How many more Slams do you think Nadal will win?

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

To prisoner: Of course not. I'm not sure he will even reach 10.

Oh,please. He will get to 10 with his eyes closed and one arm tied behind his back.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

LOL, yeah. Cause not winning any of the last 3 Slams is more dominant than winning 3 consecutive Slams (2010).

Overall Cvacula has been more dominant. He can go on another run easily,but do you see Nadal doing that? I sure don't.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

How many times Nadal has won RG is irrelevant. Fed won how many Wimby's straight before he lost to Nadal there? Nadal is on borrowed time at RG,and Cvacula will win it next year.


I don't think it was,and I also think he can repeat the same success he had against Nadal on clay last year. Especially now that Nadal is practically retired.


He does show promise for next year. His competition is also not as strong. He's more dominant than Nadal ever has been,and is mentally tougher as well.

Nadal gave himself a big hope at Wimbledon 2007 though and after destroying Fed at RG 2008, it was a big sign Nadal was going to beat Federer at Wimbledon. What has Novak done? He's taken one measly set off Nadal in 4 meetings at RG. Where Nadal improved year by year vs Fed at Wimbledon, Djokovic has gone backwards from his success in 2011 to getting wiped out by Nadal in 2012. If he could have managed to push Nadal to 5 that would have been another story. But he won one set because it rained. That's not any basis for thinking Nadal will lose to him next year. The only reason I think he might is cos one day he will lose there again and Djokovic is capable of doing it, but the odds are still in Nadal's favour.

And dunno how next year looks promising after Novak had such a terrible year in 2012, especially considering Murray had even the confidence of winning a slam til the US Open, meaning he will probably be tougher right from the AO next year.

also do you mean he has been more dominant than nadal ever has, THIS YEAR?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Overall Cvacula has been more dominant. He can go on another run easily,but do you see Nadal doing that? I sure don't.

Djokovic is more likely to dominate in the future. But Nadal has had twice as much success as Djokovic in the past. Seriously, it sounds like you're a Djotard masquerading as a fan of Nadal's. You know what, I'm convinced.

[PCXL-Fan]

Barring a disastrous injury that takes away his capabilities fro good:

4 FO+ at least
1-2 HC
1-2 Wimbledon

6-9 slams... Nadal has many more years ahead of him.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Oh,please. He will get to 10 with his eyes closed and one arm tied behind his back.

Lol no top player has ever won more titles after 25 than before/at 25, so his best results are already behind him. I say it will be a feat if he reaches the double digits. But the odds are against it.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Djokovic is more likely to dominate in the future. But Nadal has had twice as much success as Djokovic in the past. Seriously, it sounds like you're a Djotard masquerading as a fan of Nadal's. You know what, I'm convinced.

No way. I loathe Cvacula and always have. If you think I am a fan of him,even though I have made it very clear that I cannot stand the guy,then I don't know what to tell you.


And I have been a Nadal fan since 2005.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Lol no top player has ever won more titles after 25 than before/at 25,

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

No way. I loathe Cvacula and always have. If you think I am a fan of him,even though I have made it very clear that I cannot stand the guy,then I don't know what to tell you.


And I have been a Nadal fan since 2005.

The more you argue against it, the more you strengthen my point

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

That's because he wasted half his prime snorting.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Nadal gave himself a big hope at Wimbledon 2007 though and after destroying Fed at RG 2008, it was a big sign Nadal was going to beat Federer at Wimbledon. What has Novak done? He's taken one measly set off Nadal in 4 meetings at RG. Where Nadal improved year by year vs Fed at Wimbledon, Djokovic has gone backwards from his success in 2011 to getting wiped out by Nadal in 2012. If he could have managed to push Nadal to 5 that would have been another story. But he won one set because it rained. That's not any basis for thinking Nadal will lose to him next year. The only reason I think he might is cos one day he will lose there again and Djokovic is capable of doing it, but the odds are still in Nadal's favour.

