Do you see anybody else surpassing 17 Slams in the sport of tennis at any point?

[Fiji]

I don't see Nadal winning more than 12 slams and Djokovic more than 10 slams.

They are not good enough to even reach 14 slams.

Players like Federer and Sampras are on another level.

[dudeski]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Thanks. DRII is one of the most ridiculous posters here. I mean someone going nuts cos you type nadal instead of Nadal? Serious fanboyism there. Someone like ***/Rafawon/whatever is obviously someone performing an experiment on this board, some sort of pyschology experiment.

Yeah I don't know why DRII gets so worked up about someone saying that Nadal won't reach 17 slams. It's pretty obvious given Nadal's age. He is same age Federer was in 2008 when Federer started going downhill and all Nadal fans love to say how Nadal body is even older because of his play style. So why pretend that's not the case now? Maybe he thinks we forgot the excuses they had in 2011/2012 when Djokovic beat even younger and peakier Nadal 7 straight times.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal has only failed to break the record because of INJURIES.

So he missed three slams (allegedly because of his knee injuries) for which he was anything but a lock to begin with, and that would have enabled him to get to a total which would be superior to 17? Got it.

Didn't know you also had to be mathematically challenged to be part of the VB and MBB...

Originally Posted by DRII

Exactly!!!

But then, you obviously do...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by dudeski

Yeah I don't know why DRII gets so worked up about someone saying that Nadal won't reach 17 slams. It's pretty obvious given Nadal's age. He is same age Federer was in 2008 when Federer started going downhill and all Nadal fans love to say how Nadal body is even older because of his play style. So why pretend that's not the case now? Maybe he thinks we forgot the excuses they had in 2011/2012 when Djokovic beat even younger and peakier Nadal 7 straight times.

I'm not worked up, Tinkerbell, just stating logic...

if you bothered to notice, i stated in my hypothetical that if Nadal stays healthy...

fully realizing thats a big if!

[always_crosscourt]

If Nadal is only not at 17 because of injuries, Federer is only not at 30 because of MONO

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Fiji

I don't see Nadal winning more than 12 slams and Djokovic more than 10 slams.

They are not good enough to even reach 14 slams.

Players like Federer and Sampras are on another level.

You think Eeyore will only win 10 slams? No way on earth he wins such a small amount of slams. He is going to go through the tour virtually untested for the next 5+ years. He's going to rack up slams like crazy.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by DRII

I'm not worked up, Tinkerbell, just stating logic...

if you bothered to notice, i stated in my hypothetical that if Nadal stays healthy...

fully realizing thats a big if!

Don't bother with dudeski. If he decides he thinks you're an easy target he will never leave you alone.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by DRII

even the resident Fedephant drama queen says its not out of the realm of possiblity for Nadal to break the record...

that right there should tell you something!

I just threw that in there to calm you down.

Sea kelp, dRII.

Originally Posted by Clarky21

You think Eeyore will only win 10 slams? No way on earth he wins such a small amount of slams. He is going to go through the tour virtually untested for the next 5+ years. He's going to rack up slams like crazy.

I feel confident that he will win 27 slams, depending on how windy his finals are.

[Fiji]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

You think Eeyore will only win 10 slams? No way on earth he wins such a small amount of slams. He is going to go through the tour virtually untested for the next 5+ years. He's going to rack up slams like crazy.

I already posted why.

Neither Nadal nor Djokovic will even equal the slam record. They won't get close either.

They are not the next Federer. They weren't even good enough to follow their 3 slams year with another multiple slam year. Federer did it in 2004 and then came back in 2005 with 2 slams. Then in 2006 he won 3 slams and again in 2007 he won 3 slams. His first disappointing year was 2008 when he couldn't win multiple slams. But apparently he had mono plus he was almost 27...

Nadal and Djokovic couldn't even win multiple slams after their 3 slams year. They had to settle for just 1 slam in 2011 and 2012 respectively.

They are not the next Federer.

Nadal will be lucky to win 2 more slams the way he is struggling with his knees. Will he even be back?

