First, you are either pretending, or not that smart. I understand you are new here. New to tennis?What is the record on display here? Happening to have won five particular tournaments over the span of two years?
Amazing run Djokovic had a year or two ago, but I'm not sure there's any quantifiable record there.
You forgot this:
Who's the lost guy wearing Nike in this video?
Amazing that he did not pull some INJURY excuse after this spanking...
17>>>149-4 in slams. That's all that matters.
I corrected it for you. 6:1 at RG is so one sided, especially since we know Nadal on clay performance.9-4 in a slam. That's all that matters.
17>>>14
I corrected it for you. 6:1 at RG is so one sided, especially since we know Nadal on clay performance.
3:3 + RG is more accurate.
26:23 shows the overall balance --> Nadal peaked before Djokovic (built the lead), crashed before Djokovic (lost the lead) + the clay imbalance (for anyone against Nadal)
You forgot to answer (in another thread) that same claim question.1 strong era slam >>> 17 weak era slams
You forgot to answer (in another thread) that same claim question.
Unfortunately (for you especially, and in this case for me as I like Nadal better than Federer), Nadal will ALWAYS remain the (second) best BEHIND Roger on the ATG...
With the exception of 2011 Federer won at least a Slam in every season from 2003 to 2012. Are you telling us that the weak era ended in 2013? Cause that would mean that Nadal has won 3 Slams in a tough era so basically as many as Wawrinka.1 strong era slam >>> 17 weak era slams
With the exception of 2011 Federer won at least a Slam in every season from 2003 to 2012. Are you telling us that the weak era ended in 2013? Cause that would mean that Nadal has won 3 Slams in a tough era so basically as many as Wawrinka.
Wawrinka = Nadal.
Are you new here?
The weak era was mainly the transitional era between the end of Sampras/Agassi and the beginning of Nadal/Djokovic. Basically Federer dominated when Sampras and Agassi were too old and at the end of their careers and when Nadal and Djokovic were too young and not complete players yet.
This explains why Senilerer won roughly 50% of his matches vs Djokovic in 2014-2016. GTFO with your dumb attitude, fanboy, you have nothing to back it up.
He is only called Weakerer by you, useless fanboy. Do you kiss a poster of Nadal every day before you go to bed too?He is called Weakerer and we are talking about slams.
First, you are either pretending, or not that smart.
9-4 in slams. That's all that matters.
17>>>14
Wait a minute...
But then 9 >>> 2
In your book he should have defended his CYGS so that you wouldn't made any comments like that ?Why didn't you post the amazing pics of Djokovic defending the first 3 titles? Oh, my bad.
In your book he should have defended his CYGS so that you wouldn't made any comments like that ?
In your book he should have defended his CYGS so that you wouldn't made any comments like that ?
I know that you guys think Djokovic is great tennis player, but you are pushing even those expectation limits made by Nole fans.
Not as impressive considering that he didn't have to go through peak Nadal to do it. Else it never would have occurred.
Got to say I underestimated the usual detractors as I didn't expect them to respond so quickly and in such a big number. Well done guys.
Are you new here?
The weak era was mainly the transitional era between the end of Sampras/Agassi and the beginning of Nadal/Djokovic. Basically Federer dominated when Sampras and Agassi were too old and at the end of their careers and when Nadal and Djokovic were too young and not complete players yet.
Mate would appear you are the newbie within the debate...what a ridiculous comment. Wonder if Roddick thinks that era was weak...
Sampras didn't have to go through peak Nadal & he couldn't achieve it...what I'm saying is different people will have different challenges, yes some may be perceived as being more insurmountable than others but that shouldn't detract from what Novak achieved...something as tennis fans we should ALL applaud & respect.
30 Slam wins in a row is enough for some of us, and painful for some of you I see.Well, when he had to face elite grass courter Querry, I thought the likelihood of defending Wimbledon was nil. And I knew he wouldn't defend the US Open after his difficult road to the final.
She meant NCYGS don't try to be smart.He never won a CYGS to defend in the first place
Ahm, who won 2012 Wimbledon? Yes, arguably the greatest grass count player ever. What happened in 2013?Well, when he had to face elite grass courter Querry, I thought the likelihood of defending Wimbledon was nil. And I knew he wouldn't defend the US Open after his difficult road to the final.
That is why I gave you the "pretend" option. Otherwise, you should not be in this thread or this forum...yes, never mind your Nobel Prizes or other laurels, you'd better know what these pictures of Djokovic represent or you're "not that smart."
30 Slam wins in a row is enough for some of us, and painful for some of you I see.
Ahm, who won 2012 Wimbledon? Yes, arguably the greatest grass count player ever. What happened in 2013?