How many more Slams do you think Djokovic will win?

[RF20Lennon]

Djokovic is done winning slams. Murray and Nadal will both finish with more slams than him.

Someone is delusional about nole not winning slams

 

[RF20Lennon]

Let me get this straight: You think Djokovic will win Roland Garros.

This year Nadal beat Djokovic 3 out of 3 meetings on clay. Only dropped ONE set. And that is despite Nadal taking painkillers throughout the clay season because of the knee troubles he suffered at Indian Wells and Miami (where he withdrew in the semis).

Nadal has since announced that he will play less hardcourt events from now on and that he'll only play when 100% (that is why he refused to play the Olympics and US Open - he wasn't 100%). That means Djokovic will have to play a 100% fit Nadal from now on, rather than the injured version of Nadal that he faced this year (which was still too much for Djokovic to handle).

Djokovic winning Roland Garros? No chance.

What if nadal is not a 100% by RG???

 

[Mike Sams]

Someone is delusional about nole not winning slams

And he just happens to be a *******. Makes sense :lol:

 

[RAFA2005RG]

What if nadal is not a 100% by RG???

No chance of him being less than 100%. Because unlike last year, he won't play Indian Well/Miami if he's injured (in fact, he may not play them if he's healthy either, considering he said he's playing less hardcourt events in 2013). He'll be more cautious after the Australian Open this time. He already said this. Either way, Nadal doesn't need to be even close to 100% to win Roland Garros, as 2012 proved.

 

[Mike Sams]

No chance of him being less than 100%. Because unlike last year, he won't play Indian Well/Miami if he's injured (in fact, he may not play them if he's healthy either, considering he said he's playing less hardcourt events in 2013). He'll be more cautious after the Australian Open this time. He already said this. Either way, Nadal doesn't need to be even close to 100% to win Roland Garros, as 2012 proved.

:lol: You think Nadal is impervious to breaking down and aging like every other player in history before him? And how do you think he will manage to acclimate himself to hardcourts in the Slams against the top players if he's going to avoid hardcourts? How is he going to perform his best in hardcourt Slams if he's not planning to get the necessary hardcourt practice in? How is he going to beat Federer's Grand Slam record if he's concentrating on clay events? He can't win another 7 Slams and beat Federer's Slam count just at Roland Garros alone you know. He needs to win at AO and USO and Wimbledon as well which are FAR more challenging surfaces to him and other players are improving. Nadal has lost to both Murray and Djokovic at the AO and USO so he needs to improve his hardcourt pedigree to win more Slams there and it doesn't get easier as the years go by and he breaks down and is now trying to savor his career by avoiding as much hardcourts as possible.

 

[Mike Sams]

It's going to be very difficult for Nadal to find the necessary fitness and form to compete at the top level of tennis as he nears 27. He's spending a lot of time away from the sport. Meanwhile, Djokovic and Murray are getting better and stronger, physically and mentally.

 

[rafafan20]

2 Aus 1 Wimby

 

[veroniquem]

What if nadal is not a 100% by RG???

Rafa doesn't need to be 100% to win RG. 80% will do

 

[rafafan20]

I think Murray will win all but RG next year

 

[Clarky21]

I think Murray will win all but RG next year

ABD,so this is just fine by me.

 

[Huanita99]

Let me get this straight: You think Djokovic will win Roland Garros.

This year Nadal beat Djokovic 3 out of 3 meetings on clay. Only dropped ONE set. And that is despite Nadal taking painkillers throughout the clay season because of the knee troubles he suffered at Indian Wells and Miami (where he withdrew in the semis).

Nadal has since announced that he will play less hardcourt events from now on and that he'll only play when 100% (that is why he refused to play the Olympics and US Open - he wasn't 100%). That means Djokovic will have to play a 100% fit Nadal from now on, rather than the injured version of Nadal that he faced this year (which was still too much for Djokovic to handle).

