Djokovic will finish with the most men's Grand Slam singles

Suppose Djokovic wins the most grand slams singles titles, will he then be greatest of all time?

  • Yes Djokovic should be regarded as the greatest

    Votes: 55 74.3%
  • No Djokovic will still not be regarded as the greatest

    Votes: 19 25.7%

  • Total voters
    74

REKX

Rookie
As a Federer and Nadal fan I feel very lucky that I watched these two players at their best. Federer in his prime had the super footwork, greatest forehand etc, Nadal in his prime was a force that would break you down and could get to any ball in the court. For me these two will be the greatest of all time - always.

Djokovic with 16 grand slams at the age of 32 will almost certainly finish with the most gentlemen's grand slam singles titles. The Wimbledon 2019 final showed us that a medium Djokovic is capable of winning grand slams in this era and he has the body and the physic to keep playing at this level till 38. So he will have the grand slams record and the weeks at number one head to heads etc, and probably a boat load of other records from Federer and Nadal.

There is no one that can challenge Djokovic if he remains fit. On grass it's Federer, and his body won't be able to last much longer at this level, you can't change biology and nature. On clay Nadal again you feel is coming to the end of his career because of the intensity and age, and Thiem looks active. On hard courts the only player that could convincingly challenge and boss Djokovic is probably a souped up Wawrinka, but he's 34 so that is looking unlikely.

But I don't really care, Federer and Nadal at their very best, in my opinion, were a level beyond Djokovic. I haven't seen Djokovic produce the type of shot making and pure brilliance that Federer and Nadal have done in matches like Wimbledon 2007 Wimbledon 2008 Australian Open 2009.


How does that sit with you? It doesn't bother me too much because I value the greatest of all time on quality, not just consistency.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Yet another poster who appears to have been born after 1990.

Borg's movement around the court was as good as, if not better, than any other Male in the history of the sport to date. Lendl and Sampras possessed the greatest FH's the game has seen. McEnroe is the greatest volleyer of all.

Djokovic is likely to become the most successful player of the Big 4 simply because he has superior H2H record against the other three. And he is the most likely to achieve the Double Career Grand Slam.

Total number of Major Titles is a modern stat. It was never really that important prior to 1990. What was most important was the spread of Major Titles. Laver has two GRAND SLAMS. Borg has three Channel Slams.

If Novak or Rafa surpass Roger's Majors Title count ... that will simply be icing on the cake.

In 100 years time ... Laver will still be remembered for his two GRAND SLAMS. Borg will be remembered for transcending the game and changing the way the sport was viewed. Nadal will be remembered for his 12 Roland Garros Titles. Roger will be remembered for his stroke technique and his 8 Wimbledon Titles. Novak will be remembered as a President of Serbia who was one of the greatest tennis players of the 21st Century.
 
Last edited:

GabeT

Legend
If your definition of GOAT is whomever has the most slams then, yes, winning the most slams would make him the greatest. That’s never been my view though.

I’ve always taken a broader view and think that the Big 3 are already pretty close to each other. You can argue for each of them depending on what you focus on. Nole winning more slams will be nice for me as a Nole fan but won’t change too much my view of his standing among tennis greats.

I find it interesting that the press is already beginning to shift its tune on the GOAT debate.
 
Last edited:

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Even title wins are up for debate, as some say Fed faced rubbish competition for half of his slams. Some say Nadal has never had decent clay competition, and some will say Djokovic only rose up and dominated once Fed and Nadal were past their best, and his competition for a few years was Andy Murray.
All these things are personal opinion, that's why there will always be a debate regardless of who ends up with the records.
 

Jonas78

Legend
5 slams is a lot, although it seems like a little number compared to 20-18-16. But he is definetly going for it now...
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
He is already the greatest easily and yes he will hold ALL the records when he retires.
Hmmm. ALL the records?

So are you expecting Novak to achieve the GRAND SLAM three times before he retires?

Looks like the next five years are going to be very interesting!
 
Last edited:

Biggest3

New User
At this pace he will reach 25 slams but when it comes to humans,things are not that simple.For all i know this can be his last slam.After Nadal dominated 2010 who could have predicted the humiliation that came the very next year? Same for Djokovic after he won his first FO and then went Mia for 1.5 year.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
He will also end up as the ATG with unprecedented gap between him and the next ATG (and the gap will be probably twice as big as the next such gap) and that is already certain, unlike him getting the Majors record.

:cool:
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
As a Federer and Nadal fan I feel very lucky that I watched these two players at their best. Federer in his prime had the super footwork, greatest forehand etc, Nadal in his prime was a force that would break you down and could get to any ball in the court. For me these two will be the greatest of all time - always.

