How many more slams will the Big 3 win?
- Thread starter ADuck
- Start date
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I say four (second pick would be five). I think someone will surely break through within the next couple of years and start taking away the Slams. It’s taken long enough already; I’ll be really disappointed if we have to give the next gen EVEN more time.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Do you mean big 2? The last 7 slams have been won by two guys, Nadal and Djokovic as have 9 of the last 10 YE # 1 (Murray 2016 being the exception).
To answer your question though:
Djokovic could probably win two, maybe three more AO
Nadal could probably win one, maybe two more RG
Djokovic could probably win one, maybe two more Wimbledon. Fed showed that he's still capable at Wimbledon on his day but I think 2019 was the year if it was going to happen.
Either Nadal or Djokovic could win one, maybe two US Open but it's unlikely they'll both do it
I'll go with 7 more slams combined for the big 2 and Federer.
To answer your question though:
Djokovic could probably win two, maybe three more AO
Nadal could probably win one, maybe two more RG
Djokovic could probably win one, maybe two more Wimbledon. Fed showed that he's still capable at Wimbledon on his day but I think 2019 was the year if it was going to happen.
Either Nadal or Djokovic could win one, maybe two US Open but it's unlikely they'll both do it
I'll go with 7 more slams combined for the big 2 and Federer.
Last edited:
ADuck
Legend
Federer is still here, as we saw in the Wimbledon final. I don't buy the traditional doom and gloom post-USO anymore. I expect him to come out firing at the AO.
ADuck
Legend
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Absolutely he is still here and can still win big titles (Miami 2019) but he has lost touch with the big 2 results-wise.
Standaa
G.O.A.T.
lmao, it’s not Federer who is 14-0 off clay against the other two since 2014. Fed beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 4 sets and was literally one ace away from winning the last Wimbledon. he just doesn’t get the luxury of having Nadal’s draws.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
How many times do I have to tell you guys... it is called Top Spin 4, and Fed has already won AO20. So testable, provable, so relevant.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
He is like 5-1 or something over Rafa since AO17 lol.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Since he's 38 years old, no wonder he's not winning as much as a fellow 5 years younger than he and Djokovic who is 6 years younger.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Voted 6. Djokdal.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Dunno.
Newballsplease872
Rookie
7
4 for Djokovic
3 for Federer
4 for Djokovic
3 for Federer
guitarra
Professional
This, epic fail from the OP.Why is 0 not an option?
Sport
G.O.A.T.
An epic fail is to think that the Big 3 will win 0 more Slams.
guitarra
Professional
man, I'm kidding, don't take it so seriously
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
The Big 3 shall likely win 6 more slams.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Deal! You can have the 5 - 1 since 2017 and I'll keep the 23 - 11 prior to that
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
No. Don't like it, don't like that one bit.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Sounds like a good deal to me, you can keep the Wimbledon semi final win in 4 sets and the almost Wimbledon title - I'll take the RG semi final win in straight sets and two actual slam titles
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Hard to please everyone! Everybody is so damn opinionated.
Last edited:
Yugram
Legend
The most convincing parody of this week?
V
Vamos Rafa Nadal
Guest
Nadal wins 4 more and Djokovic wins 5 more for a total of 9. Federer's best chance was this past year at Wimbledon and he will stay at 20.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Hopefully 0 tbh. Bring on the youth movement please
Yugram
Legend
4 more next season will make it exactly 6.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
5.
3 for Nadal, 2 for Nole, 0 for Fed.
23-20-19.
Oh, but he can't be GOAT, he never won the WTF!!!
3 for Nadal, 2 for Nole, 0 for Fed.
23-20-19.
Oh, but he can't be GOAT, he never won the WTF!!!
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Which 3 for Nadal?
MusterCoriaKuerten
Rookie
8
5 for Djokovic
2 for Federer
1 for Nadal
5 for Djokovic
2 for Federer
1 for Nadal
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
MusterCoriaKuerten
Rookie
Eat **** clay brat fanboy
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Nadal- RG 21 and 22.
USO 21.
Timmy is just not a big finals guy and Rafa will build everything around continuing to win RG.
I just see another USO for him and next year. That RG/USO double works for him. He'd have done it this year had everything been normal.
For Djokovic, Wim 21, AO 22.
I expect him to have another final surge before he retires.
Federer. Zilch. Which is very sad.
V
Vamos Rafa Nadal
Guest
0 for Federer - he is done
4 for Rafa
5 for Djokovic
4 for Rafa
5 for Djokovic
ADuck
Legend
3 years ago I made this thread, and it turns out me and most others underestimated how many they would win. So far they've won 9 since this thread, and likely will win 10+. Therefore congrats to the 20% of people who correctly predicted 10+ slams. I should have made more poll options in hindsight.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
LOL poor Nagal_fan! Got obliterated like that! Never stood a damn chance!
tennis_error
Professional
You guys always underestimate ATGs, for years, and you never learn... Age matters is biggest flaw of this forum, and people keep their delusion going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going...