Djokovic winning Roland Garros? No chance.

yes chance. he is more than capable of doing it. wake up and smell the coffee. he managed to win Wimbledon and he sucks on grass. he is very good on clay.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Rafa doesn't need to be 100% to win RG. 80% will do

I agree rafa will win RG regardless but the point I was making to the other guy was Rafa will play RG even if he's below a 100%

 

[batz]

I think Murray will win all but RG next year

Steady tiger - no man in the professional era has backed up his first slam win by winning the next slam - in fact, nobody has even made the final of their next slam.

Roger, Rafa, Nole, Borg, Pete, Johnny Mac, Mr Lendl, Andre, Boris - none of them were able to do what you say Murray will.

 

[rafafan20]

Steady tiger - no man in the professional era has backed up his first slam win by winning the next slam - in fact, nobody has even made the final of their next slam.

Roger, Rafa, Nole, Borg, Pete, Johnny Mac, Mr Lendl, Andre, Boris - none of them were able to do what you say Murray will.

Depending on how one views the olympics you could say he has already virtually done that.

 

[veroniquem]

To Batz: But Murray always does well at AO. He will have a shot there for sure.

 

[Clarky21]

I agree rafa will win RG regardless but the point I was making to the other guy was Rafa will play RG even if he's below a 100%

I wonder how many people were saying this sort of stuff in 2009? Nadal is not a lock to win anything anywhere.

 

[rafafan20]

To Batz: But Murray always does well at AO. He will have a shot there for sure.

his usopen/wimby/olympic form would have won him 2012 AO

 

[batz]

To Batz: But Murray always does well at AO. He will have a shot there for sure.

V - I think it's asking a lot of him to be honest. There's probably a reason why nobody has done it.

 

[batz]

Depending on how one views the olympics you could say he has already virtually done that.

Bit of a stretch mate, but I take your point.


I just don't want to get too carried away. I'd love for you to be right about next year but just can't see it.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Steady tiger - no man in the professional era has backed up his first slam win by winning the next slam - in fact, nobody has even made the final of their next slam.

Roger, Rafa, Nole, Borg, Pete, Johnny Mac, Mr Lendl, Andre, Boris - none of them were able to do what you say Murray will.

Plus Djokovic is likely to win the Australian Open and cement himself the Australian Open GOAT anyway. Murray has a good shot at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open next year though.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Steady tiger - no man in the professional era has backed up his first slam win by winning the next slam - in fact, nobody has even made the final of their next slam.

Roger, Rafa, Nole, Borg, Pete, Johnny Mac, Mr Lendl, Andre, Boris - none of them were able to do what you say Murray will.

Yeah, I didn't notice it, very interesting!

 

[oy vey]

I agree,but 3 is the minimum he will win. He could even win them all considering there's no one to challenge him in the slightest.

i'm a nole fan but i don't have that much belief.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think he will win eight slams all up.

 

[GabeT]

At the time Nole had only 5 slams. The maximum you could vote for was 9 more, and you can see most thought that was a ridiculous number. So far he has won 11 more since this thread was posted.

 

[G A S]

This poll can still be voted, that is the problem with these polls without a set date.

 

[GabeT]

This poll can still be voted, that is the problem with these polls without a set date.

But even the maximum number allowed is too low!

 

[G A S]

But even the maximum number allowed is too low!

Yep, though not really surprising.

 

[Cortana]

Voted for 9.

 

[powerangle]

There are only 3 predictions I am going to make for certain on Djokovic:

-At careers end he will be regarded as the greatest Australian Open player ever.

-He will win the French atleast once.

-He will end up with more slams than Agassi's 8 and generally be regarded higher than Agassi in history (which pains me to say as I think Agassi had more potential but he didnt always use it the way Djokovic is now maximizing his, for the record Agassi had more overall potential than Nadal too, Nadal being someone who has even already greatly overachieved and gone well beyond his potential, potential wise Agassi had more than almost everyone in history).

