Prisoner of Birth
Banned
"Multiple peaks" is an oxymoron. I mean, a peak is the best you've ever been.
How many more Slams do you think Djokovic will win?
- Thread starter Prisoner of Birth
- Start date
"Multiple peaks" is an oxymoron. I mean, a peak is the best you've ever been.
kragster
Hall of Fame
You can complain all you want but at the end of the day it is meaningless what a surface USED to be. Thats like saying Usain Bolt is the fastest guy with the next gen Nike shoes..
That being said, Djokovic is still only at 3 so for now , Fed is still the better AO player.
kragster
Hall of Fame
Last year after US open, Djokovic told the press, that his goal is winning 11 slams, matching Borg, and playing until age of 28.He said that the game in general become too much taxing, and that he doesn't know how long he will last.
At time, he was evidently injured and burned out, so it is reasonable to speak in such a way.This year before Olympics, he changed his story and said he believes he'll play for a long time even in the thirties.I believe, that he's going to win 6 more, at least.
If you just compare him and Agassi, with quite similar playing styles, we know that Agassi played great even in his thirties.He reached 4 slam finals in a row, winning three of them, and he was 29/30 at time.He won 2 more after that, so it's 5 in total from age 29-33.And Agassi had much more troubled career than Novak, injury wise(wrist surgery, back injuries, girls...)Novak is much better treating his career than Agassi ever did.Even Agassi himself considers Novak as a better player
So, to conclude this, I want to say that it's achievable for him to win 6 more before he retires, he's not going to dominate the game in late twenties, but it's not going to stop him of winning slams from time to time.
Although they are both great ball strikers off both wings, the comparison ends there. Agassi played first strike tennis, Djokovic plays mad defense combined with offense. Djokos game is far more taxing and I will be very surprised if he plays beyond 30.
He still has 5 years though and at 1 slam a year for the next 3 plus 1 more in his last 2 years, he can still make 9-10.
Clarky21
Banned
Clarky21
Banned
There is no way that ******* will have that many one slam years. He will easily do many multiple slam years in the future.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
if Djokovic wins the Australian Open this coming January (and he should) I would rate him the best Australian Open player already, and I think most others will as well. He would have tied Agassi and Federer with 4 titles, but neither Agassi or Federer ever won 3 in a row which would give him the edge. Also that Djokovic has smacked Federer down twice in convincing straight sets there, even if it wasnt peak Federer, it was still emphatic enough to be telling IMO. Agassi IMHO might have won 4 in a row had he played 2001, but ultimately we will never know, and subjectively speaking Agassi did kind of vulture a couple incredibly weak Australian Opens in 2002 and 2003.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
No offence meant here, but you have the years wrong. Agassi won the AO in 01. 2002 was the year he missed, and he did beat Rafter in a 5 set SF in 2001. He also beat Todd Martin in the QF's so his 01 AO is pretty legit, but his 2003 one.... I'd have to agree with you there.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
LOL, no way. Federer's got 9 consecutive AO semifinals. Djokovic has 2. Federer's got 5 finals. Djokovic has 3. He'll need 2 more titles to make it debatable (but in his favor) and 3 more to be the undisputed best.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
You mean, if Djoko got 5 AO titles, you would say Federer is better AO player?
Clarky21
Banned
Yeah,that doesn't make much sense. I still think Prisoner of Birth is afraid that Fed's records will be broken. He downplays *******'s chances of catching him all the time.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Sorry but how many semifinals has never been a serious factor for me in who is the best at any slam. In the event it was we would be saying Evert, Lendl, and Connors were the GOATs everywhere. I agree if Djokovic wins 4 it will still be debated between him, Agassi, and to some extent Federer, but he would be my choice personally and probably many others too. In the event Djokovic reaches 5 he would be the undisputed best. How many semifinals do you think is worth 1 title. Since to most people Murray's 4 slam FINALS (and I have lost count how many semis but alot) and 8 Masters titles altogether were worth less than Del Potro's 1 lone slam title.
90's Clay
Banned
I never understood this fascination with "Oh my god, he has consecutive QF and SF- appearances for years and years". All that says to me is he made it far but didn't win it and eventually kept getting taken out by other top guys
I suppose its impressive for consistency, buts its also about winning. At the end of the day, you either win the tournament or you don't
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
You mean, you can't understand English? I said it would be in Djokovic's favor but still debatable.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Who's the better Claycourter? Gaudio or Federer (had he lost to Soderling)? Who's the better player? A 2-time Grand Slam champion who always lost in the first round in his other appearances or a 1-time Grand Slam champion who made it to 5 other finals? We're talking who's better, not who's more successful. Murray has always been considered a better player than Del Potro, even before 2012.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
It would be debatable for you even if Djokovic won 10 AO titles!