Djokovic will also be lucky if he wins more than 10 slams because he loses too many slam finals. He has won 5 slams but has lost 4 slam finals already. If you look a the players that won more than 10 slams in the open era they went on to lose their 4th slam final when they had 10+ slams won already. Having already lost 4 slam finals is not a good omen for the Serb because the likes of Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal only went on to lose a 4th slam final when they had won 10 or more slams, and not when they had just won 5 slams..

After winning his first 5 slams, Djokovic has lost 4 slams finals so far. After winning his first 5 slams, Federer had lost 0 slam finals. Djokovic is not following the trajectory of Federer's career. To say Djokovic is going to rack up slams like crazy as if his career was following the same path as Federer's does not make sense.

After winning his first 5 slams, Djokovic has lost 4 slams finals so far, as I posted earlier. After winning his first 5 slams, Wilander had lost 4 slams finals. After winning his first 5 slams, Agassi had lost 5 slams finals. These are the players closest to Djokovic in achievements by the time they had won 5 slams.

Meanwhile:

After winning his first 5 slams, Federer had lost 0 slam finals, as I posted earlier. After winning his first 5 slams, Sampras had lost 1 slam final. After winning his first 5 slams, Borg had lost 1 slam final. After winning his first 5 slams, Nadal had lost 2 slams finals.

Djokovic is following the trajectory of players like Wilander and Agassi and most likely will end up with 8 slams at least. Being optimistic, I will say he ends up with 10 slams.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

So he missed three slams (allegedly because of his knee injuries) for which he was anything but a lock to begin with, and that would have enabled him to get to a total which would be superior to 17? Got it.

Didn't know you also had to be mathematically challenged to be part of the VB and MBB...



But then, you obviously do...

More foolishness!

Thats assuming he has the same amount of time on tour as Federer going by age; that would mean 5 more yrs on tour for Nadal extrpolated out also assuming he's healthy during that time...

try reading and comprehending fully.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by DRII

More foolishness!

Thats assuming he has the same amount of time on tour as Federer going by age; that would mean 5 more yrs on tour for Nadal extrpolated out also assuming he's healthy during that time...

try reading and comprehending fully.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal has only failed to break the record because of INJURIES.

Which part of "has failed" can't you understand? Basic reading skills should be enough for such an easy sentence--according to 90's Clay, without his injuries, Nadal would already have broken the slam record *now*, not in 70 years' time. No need to try and find more excuses for him, he usually has tons of them in each of his posts.

But then, you usually do, too, so I guess it's only fair that the two of you feel the need to close ranks when your "arguments" get exposed for what they are...

[kalyan4fedever]

In the weak era to follow it is possible for marginal young players like tomic to get to 17 slams

[DRII]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Which part of "has failed" can't you understand? Basic reading skills should be enough for such an easy sentence--according to 90's Clay, without his injuries, Nadal would already have broken the slam record *now*, not in 70 years' time. No need to try and find more excuses for him, he usually has tons of them in each of his posts.

But then, you usually do, too, so I guess it's only fair that the two of you feel the need to close ranks when your "arguments" get exposed for what they are...

You're the one that grouped my post along with his

Obviously devoid of full context!

If you're going to counter or 'expose' an argument; at least do your due dilligence and comprehend what the argument is in the 1st place!

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by DRII

You're the one that grouped my post along with his

Ahem. Go back a few posts and try to follow the course of this argument. It's only a couple of posts long, so you shouldn't have too much trouble understanding who started doing what...

Originally Posted by DRII

If you're going to counter or 'expose' an argument; at least do your due dilligence and comprehend what the argument is in the 1st place!

Right back at ya, buddy.

[dudeski]

Originally Posted by DRII

I'm not worked up, Tinkerbell, just stating logic...

if you bothered to notice, i stated in my hypothetical that if Nadal stays healthy...

fully realizing thats a big if!

LOL why Tinkerbell?

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

If Nadal is only not at 17 because of injuries, Federer is only not at 30 because of MONO

Both are ridiculous. Rafa won't get to 17 because of Djokovic (he wouldn't have won any of the 3 slams he missed) and Fed would've gotten just one more slam without Mono.

[Ralph]

Originally Posted by Candide

Forget the pre-open era. What about the pre-pre-open era? Prince Harry was/is the undisputed G.O.A.T. He took on the French on their own home turf and left Roland Garos awash with clay dog blood and the wails of moaning women. Although Lords Gloucester, Bedford and Warwick were strong players and the Prince of France had a stylish (one handed of course) backhand Harry could account for them all handily in three sets. Federer wouldn’t stand a chance.

