A look back on the 2010 Slam decade

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Well it's time to say goodbye to the Slams of this decade. It was fun at times but like all good things, it has to come to an end.

Slam leaders
1. Djokovic --15 (6 AO, 5 Wimbledon, 3 USO, 1 RG)
2. Nadal -- 13 (8 RG, 4 USO, 1 Wimbledon)
3. Federer -- 5 (3 AO, 2 Wimbledon)
4. Murray -- 3 (2 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
4. Wawrinka -- 3 (1 AO, 1 RG, 1 USO)
6. Cilic -- 1 (USO)
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
Well it's time to say goodbye to the Slams of this decade. It was fun at times but like all good things, it has to come to an end.

Slam leaders
1. Djokovic --15 (6 AO, 5 Wimbledon, 3 USO, 1 RG)
2. Nadal -- 13 (8 RG, 4 USO, 1 Wimbledon)
3. Federer -- 5 (3 AO, 2 Wimbledon)
4. Murray -- 3 (2 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
4. Wawrinka -- 3 (1 AO, 1 RG, 1 USO)
6. Cilic -- 1 (USO)
Nadal is a beast.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Crazy how after the first major of the decade Federer led 16-6 in slams against Nadal and 16-1 against Djokovic...now after the decades final major, he only leads Nadal, 20-19 and Djokovic, 20-16. It’s pretty crazy how much ground Nadal and Nole have gained in the tennis history books this past decade
 

Robert F

Semi-Pro
Crazy how after the first major of the decade Federer led 16-6 in slams against Nadal and 16-1 against Djokovic...now after the decades final major, he only leads Nadal, 20-19 and Djokovic, 20-16. It’s pretty crazy how much ground Nadal and Nole have gained in the tennis history books this past decade
It took 10 years to catch up. That's a career for a lot of guys in tennis.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Crazy how after the first major of the decade Federer led 16-6 in slams against Nadal and 16-1 against Djokovic...now after the decades final major, he only leads Nadal, 20-19 and Djokovic, 20-16. It’s pretty crazy how much ground Nadal and Nole have gained in the tennis history books this past decade
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
Wow!! Without those horrible 2015-2016 seasons, Nadal could have ended with 15 Slams too.

Novak Djokovic the best player of the decade with Nadal a close second.
 

King No1e

Legend
Federer won 15 Slams in the 2000's and that itself was unprecedented. Now Djokovic equalled his 15, and Nadal almost got there too.
Nadal and Djokovic have dominated this decade together in a way not even 1 could before.
Fedalovic are walking gods.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
It just shows ever since Djokovic and Nadal reached to their level Fed is kind off a Edberg Becker type off greatness.Most off his succes still comes between 2003 and 2007.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Wow!! Without those horrible 2015-2016 seasons, Nadal could have ended with 15 Slams too.

Novak Djokovic the best player of the decade with Nadal a close second.
Yes probably so, but you could argue Djokovic would have won more if not a bad year and a half as well.

I think in Slams Nadal is a close second for sure.
 
Well it's time to say goodbye to the Slams of this decade. It was fun at times but like all good things, it has to come to an end.

Slam leaders
1. Djokovic --15 (6 AO, 5 Wimbledon, 3 USO, 1 RG)
2. Nadal -- 13 (8 RG, 4 USO, 1 Wimbledon)
3. Federer -- 5 (3 AO, 2 Wimbledon)
4. Murray -- 3 (2 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
4. Wawrinka -- 3 (1 AO, 1 RG, 1 USO)
6. Cilic -- 1 (USO)
Djokovic wins the decade then even if we count it as 2011-2020, as would be technically accurate but not socially accurate. Nadal won three Slams in 2010 and Djokovic won 0, so in the decade 2011-2020, Djokovic has a 15-10 lead, with at most four to go. Even if Nadal wins the calendar Grand Slam in 2020, Djokovic takes it 15-14.
 
2010s-Slam success :

1 tier Djokovic and Nadal
2 tier Wawrinka, Federer, Cilic and Murray
3 tier everyone else
You can make an argument for Murray and Wawrinka being in the same tier as Federer, and you can make an argument for Cilic being in the same tier as Murray and Wawrinka, but I don't think you can make an argument for Cilic being in the same tier as Federer. Five Slams is too far ahead of one Slam. I would say:

1: Djokovic, Nadal
2a: Federer
2b: Murray
2c: Wawrinka
3: Cilic

Possibly:

1: Djokovic, Nadal
2: Federer, Murray
3: Wawrinka, Cilic
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic wins the decade then even if we count it as 2011-2020, as would be technically accurate but not socially accurate. Nadal won three Slams in 2010 and Djokovic won 0, so in the decade 2011-2020, Djokovic has a 15-10 lead, with at most four to go. Even if Nadal wins the calendar Grand Slam in 2020, Djokovic takes it 15-14.
Yes the correct way to count, in many people's perceptions, is to count from 2011-2020 for this decade. Probably most people who don't live in the States would count it this way.
 
