis is a mans sport, not a boys sport, even in the case there are young phenoms. Even Nadal who is as precocious as you will ever see in todays game didnt win a slam until atleast his 4th year on tour, and his first non clay slam until his 7th.

2. I dont think when someone new or more than one new player wins their first slam it means Djokovic, Murray, or even Nadal will never win another slam. It just means they wont win everyone anymore. Djokovic is only 25 now, and seeing Federer contending for slams at 31 is it easy to imagine Djokovic or Murray contending for slams up until that age atleast. I know many will say Djokovics game is more physically demanding which is true, but Djokovic, Murray, Nadal also wont be facing Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray in their physical primes like Federer in his 30s and having to deal with when they reach that age either. Hopefully they will atleast face something better than Raonic and Tomic mind you.

3. Your estimation means not only do you think we will see an new slam winner before the end of 2015 (possible even though I think not) but you actually think Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal will win 0 more slams after 2015, do I have that right? If so, I am sorry, but I think that is completely crazy.

4. Murray is not going to win more slams than Djokovic over the next 3 years IMO, and I dont think most would expect that to happen. Do you really believe Murray is going to be the better player of the two overall in the future? I could see Murray having a multi slam year and a #1 type year, but only one IMO. So if Murray wins 3 or 4, Djokovic will almost certainly win atleast that many, likely taking him to double digits.

[SLD76]

we are leaving out the Jerzy Janowicz factor.

Originally Posted by SLD76

we are leaving out the Jerzy Janowicz factor.

if there is a current guy who is going to break through and win a slam or two it is him. No way it is ever going to be Raonic, Tomic and the rest of Generation Suck, nor will the career second tiers like Berdych, Tsonga, and Ferrer ever win one. Del Potro who has already won a slam winning another slam or two is the other possability, although it is easy to believe he will never win another at this point as well. Besides those two any future new slam winners are people in juniors, or people who havent even entered juniors yet.