KING HENRY V

What treasure, uncle?

EXETER

Tennis-balls, my liege.

KING HENRY V

We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
His present and your pains we thank you for:
When we have march'd our rackets to these balls,
We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set
Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler
That all the courts of France will be disturb'd
With chaces…

A most entertaining take on the conversation/thread.

[FD3S]

So many people are saying 'if' in regards to Nadal's injuries. It's not like his injury issues came from freak accidents like Haas or Muster - they're directly tied in with his playing style, which exacerbated already existing issues. The ONLY way he doesn't get hurt, all things being equal, is if he changed how he played, and that opens up a totally different discussion about whether or not Nadal would be as effective as he was playing a totally different style. You think Nadal gets to 11 majors if he's a step slower, or if he was a serve and volleyer, or if he tried to be an 03/04 Roddick-type blaster?

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by DRII

How ridiculous are you???

I suggest you learn to read and comprehend a little better. Yes, I am certain Nadal would get past 17 slams, if , he were to remain healthy and fit for the next 5 years! Do you freaking understand what a hypothetical is? How you find that incomprehensible shows your extreme insecurity when it comes to Federer!!!

Sorry to break it to you, but you are most certainly not certain. I am 100% certain of that. You do not have knowlege of a alternative universe where the only difference is Nadal never got injured. The fact you are unaware of how silly your claims of some sort of God like insight into causality are, is hilarious. Do you freaking understand that you can never be certain about anything like this? No. Of course not. And I'm not insecure. I'm happy with Federer's place in history, if someone does break his slam record which will surely happen sometime, it doesnt take away the enjoyment I've had watching him play, and I would very much like to see some new player come out who plays great tennis that could do things Federer couldn't. I like Djokovic and Del Potro and have rooted for them to win over Federer, because I like tennis, not just one player. If you want insecurity, look in the mirror. You claim you know for a fact Nadal would actually be the leading slam winner of all time if he werent so unlucky with injuries THAT'S insecure. You also must claim you know for a fact that Federer would never have won nearly as much if he had faced whoever. Do you know for a fact who would win between Ali and Tyson as well?

Now we got that out of the way, have you also heard of something called aging? It's a biological thing that happens to every lifeform, even tennis players! Even if a player is totally injury free, it's not that likely that they will carry on picking up slams into their late 20s like they did in their earlier days. I mean you probably think Federer is as good as ever, but you go on about how Hewitt lost it, Sampras fans think he was way too old at 29 to beat a 19 year old kid. But Nadal who relies on speed so much, is not going to lose a bit of speed and maybe decline? Hell, in 2011 when Djokovic was beating him a lot of Nadal fans were saying that he had declined, and drastically according to some. The line went "Fed was only prime for so long, how can you expect Nadal to be still in his prime when his game is so much more physical?" Well how could he last til his 30s then? If he hadn't won clay season in 2012 you'd still be saying he was in decline.

Originally Posted by DRII

Nadal already has 11 slams (much more than Nole or Murray; without being completely healthy and fit for the last 5 years), he's only lost RG once when he was injured -- notice i said in my post if Nadal is healthy for the next 5 years! If he's healthy; he definitely wins at least 4/5 RGs; I gave his competition one win just because some fluke could happen like Nole perhaps upsetting him but that is very unlikely, however not outside the realm of possibility. I don't see any other player who could possibly win RG unless some clay court phenom as good as Nadal appears, but again that is highly unlikely!!!

That equals 15

Now, how in the he11 you think me giving Nadal 2 out of the next 5 Wimbledons (again assuming he's healthy and fit for the next 5 years) is wild conjecture, just shows how foolish you can be!!! Nadal is clearly the 2nd best grass courter on the ATP tour only behind Federer. Given the high chance that Federer will probably retire within the next 2 years only increases Nadal's chances of winning. Even if Federer stays around; i think Nadal is better than Federer right now on grass and the gap will continue to widen (overall i still think Federer is the better grass courter given his record). Nadal is also a better grass courter than Nole; in 2011 Nole was in Nadal's head, so with Nadal's reduced confidence and general reduced form Nole won their 2011 final but I don't see that happening over and over if Nadal is healthy and fit for the next 5 years!!!