And dunno how next year looks promising after Novak had such a terrible year in 2012, especially considering Murray had even the confidence of winning a slam til the US Open, meaning he will probably be tougher right from the AO next year.


also do you mean he has been more dominant than nadal ever has, THIS YEAR?

He lost to him,but I don't think he was "wipedout". He still pushed Nadal and made their matches close. He can and will end up beating Nadal on clay again,including at RG.



Wait a minute. Didn't you say Nadal had a great year last year even though he lost final after final to the same guy? Why do you think Cvacula had a bad year when his year has been very similar?


No.


No,I mean Cvacula has been more dominant than Nadal ever has throughout their careers. Even though Cvacula peaked later,he has dominated practically every tournament he has played for nearly 2 years now. Nadal has never done that throughout his whole career.

[90's Clay]

2 More French Opens
1-2 more wimbledons
1 more AO.

4-5 more possibly. Giving him 15-16 slams to end his career.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

The more you argue against it, the more you strengthen my point

Whatever you want to believe,but you are definitely way off on this one.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

No, not even Agassi. Agassi won 32 titles before he turned 26. And 28 from 26 onwards. You can check, it works for all the tennis greats. You can take the # of titles Rafa or Novak win by their 26th birthday and be pretty confident that whatever they win afterwards will be less than that. So Rafa will win less than 50 titles in the future

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

No, not even Agassi. Agassi won 32 titles before he turned 26. And 28 from 26 onwards. You can check, it works for all the tennis greats. You can take the # of titles Rafa or Novak win by their 26th birthday and be pretty confident that whatever they win afterwards will be less than that. So Rafa will win less than 50 titles in the future

But we're talking about slams here. He won 3 before the slump and 5 afterwards. And you said 25 first, not 26. So even for overall titles it would work.

Even the AO that was the last GS he won before the slump was in 1995, the year he turned 25 (but a few months before his birthday).

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

He lost to him,but I don't think he was "wipedout". He still pushed Nadal and made their matches close. He can and will end up beating Nadal on clay again,including at RG.



Wait a minute. Didn't you say Nadal had a great year last year even though he lost final after final to the same guy? Why do you think Cvacula had a bad year when his year has been very similar?


No.


No,I mean Cvacula has been more dominant than Nadal ever has throughout their careers. Even though Cvacula peaked later,he has dominated practically every tournament he has played for nearly 2 years now. Nadal has never done that throughout his whole career.

oh come on MC was a slaughter, Rome a bit better but still straight sets. RG was looking like that too til Novak got better for a while and was screwed by the match being taken off, or was allowed to win a set only cos of the rain- you choose which reason.

And I don't think Djokovic has had a terrible year in 2012, i'm just going by what you said about nadal's 2011 and djoko's 2012.

I don't know what you mean by dominated every tournament. Can't be winning the same event all the time, so must be winning it easily. Which is only true of the AO and Wimbledon in slams, perhaps some some masters too. Still Nadal has won RG, MC, Rome, Madrid and Barca easily multiple times.

[MichaelNadal]

I think he'll get 4 more slams before he retires if he comes back healthy and ready to go. He doesn't want to retire till 2016 so it's feasible if he's healthy.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

But we're talking about slams here. He won 3 before the slump and 5 afterwards. And you said 25 first, not 26. So even for overall titles it would work.

Even the AO that was the last GS he won before the slump was in 1995, the year he turned 25 (but a few months before his birthday).

I said : before and at (meaning until the player turns 26). Sure it only works for titles overall. Novak can still try to emulate Agassi in slams

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

The more you argue against it, the more you strengthen my point

She's not a Djokovic fan. And no offence but it's kind of frustrating when people say "you are this and if you deny it, that proves my point!" cos if it's not true, of course they will deny it.. so it's a no win situation for the accused

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I said : before and at (meaning until the player turns 26). Sure it only works for titles overall. Novak can still try to emulate Agassi in slams

So I guess it depends where the 25 goes, if in the "before" or the "after", haha.

But I wast just referring at the Slams anyway. He will probably end up winning less titles from now on than he already did, but he will focus mainly in slams (specially RG).