3 for 3

Though his first point may still change by career end...great predictions.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Bump

 

[Deleted member 792641]

no way he wins 9 more from here on

….right?

 

[BrooklynNY]

Stil a vaid poll and conversation

 

[scotus]

Just 3 more should suffice...

if it's a calendar slam!

 

[DSH]

Just 3 more should suffice...

if it's a calendar slam!

 

[GabeT]

Fascinating how in 2012 posters were talking of a weak era. I read another similar comment from 2008.

Bottom line: no one here has a clue how to compare levels across time.

Well lets see, we have a worthless crop of players aged 20-23, a rather worthless group of teenagers (the few that exist) trying to make their way on the ATP tour now, an uninspiring junior group. Other than Murray who else is going to win any slams the next 5 years. Bernard Tomic, Kei Nishikori, Ryan Harrison, LOL! At some point some new talent (real talent not just a Raonic level who might win 1 slam someday if he is really lucky) will emerge but be prepared to wait a long time since there is no indication there is any on the near horizon and expect atleast 2 if not all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray to win ALOT more slams. I guess Del Potro "could" win another slam or two before he retires, but dont bet on it happening either, and dont expect him to win alot of future slams, that is for sure.

The French Open prediction looks especialy right. Unless his body falls off Nadal can win French Opens into his 30s, and when was the least up and comer that emerged on clay of any ilk since Nadal.

 

[mahatma]

Well lets see, we have a worthless crop of players aged 20-23, a rather worthless group of teenagers (the few that exist) trying to make their way on the ATP tour now, an uninspiring junior group. Other than Murray who else is going to win any slams the next 5 years. Bernard Tomic, Kei Nishikori, Ryan Harrison, LOL! At some point some new talent (real talent not just a Raonic level who might win 1 slam someday if he is really lucky) will emerge but be prepared to wait a long time since there is no indication there is any on the near horizon and expect atleast 2 if not all of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray to win ALOT more slams. I guess Del Potro "could" win another slam or two before he retires, but dont bet on it happening either, and dont expect him to win alot of future slams, that is for sure.

The French Open prediction looks especialy right. Unless his body falls off Nadal can win French Opens into his 30s, and when was the least up and comer that emerged on clay of any ilk since Nadal.

As good as it gets. 10 years on and this prediction is still true!

 

[BrooklynNY]

I think Nadal at Roland Garros and Djokovic at Wimbledon will always have a chance.

Look at the way the Australian draw just fell a part and Tommy Paul and Ben Shelton just played for a spot in the semis to take on Novak. Right now, it seems like Novak and to some lesser extent these days Nadal don't really rely on "good draws".

Novak definitely got a good draw, but his quarter held up and he faced the most difficult opponents possible. Even though those opponents were favorable.

They'll always be a threat because I can always see them having a well timed run, and a draw falling a part quite a bit in the future of tennis

 

[chjtennis]

He's not getting any younger and something tells me 23 will be the ceiling, but I would say 2~3 more.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I think Nadal at Roland Garros and Djokovic at Wimbledon will always have a chance.

Look at the way the Australian draw just fell a part and Tommy Paul and Ben Shelton just played for a spot in the semis to take on Novak. Right now, it seems like Novak and to some lesser extent these days Nadal don't really rely on "good draws".

Novak definitely got a good draw, but his quarter held up and he faced the most difficult opponents possible. Even though those opponents were favorable.

They'll always be a threat because I can always see them having a well timed run, and a draw falling a part quite a bit in the future of tennis

 

[Bartelby]

3-6 seems to be the result of the poll, so my 3 was at the low end.

 

[BrooklynNY]

He played Dimitrov, and winner of Rublev/Rune. His quarter of the draw played out according to the seeds. He didn't play any surprise lucky losers, or someone like the guy who upset Zverev, for example

The other side, i.e Ruud's quarter, and most of the other half of the draw itself, with the exception of Tsitsipas, fell a part. That's what I meant.