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Djokovic is probably gonna end up with the reputation of being a better AO player than Federer but no freaking way he'll get to even 15 Slams. Quit dreaming, you're worse than No1e (the banned kid).
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I don't get why it would be between Djokovic and Agassi and MAYBE Federer if they all had 4. Federer won the AO on 2 surfaces and had an extra final, so if Djokovic won as many with less finals and on one surface only, that still falls short of Federer. If he wins 5 he's better. 4 and a losing final, still Federer slightly. Agassi also won 4 and didn't make any other finals so really Federer edges both at this moment. I know you don't like this but 5 finals beats 4 finals.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Tell that to Prisoner...
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Bet he's gonna say, "Finals don't matter, nor do semifinals or consistency or longevity."
Clarky21
Banned
I'm not so sure about that. I think he will get there. That doesn't make him more talented than Fed,but since he has no competiton,and no nemesis,he will be able to pass Fed's slam count with ease.
He got banned? I didn't know that because I put him on ignore a long time ago.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Why? Because I can't have an opinion of my own? Djokovic has only made it past the QFs on 3 occasions at the AO. Federer did that 9 times. Federer lost to Djokovic twice but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Better lose to someone like Djokovic than to 0-time Slam Champions like Djokovic has. Really, this isn't rocket science. Are the number of Grand Slams the only thing that matters?
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Okay, I'm done arguing with you. You're the only person on here who thinks Djokovic has even a half-decent shot at reaching Federer's count. And you supposedly "loathe" him
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with your basic argument, but Djokovic has straight setted Federer himself twice so that has to count for something especially when talking about one tournament only, although Djokovic has said before that the switch of the courts starting in 2008 helped him win the tournament.
And this is in response to NadalAgassi, and 90's clay:
And while it is important obviously to win the tournament, consistency and winning for Federer go hand in hand. In the 23 consecutive SF's he made, he won 14 of those GS. It would be different if Federer didn't often win the tournament, but obviously that is not the case.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Prisoner, many will agree that Djokovic with 5 titles would be better AO player than Federer (of course if he wins 2 more titles), and you can keep your opinion...
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Federer straight-setted Djokovic once at the AO but that was on Rebound Ace.
Also, winning on 2 different AO surfaces is a positive.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
You're basically reiterating the same thing I said as if it were an original thought. I clearly said most would believe Djokovic to be the better player at AO if he won 2 more but that it would debatable. What don't you understand about this?
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Of course you forgot to say how old Djokovic was in that AO, but 31yrs old Fed..
We finished with this.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Prime Federer straight-setted pre-prime Djokovic once. Prime Djokovic straight-setted post-prime Federer twice. Edge to Djokovic.
But already-1-time-Slam-champion Djokovic lost to Roddick and Tsonga in the Quarters of the Australian Open. Neither Roddick nor Tsonga ever won the AO. On the other hand, Federer, since his first win at the AO, only lost to Safin, Nadal, and Djokovic there, all AO champions, and never before the SFs. That's 9 years. Djokovic hasn't even strung together 3 such years (yet).
Last edited:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I know. I just chose not to mention it because it was in early 2007. Just like I could say Fed had mono in 2008, or was past his prime in 2011, but then I would be making excuses for both players, and I don't want to do that.
Did I say it wasn't a positive? What I meant was that the faster pre 2008 court favoured Federer, while the slower one favours Djokovic which could be a reason behind why Djokovic is 2-0 against him on the slower court.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Didn't say you said it wasn't a positive. I was just making a point.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
The fact is that Djokovic is 6 years younger, so it's better to discuss later about best AO player!
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yet you had to quote my post to do it. I'm so honoured.
The quote was for the first paragraph I posted, which was in response to your post. Didn't think 1 line was worth a separate post so stuck it at the bottom.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
LOL, again so unoriginal. Djokovic isn't simply 1 AO behind. There's more to GOAT-dom than that. He has it in him, though.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Ok, I'm joking by the way, in case you can't tell. No hard feelings. Also, just so you know, I stopped responding on the other thread about Fed and Rafa's movement and footwork because I conceded the point.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Time works for Djokovic!
