D
Deleted member 763024
Guest
Vote and debate.
I think that's much easier - Novak winning 4. It's still more likely that Nadal, Federer or someone else wins one Slam than Djokovic sweeping all of them.Also , which of these is *least* likely to happen?
in order from most to least
1. new winner (not inevitable but say 50-50)
2. Wimbledonerer. (Yeah he looks weak now, but he's won it only 2 yrs before and it's his best slam)
3. Nadal AO (only won it once, a decade ago, but won USO more recently. health is a question)
4. CYGS. cmon, he didn't do it in peak
in order from most to least
1. new winner (not inevitable but say 50-50)
2. Wimbledonerer. (Yeah he looks weak now, but he's won it only 2 yrs before and it's his best slam)
3. Nadal AO (only won it once, a decade ago, but won USO more recently. health is a question)
4. CYGS. cmon, he didn't do it in peak
So your position is that he's at his peak now, better than 2011/15-16?Assuming Djokovic won't play in 2019 at his peak...good thing you looked at the crystal ball and know exactly in which shape he will play his 2019 season...
So your position is that he's at his peak now, better than 2011/15-16?
that would make him the undisputed GOAT and BOAT.Djokogoat to make my ttw name come true. Bel18ve.
Djokogoat to make my ttw name come true. Bel18ve.
No, it wouldn't. To be the GOAT, he would need over 20 Grand Slams.that would make him the undisputed GOAT and BOAT.
Rod Laver has 11 Slams and he is GOAT, or at least #2 in the GOAT listNo, it wouldn't. To be the GOAT, he would need over 20 Grand Slams.
Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.Rod Laver has 11 Slams and he is GOAT, or at least #2 in the GOAT list
Laugh is not an argument.
You serious?
Right.Laugh is not an argument.
As I said, Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.
Came pretty close though. All the smart folks (i.e not me) are saying Nole is back to his peak.
Again, the problem is that we can't display a double standard. A criterion of greatness must be universal (valid for all cases), not only valid for some cases and invalid for others. That would be double standard. You point out that Mr. Laver has Roland Garros, while Mr. Sampras hasn't. You also point out that Laver has the CYGS and 7 extra Pro Slams. So let's summarize your list of criteria to put Laver over Sampras:Right.
So a player who never won the RG and has 64 total titles is better than a player who has won the CYGS TWICE, 11 Grand Slams, 7 Pro Slams (including ANOTHER calendar Slam on the pro circuit in 67), and 199 titles.
1. Borg won 5 Channel Slams and dominated for 2 years, had a ridiculously high winning percentage, etc. That's what makes him better than Agassi. Sampras does not have that same superiority over Laver, just a 3 Slam difference when Laver was banned throughout his prime. Borg has so many other records that put him above Agassi, which Sampras doesn't have over Laver.Again, the problem is that we can't display a double standard. A criterion of greatness must be universal (valid for all cases), not only valid for some cases and invalid for others. That would be double standard.
You point out that Mr. Laver has Roland Garros, while Mr. Sampras hasn't. You also point out that Laver has the CYGS and 7 extra Pro Slams. So let's summarize your list of criteria to put Laver over Sampras:
1. Grand Slam distribution >>>>> Grand Slam count.
2. CYGS >>> Grand Slam count.
3. Pro Slams = Grand Slams
1. Grand Slam distribution >>>>> Grand Slam count. If that were the case, then Agassi with 8 Grand Slams (including the Career Grand Slam) would be greater than Borg with 11 Grand Slams but 0 of them on hard courts. But, as everyone knows, everyone puts Borg over Agassi. So you can't say that just because Rod Laver has the Career Grand Slam, he is authomatically better than Sampras with more GS, and then say that Borg without the Career Grand Slam is better than Agassi. That would be double standard.
2. CYGS >>> Grand Slam count. If that were the case, then Laver would be greater than Federer. But then again, almost everyone puts Federer over Laver, proving the Grand Slam count is more relevant than the CYGS. You can't say that because Laver has the CYGS he is gerater than Sampras with more GS, and then say that Laver with the CYGS is worse than Federer with more GS. That would be a double standard.
3. Pro Slams = Grand Slams If that were the case, then Ken Rosewall with 23 Majors (15 Pro Slams + 8 Grand Slams) would be greater than Federer with 20 Majors. But then again, almost everyone puts Federer over Rosewall, proving that Grand Slams are mroe relevant than Pro Slams. You can't say that Rosewall is worse than Federer despite having more Majors and then sudddenly say that Laver is greater than Sampras for having more Majors. That would be a double standard.
As I have shows, all your criteria are not universally applied and thus not valid. A greatness criterion should be unviersal, to avoid double standard.
I am not saying the CYGS, Pro Slams etc. are irrelevant. Those are tie-breakers. The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria (such as CYGS or Pro Slams) are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams.
Of those four options, I'm going Fed winning Wimbledon.
1. Fed winning Wimbledon=15% chance
2. Nadal winning AO=14% chance
3. Someone new winning any slam=13%
4. Djokovic winning CYGS=10%
Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.
We Bel13ved for long enough. We can bel18ve for as long as it takes.You don't want to Bel18ve.
Us FedFans were stuck at Bel18ve for 5 years. Bel18ve me, it is a very long wait.
Only this time, you have Zverev 'look at me' for company.
So what’s the other 48% chance?
Why would Nadal win USO? Hard courts are really tough on his body. His best chances come mid-season on clay and grass.There are endless combinations that could happen. Many of them include:
1. Nadal winning FO, while the several other slam winners winning the rest.
2. Nadal winning FO and USO, with previous slam champs winning the rest
3 Djoker winning 1-3 slams, with previous slam champs winning the rest
There are hundreds of combinations of the above that could happen.
Sorry, but Djokovic never came "pretty close" to a CYGS. In fact, he didn't come anywhere remotely near to it.
Being close to a CYGS is going into the USO after having won the first 3 legs. Even then, a player isn't close to doing it until he reaches the semis or finals.
Fed's won 3/4 majors in one year three different years, but he was never close to the CYGS because he never went into the USO having won the previous 3 slams that year.
So new slam winner is the overwhelming choice. New winner at AO 2019 then?
If not, which other slam is it most likely to happen at - FO, Wimbledon or USO?