Yes the correct way to count, in many people's perceptions, is to count from 2011-2020 for this decade. Probably most people who don't live in the States would count it this way.
I'm originally from the UK, although I do now live in the USA. I think most Brits would also count the decade as 2010-19, because then the decade can be called by a name, e.g. "the Fifties," "the Sixties," "the Seventies," "the Eighties," and even perhaps "the Nineties" all have cultural resonance to many people in the Anglophone world, representing somewhat distinctive if admittedly legendary eras. Same is true of "the Twenties" (meaning the 1920s), albeit only those interested in history will now remember that. Thanks to the great depression and World War II, I don't think either "the Thirties" or "the Forties" have that sort of resonance. We might still be too close in time to "the Nineties" for it to be fully formed, but I think it's getting there. Still too early for "the Oughts," really.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I'm originally from the UK, although I do now live in the USA. I think most Brits would also count the decade as 2010-19, because then the decade can be called by a name, e.g. "the Fifties," "the Sixties," "the Seventies," "the Eighties," and even perhaps "the Nineties" all have cultural resonance to many people in the Anglophone world, representing somewhat distinctive if admittedly legendary eras. Same is true of "the Twenties" (meaning the 1920s), albeit only those interested in history will now remember that. Thanks to the great depression and World War II, I don't think either "the Thirties" or "the Forties" have that sort of resonance. We might still be too close in time to "the Nineties" for it to be fully formed, but I think it's getting there. Still too early for "the Oughts," really.
I didn't know that people in the UK looked at it that way so pretty cool fact. But yea the "90s" is definitely a thing here especially when people start taking about music from that time or about supermodels.
 
I didn't know that people in the UK looked at it that way so pretty cool fact. But yea the "90s" is definitely a thing here especially when people start taking about music from that time or about supermodels.
Music, I'm sure, updates more quickly than some other things. So, too, film. In that sense, I think that the 90s is an era for film, too. However, I don't think that the decade is as distinct from the 80s or the 00s as were some previous decades. For example, there is a very clear "type" of film from the 1970s, at least so far as Hollywood is concerned. Films then were much slower paced than films from previous eras. I think it is one reason why young people often think that "old" films are slow paced, when in fact Hollywood films from the 1940s through the 1960s were often extremely fast paced. But in the 1970s some major Hollywood directors and writers made an effort to make their films more intellectual, and part of that involved slowing the pace down. I used to watch a lot of films with my dad, who loves what he regards as "old films," meaning those of the 40s and 50s, and who mostly regards the films of the 70s as too slow. (We still watch occasionally, but he lives in the UK and I live in the USA, so we don't see each other as often, and when we do, watching a film isn't a priority).

There is also a 90s-style in clothing, e.g. the "boxy fits" that people often remark on when they watch reruns of, e.g., Friends or Seinfeld.

But I don't think the 90s yet has a distinct resonance as a socio-political era in the way that the 50s, 60s, and 70s do. Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Music, I'm sure, updates more quickly than some other things. So, too, film. In that sense, I think that the 90s is an era for film, too. However, I don't think that the decade is as distinct from the 80s or the 00s as were some previous decades. For example, there is a very clear "type" of film from the 1970s, at least so far as Hollywood is concerned. Films then were much slower paced than films from previous eras. I think it is one reason why young people often think that "old" films are slow paced, when in fact Hollywood films from the 1940s through the 1960s were often extremely fast paced. But in the 1970s some major Hollywood directors and writers made an effort to make their films more intellectual, and part of that involved slowing the pace down. I used to watch a lot of films with my dad, who loves what he regards as "old films," meaning those of the 40s and 50s, and who mostly regards the films of the 70s as too slow. (We still watch occasionally, but he lives in the UK and I live in the USA, so we don't see each other as often, and when we do, watching a film isn't a priority).

There is also a 90s-style in clothing, e.g. the "boxy fits" that people often remark on when they watch reruns of, e.g., Friends or Seinfeld.

But I don't think the 90s yet has a distinct resonance as a socio-political era in the way that the 50s, 60s, and 70s do. Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
Well I wouldn't place it as having the same resonance as the 60s for sure because that's one of the most profound decades on a number of fronts whether it's political, socially conscious, music related, certain trends or styles, etc. The 90s doesn't have that kind of pop culture influence I would say. The 70s isn't on that level either but I would agree that it is more profound than the 90s right now. I think as time passes the 90s will gain more resonance among many.
 
Well I wouldn't place it as having the same resonance as the 60s for sure because that's one of the most profound decades on a number of fronts whether it's political, socially conscious, music related, certain trends or styles, etc. The 90s doesn't have that kind of pop culture influence I would say. The 70s isn't on that level either but I would agree that it is more profound than the 90s right now. I think as time passes the 90s will gain more resonance among many.
True. One reason for that is that the 60s epitomizes the era of liberal youthful rebellion. So in that sense the major counterpart to the 60s is the 50s, which is the era of conservative aging conformity. I think of the 80s and the 90s as also being somewhat conservative, but in a very different way to the 50s.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
True. One reason for that is that the 60s epitomizes the era of liberal youthful rebellion. So in that sense the major counterpart to the 60s is the 50s, which is the era of conservative aging conformity. I think of the 80s and the 90s as also being somewhat conservative, but in a very different way to the 50s.
Yea also when I think of the 60s I think of hippies and them talking about how they used to get high. Lol. It was definitely a decade of freedom in many ways.
 
Top