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Oh no, none at all. Sorry if I came off sorta blunt. What's this place for if not for arguments?
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
I think it will have to do with Federer and Nadal. Both are past their prime, but the question is how long they can compete at the top level for. If they stick around, Djokovic will win less even if he's number 1. The sooner they retire or become irrelevant, the more GS titles Novak will rack up.
I don't see anyone coming up the ranks who can even touch the top guys, so that leaves really leaves Murray to rival Djokovic. I expect he will win a few more slams, but Djokovic will get the best of him most of the time.
slams left:
Federer:1- 3, i predict:3
Nadal:0-4, i predict:3
Djokovic: 3-8, i predict:5
Murray:1-5, i predict:2
Hopefully within 4 years from now some new young guys will start winning, because otherwise tennis will get really really boring.
I don't see anyone coming up the ranks who can even touch the top guys, so that leaves really leaves Murray to rival Djokovic. I expect he will win a few more slams, but Djokovic will get the best of him most of the time.
slams left:
Federer:1- 3, i predict:3
Nadal:0-4, i predict:3
Djokovic: 3-8, i predict:5
Murray:1-5, i predict:2
Hopefully within 4 years from now some new young guys will start winning, because otherwise tennis will get really really boring.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
LOL, hilarious. Djokovic with 4 AOs will have a better claim than Federer with 4 AOs just because he straight-setted post-prime Federer twice (and having been straight-setted himself in his pre-prime) but apparently Federer is only in the discussions with Agassi "to some extent" even though he straight-setted post-prime Agassi once at the AO. Total inconsistency in reasoning! Only from NadalAgassi!
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I agree with you there and he's banned? Thank God for that
Yeah but I just mean who has a better record at the AO. Once you get into who straight setted who it gets too complicated. I mean Federer had a match point over Safin that would have probably sealed another title and only God mode safin beat him. Federerwas out of practice when he lost in 2008, I still think Djokovic would have won but maybe not in straight sets.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yeah, he "retired" ;-)
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Djokovic would have won 3 in a row. That is his biggest edge over Agassi and Federer who werent able to do that. ****s claim Federer is better than Sampras at the U.S Open because he won 5 in a row even though Sampras has multiple more finals, more semis, won his titles over an incredible 12 year stretch. That he spanked Federer so decisively twice there is just an added reason to favor him with both winning 4 though. You can moan about post prime Federer all you want, but those matches were January 08 and January 2011, Federer was 26 and 29 so not even in his 30s, and Federer was winning slams up until 2012 (atleast) and was the #1 or #2 seed in both and got crushed both times by the lower seeded and ranked Djokovic, who btw was only 20 at the time of crushing a 26 year old Federer. Had it not been for the mono excuse nobody would say Federer wasnt much more in his prime in Janaury 08 than Djokovic for that matter. Now to compare this with a match against a 35 year old Agassi already a couple years past his final ever slam is simply ridiculous, but to be expected from ****s, who have long acted like Federer's 8-3 record vs a 32-35 year old Agassi is one of the all time most incredible stats and proof of his undisputed GOATness, LOL! If it will provide you with comfort I wont reference a match of a 35 year old Federer ranked 8th in the World vs anyone at any event if it comes to that.
As for Agassi, he has won 4 of his 9 career Australian Opens, an incredible stat, especialy given that 5 of the ones he played he was 30 or older.
Last edited by a moderator:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Stop dancing and admit your inconsistency in logic. Do the straight-set wins matter or not? And how do you explain Djokovic losing to Tsonga and Roddick? Is it "better" losing to them than to a multiple AO champion?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
There is no inconsistency in my logic. You are the one who is too incredibly STUPID to not see the difference between a 26 year old World #1 losing in straight sets, or even a 29 year old World #2 and defending Champion losing in straight sets, and a 35 year old losing in straight sets. If you cant see such simple things I cant help you, but it says way more about you than it does me.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
or Federer losing to Nalbandian, Tommy Haas, Marat Safin (who great as that match was in reality is only on par with Roddick in achievements and career greatness in the sport if we are just going to throw around names), losing to non hard court great Nadal twice.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt
You still haven't explained how Djokovic is supposed to be the best just because he beat Federer while Federer is worse than Agassi even though he's beaten him. And you conveniently ignore Djokovic's losses to Tsonga and Roddick.Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