Djokovic with 16 grand slams at the age of 32 will almost certainly finish with the most gentlemen's grand slam singles titles. The Wimbledon 2019 final showed us that a medium Djokovic is capable of winning grand slams in this era and he has the body and the physic to keep playing at this level till 38. So he will have the grand slams record and the weeks at number one head to heads etc, and probably a boat load of other records from Federer and Nadal.

There is no one that can challenge Djokovic if he remains fit. On grass it's Federer, and his body won't be able to last much longer at this level, you can't change biology and nature. On clay Nadal again you feel is coming to the end of his career because of the intensity and age, and Thiem looks active. On hard courts the only player that could convincingly challenge and boss Djokovic is probably a souped up Wawrinka, but he's 34 so that is looking unlikely.

But I don't really care, Federer and Nadal at their very best, in my opinion, were a level beyond Djokovic. I haven't seen Djokovic produce the type of shot making and pure brilliance that Federer and Nadal have done in matches like Wimbledon 2007 Wimbledon 2008 Australian Open 2009.


How does that sit with you? It doesn't bother me too much because I value the greatest of all time on quality, not just consistency.
I'm ok with Fedal having the "SMOAT" and "PBOAT" (Shot Maker and Pure Brilliancer Of All Times) titles. I'm ok with whatever other non-measurable poetic title you make up and imagine.
GOAT is the most successful player in history, there's no way around it. So far, it's Fed. In few years it may be Novak. Try to deal with it.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
Yet another poster who appears to have been born after 1990.

Borg's movement around the court was as good as, if not better, than any other Male in the history of the sport to date. Lendl and Sampras possessed the greatest FH's the game has seen. McEnroe is the greatest volleyer of all.

Djokovic is likely to become the most successful player of the Big 4 simply because he has superior H2H record against the other three. And he is the most likely to achieve the Double Career Grand Slam.

Total number of Major Titles is a modern stat. It was never really that important prior to 1990. What was most important was the spread of Major Titles. Laver has two GRAND SLAMS. Borg has three Channel Slams.

If Novak or Rafa surpass Roger's Majors Title count ... that will simply be icing on the cake.

In 100 years time ... Laver will still be remembered for his two GRAND SLAMS. Borg will be remembered for transcending the game and changing the way the sport was viewed. Nadal will be remembered for his 12 Roland Garros Titles. Roger will be remembered for his stroke technique and his 8 Wimbledon Titles. Novak will be remembered as a President of Serbia who was one of the greatest tennis players of the 21st Century.
Lendl and Sampras possessed the greatest FH's the game has seen. McEnroe is the greatest volleyer of all.
LOL


Novak will be remembered as a President of Serbia who is THE greatest tennis players of ALL TIME.
 

tudwell

Legend
I find it interesting that the press is already beginning to shift its tune on the GOAT debate.
Yeah, I wonder what would have happened had he won in an uneventful four-setter? I feel there would be less fanfare. People would just write it off as Fed being too old (rightly or wrongly). Which in a way is silly, since had Djokovic won more easily, he likely would have been playing better. Because he was so far off on Sunday, he nearly lost, yet the perception is that he’s greater (I would assume) than if he had played better and won more easily. The fickle imagination of the press and the uninformed masses.
 

GabeT

Legend
Yeah, I wonder what would have happened had he won in an uneventful four-setter? I feel there would be less fanfare. People would just write it off as Fed being too old (rightly or wrongly). Which in a way is silly, since had Djokovic won more easily, he likely would have been playing better. Because he was so far off on Sunday, he nearly lost, yet the perception is that he’s greater (I would assume) than if he had played better and won more easily. The fickle imagination of the press and the uninformed masses.
Was just rewatching the 40:15 moment. Fed serves two aces in a row to reach double CP and then comes close to serving a third ace.

Think of how different everything would be today but for one single ball moving a few inches. Fed would have beaten Nole, the “greatest returner “, by serving three straight aces. 21 slams, 9 Wimbledons. Most would be saying that 2014/15 had been avenged.

I think we react too much to what, in the end, are small differences between truly great players.
 

tudwell

Legend
Was just rewatching the 40:15 moment. Fed serves two aces in a row to reach double CP and then comes close to serving a third ace.

Think of how different everything would be today but for one single ball moving a few inches. Fed would have beaten Nole, the “greatest returner “, by serving three straight aces. 21 slams, 9 Wimbledons. Most would be saying that 2014/15 had been avenged.