That equals 17

Now comes the USO and Aussie; yes it is completely reasonable to predict that a healthy and fit Nadal would win at least 2/10 USOs/Aussies. He already has 2 and has not been completely healthy the last 5 years. I'm not even being overly optimistic to assume that Nadal will reach his 2010 USO form at some point, that we all saw with our own eyes 2 yrs ago. If that were to happen he would win far more, but i won't assume that since its only happened once; even Nadal's 09 Aussie form is enough to win him more than a couple hardcourt slams. However, i think Nole is a better overall HC player and will certainly take some from a healthy/fit Nadal; Murray is also a serious threat now. Even other players outside the Big 4 are threats to Nadal on a hardcourt, thats why i only assumed he would win 20% of the HC slams in the next 5 years being healthy and fit!!!

That equals 19!!!

A very reasonable prediction given the caveats i originally stated.

Yeah I can do the maths thanks, I just don't agree with that speculation given that Nadal is sailing towards his late 20s. AGEING. Look it up.

Also one could say murray has been a better grass court player over the past 2 to 3 years.. using your reasoning

Originally Posted by DRII

So stop being an insecure adolescent and learn to have a reasonable discussion; otherwise i won't bother to respond to your immature rants!!!

I'm far from an adolescent, and you think I care if you respond or not? You never say anything insightful anyway, when a point stumps you you ignore it and just post something like - "Totally illogical response!!!!" - and never explain why Cos you can't.

Originally Posted by DRII

And it is Nadal! Don't get mad because you got called out on your antics. Of course now you make sure to type federer instead of Federer every once in a while to cover up your bias and pretend to be objective (NOTHING NEW ABOUT THAT); but you're not fooling me...

My opinion is my opinion; if it upsets you so much, I suggest you ignore it!!!

Antics?? Hahaha oh my God, did you seriously use the word antics to describe my posting? And these "antics" are spelling Nadal with a lowercase n sometimes, to do what? To disrespect him, to insult him? and now you're claiming that I started spelling Federer with a lowercase f sometimes just to make sure no one was onto me? Do you realise how insane you actually sound right now? This is extreme Nadal worship bordering on lunacy. Even if I did want to do this, what would be the point? There's probably only 1 person in every million who would be downright weird enough to pick up on this. I would be trying to achieve what? **** off any Nadal fans who believe aliens walk the earth and wear tinfoil hats?

I don't always type perfectly, my keyboard has sticky keys, you may notice that sometimes i don't have spaces between words because the space bar doesn't work too well. I also post from my smart phone sometimes which has predictive text and if you type in someone's name with an upper or lower case letter the first time it has a habbit of always selecting this unless you change it.

But no, a far more reasonable explaination is I am maliciously and vindictively spelling Nadal's name with a lowercase n. Please, go seek help! You're a becoming a joke when you come up with stuff like this.

And if you tell me to ignore opinions that upset me, I suggest you take a look at you own posting and then take your own advice.

It's also a big joke that you make claims about me having some sinister motive when I am open about what I think, I just wind up more extreme Nadal fanboys sometimes by posting trollish stuff which is very obvious. You on the otherhand pretend to be fair when your Federer hatred is blindingly obvious. I don't call Federer the Goat, but you claim Nadal would be the GOAT if not for injuries. I have several times defended Nadal on issues such as being targeted by French media with doping accusations, posters on here having a go because he hasn't defended a title off clay etc, and I've given Nadal loads of credit for what he has achieved. You never give Federer any credit and would never defend him on any matter (you're a bigger fed hater than Verioniquem who has a rep for that) And while I think Nadal and Federer have both had luck, I don't claim that without that luck Nadal would have not won what he has. I'm 1000000 times more objective than you. But your world Revolves arouns Mr n.

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I doubt a male player will do it after Federer in my lifetime. Female? Much easier to do.

Did you think about what you said before you said it? The closest a woman has come to breaking the record is Steffi Graf with 22 majors. I believe Margaret Court has held the record with 24 majors since the late 1960s or early 1970s. And in fact, it is extremely unlikely a female player will get near 24 majors.