Well, obviously age matters at SOME point. But you are completely right, there is a delusion that it is a huge factor well before the late or even mid 30s. And that delusion has to be correct even if reality shows other results. Then anyone who cannot beat those allegedly "declined" old GOATs is a mug.
Then there is talk about "peak Nadal" or "peak Djokovic" and it's just meant they had a certain age then when they "should" have had peak form. Djokovic can win 3 Slams and go for CYGS "well past his prime" then. And young players at 25 or so have to quickly win a Slam, because "the window will close very soon".
So yes, many people are unwilling to accept that things have changed in many sports in the recent past (even though it's a good thing). Being mid-30 means very little nowadays. Even some sprinters have run personal bests close to 40. And even back then in tennis it was not about age alone, but constant changes in racquet technology, so that youngsters had advantages over those who had to switch while already being at the top. In the long and quite consistent period of wooden racquets, older players actually had success, even 50 and more years ago.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
This...this guy gets it! Someone give him a medal quickly! YES! This is what i'm always saying over and over anv over again non-stop...nobody wants to hear the truth, but if dug tennis history deeper there was always a reason for an ATG of the past to underperform i ntheir early 30's, which has nothing to do with their age! For Borg it was emotional burnout, for McEnroe - he could not adjust to technology, for Wilander - drugs got on the way, for Sampras - lack of motivation cuz at the time he held most records and had no reason to keep going anymore, for Agassi he wanted to retire and be a family man close with Steffi and found their tennis academy...for none of them age alone was the reason they couldn't keep dominating i ntheir 30's! There were hundreds of other factors, other than game itself being too strict physically for someone, who is in his 30's!...The sooner people will realize age is the last thing, that got to do with anything - the better, so we can drop this useless age speculations for good!
Last edited:
Thanks for the praises, and the same goes back to you. Great post as well! I might add that in the past it generally often changed what the current "winning style" was (of course as a result of racquet changes, but also surface changes and, as you said, just many combined factors). For example McEnroe won his matches on a certain talent in net play and generally what we call "touch". Then the power serve-and-volley era came up (now contrary to before with the serve being more important than the volley), and he could be overpowered by newer racquets. And later serve and volley itself was obsolete because it's gambling to a large degree, and after a good serve a good first forehand with modern racquets is just the same putaway shot as a good first volley, while after a weaker serve when staying back you won't get passed immediately and still have the chance to construct the point otherwise.
Yes, Sampras also didn't decline due to age, and with him I don't even think it was motivation. IMO it was mainly a combination of two factors: Annacone is a bad coach who ruined his all-court game by telling him he has to come to the net EVEN MORE because he's "old", while in reality the game changed to the opposite direction in that same moment. It doubled the effect, because literally when others stepped forward, he stepped backwards. Secondly Sampras was very stubborn and refused to change racquets. In consequence, someone like Hewitt started to beat him routinely. Maybe not because he was "better" in absolute terms, but he was the better niche player for the upcoming dominating factor.
And this development as it happened showed it to be patently absurd to think Sampras could beat Djokovic nowadays with his style from the 90s, be it on old Wimbledon grass, new Wimbledon grass or elsewhere. And I say this as a childhood Sampras fan. It's just too easily to be seen out of the information we have. I don't get it why so many others don't want it to be true. I mean, Djokovic is literally Agassi and Hewitt combined (in terms of pure ballstriking/returning plus defense/movement) in an era where this is explicitly required, and yet Sampras beats him with serve and volley? Yeah, sure...
Almost all top players of the rapidly changing eras were niche players. The saying "a great champion will be a great champion in any era" is completely wrong. Very few would have been. Simply because the game was almost a different sport if we compare some eras. To think someone like McEnroe could compete at the top in a baseline basher era is absurd. If we assume he could just do everything differently right from the start, we would 1) create a completely hypothetical person with just the same name, and 2) disregard what "talent" means. You will always be more talented for either this or that, and not simply have talent for anything that was ever called "tennis". I'm sure there are many players with similar talent for a certain aspect of the game as some ATGs, but we never heared of them because they were born in an era when this aspect didn't matter. Who knows, maybe someone like Cressy even is the Becker/Edberg of this era.
If we consider that the Big 3 never had to change much and could be sure that their style and technology would be the dominating one over their whole careers AND that they are the most talented players for that style AND the general advance in fitness/health strategies AND that they have the never fading motivation to compete for history against each other, then their results are not too surprising, and others don't have to be "mugs" for that. I would even say that the Big 3 are so good and relentless in what they do that contrary to most past champions even if conditions would have slowly changed into a different direction again, they would still have continued to dominate for a while.
One last word on Agassi: He really is a good example that age wasn't that important. He is the opposite of Sampras in a sense that he started when his style wasn't the one considered to be that great for the then current conditions, but later conditions changed in his favour. So some of his later results were better and more consistent than ever. And he also showed that it is much more about motivation and mentality than age either. When he had mental issues, he was absurdly bad even in his mid 20s. When he was motivated again, he became a top player again in his 30s. It's like he always had the same CHANCES to be good up to age 35.