I think we react too much to what, in the end, are small differences between truly great players.
Yeah, the narrative would be completely different. Because one point ended differently.
 

davced1

Professional
As a Federer and Nadal fan I feel very lucky that I watched these two players at their best. Federer in his prime had the super footwork, greatest forehand etc, Nadal in his prime was a force that would break you down and could get to any ball in the court. For me these two will be the greatest of all time - always.

Djokovic with 16 grand slams at the age of 32 will almost certainly finish with the most gentlemen's grand slam singles titles. The Wimbledon 2019 final showed us that a medium Djokovic is capable of winning grand slams in this era and he has the body and the physic to keep playing at this level till 38. So he will have the grand slams record and the weeks at number one head to heads etc, and probably a boat load of other records from Federer and Nadal.

There is no one that can challenge Djokovic if he remains fit. On grass it's Federer, and his body won't be able to last much longer at this level, you can't change biology and nature. On clay Nadal again you feel is coming to the end of his career because of the intensity and age, and Thiem looks active. On hard courts the only player that could convincingly challenge and boss Djokovic is probably a souped up Wawrinka, but he's 34 so that is looking unlikely.

But I don't really care, Federer and Nadal at their very best, in my opinion, were a level beyond Djokovic. I haven't seen Djokovic produce the type of shot making and pure brilliance that Federer and Nadal have done in matches like Wimbledon 2007 Wimbledon 2008 Australian Open 2009.


How does that sit with you? It doesn't bother me too much because I value the greatest of all time on quality, not just consistency.
The logic here. Djokovic will stay the same until he is 38 but Wawrinka is washed up at 34, doesn't make sense.
 
That’s a distinct possibility.He may well become the Margaret Court of the men’s game, who accumulated a huge no of titles, but isn’t particularly remembered for her game. All the attention is on Serena, Venus, Graf, Seles,Sharapova, perhaps a bit of Navratilova, Evert. That’s it.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I don't know but it is fascinating to see how the big 3 caught up with one another when it comes to tier 1 titles. This is a progression of all 3 for total tier 1 won at same age:
F = ATP finals, M = masters, S = slams.
20 = season in which they turned 20 years old = 2001 for Fed, 2006 for Nadal, 2007 for Djoko (bold = most won, bold blue = tie)

19: F 0S + 0F + 0M - N 1S + 0F + 4M - D 0S + 0F + 0M
20: F 0S + 0F + 0M - N 2S + 0F + 6M - D 0S + 0F + 2M
21: F 0S + 0F + 1M - N 3S + 0F + 9M - D 1S + 1F + 4M
22: F 1S + 1F + 1M - N 5S + 0F +12M- D 1S + 1F + 5M
23: F 4S + 2F + 4M - N 6S + 0F +15M- D 1S + 1F + 5M
24: F 6S + 2F + 8M - N 9S + 0F +18M- D 4S + 1F +10M
25: F 9S + 3F +12M- N10S+ 0F +19M- D 5S + 2F +13M
26: F12S+ 4F +14M- N11S+ 0F +21M- D 6S + 3F +16M
27: F13S+ 4F +14M- N13S+ 0F +26M- D 7S + 4F +20M
28: F15S+ 4F +16M- N14S+ 0F +27M- D10S+ 5F +26M
29: F16S+ 5F +17M- N14S+ 0F +27M- D12S+ 5F +30M
30: F16S+ 6F +18M- N14S+ 0F +28M- D12S+ 5F +30M
31: F17S+ 6F +21M- N16S+ 0F +30M- D14S+ 5F +32M

This plays out very much like the hare and the turtle fable, morality quip included!
Nadal had a phenomenal head start. He sprints like a maniac out of the starting blocks. Until the age of 25, it looks like he's going to be the most successful player ever. At 25, he has the edge in both slams and masters (he even has twice as many slams as Djoko o_O). Fed gets WTF.
It is at 26 that things start to change and the turtles slowly but surely make their move ;)
That is when Fed takes the lead in slams, he also takes the lead in WTF leaving to Nadal only the masters to grab.
27 is the year of all tie: Nadal catches up with Fed in slams, Djoko with Fed in WTF. Suspense, suspense.
28 is the Pepe year of sharing in true peace and love spirit :D: Fed will take the slams, Nadal will keep the masters and they generously let Djoko have the consolation prize: WTF.
But then, 29's turn arrives and boom, just like that, Nadal loses all his advance, it is Karma time and the turtles take it to the hare :happydevil:: Fed recovers slams, Djoko ties Fed for WTF and in a stunning development, Djoko (the slowest turtle of all) sweeps the masters from under Nadal's feet.
30/31 show how Fed managed to age like a fine wine: in tranquil, nonchalant style he pockets slams and WTFs, Djoko retains the masters and the poor hare becomes the one playing catchup to the finish line. (As a reminder, I ended at 31 which is the last complete year for all 3 players: 2018 for Djoko, 2017 for Nadal and 2012 for Fed)
Ready for more twists and turns? Stay in touch. To be continued ;)
 

powerangle

Legend
Some people only go by the numbers. Some people go by the "eye test". Some go with a combination. No one can change their opinion. But it's okay...it's just an opinion after all.
Whatever floats your boat.

