I said next 10 years. Not 50 years. Did you actually read my post?
You prefer 3-shot rallies and no tennis?
If you believe you can predict ten years then you might as well make it 50... Both options are rather daft and laughable, Mr. Nostradamus.I said next 10 years. Not 50 years. Did you actually read my post?
And it's not that the big 3 are simply better. They're just more driven and are working towards building records. Compare them to the likes of Safin, Nalbandian or kyrgios who only played tennis for leisure and to make money. Even Medvedev said he's enjoying the money more than anything.
There are 11 year old girls at the tennis club here who could do the same.
So they are "clowns" too then?There are 11 year old girls at the tennis club here who could do the same.
Make it 100
That depends on if I classify myself as a tennis player. Which I don't. So -->
I wuz gonna say 500.Make it 100
Add to that "I'm not a tennis expert" too.That depends on if I classify myself as a tennis player. Which I don't. So -->
Yup. That's the way it's looking. The Djoker will reign. Only 3 more to match the record. 4 more in total to pass it.
Both.
Nobody is a tennis expert, my man. We're just making guesses. Nobody knows what's going to happen the next day.
Actually, nobody is Nostradamus.Nobody is a tennis expert, my man. We're just making guesses. Nobody knows what's going to happen the next day.
Just like nobody here back in 2010 expected Djokovic to reach 17 Slams. Most were saying "Djokovic might win 1 more" right after that USO 2010 loss to Nadal
Which one are you?
Well...they sort of do. Even though it's a weak time for tennis, both the big 2 could hit hurdles health-wise or get pushed hard by overachieving players on a certain day. It's not like Djokovic/Monfils didn't happen. We're just expecting more players to fight tooth and nail against the big 2 with regularity.
Yes it did. So what? He lost matches to ATGs in their prime a guy who produced an ATG level (Wawa) and had a bad loss. The horror. What's your point? Novak's 2012-2014 were good but not great seasons. Fed and Nadal have had those too.
We could play this game all day with your precious Federer. But I’m guessing you won’t be so willingSo, past-prime Federer, past-peak Nadal, non-ATG (according to most) Murray, former-pigeon Wawrinka, and LostGen Nishikori all upped their games to match peak Nole's 2011 level.
And you have to gall to create a 'basic logic' thread?
He will have the weeks record and the slam record is in reach. If Fed's prime is only 4 years then sure he never had a good but not great year. Fed was also not contesting with 3 prime ATGs during that period. In fact Fed's best rival, Hewitt, is about the same level as a fringe rival of Novak's: Stan. Novak's 2011 is so insanely ridiculous because he dominated one of the strongest fields in the history of the sport. Expecting three slams in 2012 and 2013 is too much to ask. Did he underachieve in those years? Yeah probably especially 2014. But he's made up for it in other seasons and he's going to hold the weeks record and if he can maintain his focus and level for the next few years the slam record may well be his too.
I agree Novak should've won multiple slams in those years especially 2014 but if we're going to be fair about this we can't look at Novak's peak of 6 years and compare it to 4 years of Fed. If we do 03-08 vs 11-16 or 03-11 to 11-19 they have about an equal number of disappointing years. In the 6 year window Novak has 3 1 slam years vs 2 for Fed but again Novak is facing much tougher rivals. In the 8 year window they both have 1 no slam year and 3 one slam years.
Fine, whatever. Throw that out the window even though it's obviously true. What do you have to say about the rest of the post?
| Tournament | Djokovic' points to defend | Nadal's points to defend |
| Indian Wells | 45 | 360 |
| Miami | 90 | 0 |
| Double Sunshine | 135 | 360 |
| Montecarlo | 180 | 360 |
| Barcellona | 0 | 180 |
| Madrid | 1000 | 360 |
| Roma | 600 | 1000 |
| Roland Garros | 720 | 2000 |
| Clay Season | 2500 | 3900 |
| Wimbledon | 2000 | 720 |
| Canada | 0 | 1000 |
| Cincinnati | 360 | 0 |
| US Open | 180 | 2000 |
| US Season | 540 | 3000 |
| Tokyo | 500 | 0 |
| Shanghai | 180 | 0 |
| Parigi Bercy | 1000 | 360 |
| Finals | 200 | 400 |
| Late Season | 1880 | 760 |
| Totale | 7055 | 8740 |
Djokovic missed twice in his career for the end of season free ride by basically a match or two, he certainly deserves the record
Roderick backhand is rubbish and he would have been dispatched
pipe smoking Andre won Wimbledon, far from an all court player, so if going down this path the courts were similar for a while
Clearly you are not a tennis fan, men’s tennis is probably stronger and deeper than any time in the last 25 years. You have the 3 goats and a bunch of top level talent either peaking or on their way up. Just coz Fed is on the way down doesn’t make the field weak. There are at least 6-7 young guys seriously pushing the best
Duane, you're writing fantastic posts on this subject
Sure, Nishikori is a player Djokovic should beat but unexpected losses happen to the best of players, at the best of times.
Pete Sampras, the greatest grass player ever lost to Krajicek who turned out to be a one slam wonder never so much as reaching another slam final, at his peak no less on the grass of Wimbledon! I wonder if you're holding Djokovic to an impossible standard?
That really wasn't that much of an upset! Richard Krajicek actually was a foil for Sampras! It didn't happen often, but Pete went down to him on HC; grass wasn't really that much of a stretch with his serve and forehand wearing Pete out at times! He was very tall and could be in "the zone" to overpower people!