I think all three will end up with such similar accomplishments and intertwined history that no one player will consistently stand up as being the sole greatest. And that's fine with me. I'm just here to enjoy the ride. :)
 
Yeah, I wonder what would have happened had he won in an uneventful four-setter? I feel there would be less fanfare. People would just write it off as Fed being too old (rightly or wrongly). Which in a way is silly, since had Djokovic won more easily, he likely would have been playing better. Because he was so far off on Sunday, he nearly lost, yet the perception is that he’s greater (I would assume) than if he had played better and won more easily. The fickle imagination of the press and the uninformed masses.
Its not fickle. It is a measurement of a different attribute that especially the American Public views in high esteem regarding being the greatest: clutchness.

If Djokovic played at a high enough level to win a routine 4-setter, he is not in a position to have his clutchness measured by this match. But since he didn't, he was and hence this match provides a data point on this metric, and we see him come through.
 

droliver

Professional
Lendl and Sampras possessed the greatest FH's the game has seen.

In 100 years time ... Laver will still be remembered for his two GRAND SLAMS. Borg will be remembered for transcending the game and changing the way the sport was viewed. Nadal will be remembered for his 12 Roland Garros Titles. Roger will be remembered for his stroke technique and his 8 Wimbledon Titles. Novak will be remembered as a President of Serbia who was one of the greatest tennis players of the 21st Century.
1) Sampras possessed nowhere near one of the best forehands the game has ever seen.

2) Laver and (especially) Borg will largely be forgotten by all but die hards within a generation. They existed before modern media and have almost no familiarity to younger fans and players. Borg's footprint on the game is rather small at this point.
 

tudwell

Legend
Its not fickle. It is a measurement of a different attribute that especially the American Public views in high esteem regarding being the greatest: clutchness.

If Djokovic played at a high enough level to win a routine 4-setter, he is not in a position to have his clutchness measured by this match. But since he didn't, he was and hence this match provides a data point on this metric, and we see him come through.
That’s a good point! Not fickle – that’s too dismissive. But still, from my perspective, a higher level (and thus presumably an easier win) does more to establish his greatness than getting through by the skin of his teeth. Though that does show just how mentally solid he is.
 
That’s a good point! Not fickle – that’s too dismissive. But still, from my perspective, a higher level (and thus presumably an easier win) does more to establish his greatness than getting through by the skin of his teeth. Though that does show just how mentally solid he is.
And that's a completely valid perspective to have, I was just pointing out that the alternative perspective is valid as well.

Your perspective is that having a higher level of play always equates to higher greatness because you view greatness in a linear way, where the more dominant you are, the greater you are. From this perspective, having as many dominant wins as possible is what enhances greatness the most.

The alternative perspective is that greatness is made up of multiple attributes (dominance and clutchness for example) and higher greatness is reached by showcasing all of those attributes. For those that have this view (which I would say is the majority of the American media), Djokovic showed dominance already in 2015 when he beat Federer in 4 routine sets. If he did the same in 2019, it would display more of the same and hence not raise his greatness anymore than it already was. However, by winning a 13-12 5th set saving two championship points, he adds clutchness to his dominance and hence enhances his greatness.

Additionally, in most sports that the American media covers its rare that GOAT contenders are contemporaries (usually you get discussions like LeBron vs Jordan, Brady vs Montana etc) and it is presumed in these hypothetical match-ups that the level of play of the contenders would all be in the same ballpark, and hence there would rarely be a blowout, therefore performance in tight clutch matches weights heavily on the debate.
 
When Fed was in good enough form to reach the Wimbledon final, he lost 3 times out of 3.

This is a fact. No opinions here.
And djokovic has the same losing record vs non ATG wawrinka and lost wimbeldon finals in straight sets to non ATG Murray and ATPS biggest final to non ATG Zverev. Facts. When nivak was peak World no 1 playing his best tennis. He also recently lost to Thiem while peak at RG lol
 
Top