Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 5555, May 6, 2011.
What do you think?
Sure because as history has shown winning the AO and FO automatically mean you win the CYGS.
Jim Courier didn't in 1992. In fact, he had a rather lacklustre second half of the year.
He wont win the French Open so it is moot. And no even if he does he still wont. He is much worse on grass than on clay. No way he beats Nadal and Federer on grass in a best of 5.
I really don't get why you keep starting this kind of pointless threads about Novak. You can do this after RG, if he wins. Right? He hasn't even won a single MS on clay or made SF at RG last two years. And this is coming from his fan.
Djokovic did win 2008 Rome, so he has won a masters series on clay.
Grass is his worst surface, and history has shown that winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back is no easy feat...I mean, granted it's now been done 3 years in a row, but that's by just two guys, and we had a near 30 year gap before it! If he wins Wimbledon, we can start talking, but at this stage...no.
That's not a good comparison. Are you saying that the grass today is the same during the Sampras era?
I agree. They sped up the clay and slowed down the grass against an entire field of baseliners. Its closer now than it's ever been. Not a fair comparison at all
There's still a clear difference between clay and grass, just not to 1990s extremes.
No, you're right. It's not the same as it used to be, but the extreme changes came about in what...2002? That's a whole a 6 years, and the entire prime of the supposed greatest player of all time that went by without anybody managing to do it.
It seems more likely he would win RG than Wimbledon...so I'd say he could probably win the USO, but then again, anyone could win it, even Murray.
Djokovic won a bunch of tournaments on his favourite surface. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. When he starts beating Nadal on clay and Federer on grass, then we can talk.
First...He has to beat nadal on clay, he has the tools, but i'll have to see it to believe it.
Then...he has to win Wimbledon, not exactly his surface, that will be the hardest for him to win.
As long as he stays healthy, i would say he's a shoo in for USO.
But i can't say straight "yes or no" because there are many hurdles ahead and the next is higher than the current.
Well he'll certainly have a better shot at winning the calendar slam in 2011 than Fed or Nadal. I don't think it's quite a lock yet though.
Not only that, he´ll be close to win the "Decade Grand Slam", but unfortunately Ralph won three spare majors and Fed the AO in 2010.
not happenning.. to hard to do in today's day and age..
Come on, Federer was a great grass courter before the changes, remember when he beat Sampras in 2001? Even in 2003 he won serving and volleying a lot. I say, if the speed of grass at Wimbledon in 2004-2010 was the same as in the 90's Federer would dominate there even more and surely Nadal wouldn't fancy his chances against Federer on a fast grass court.
It's a long way to the top, if you wanna Rock'n'Roll...
Lol yea, Fedal is a combined 0 % chance of winning the calendar Slam this season, Djokovic is probably at 1 % at this stage.
Probably not. Wimbledon will be the hardest slam to win. Its his weakest surface, and unlike hard court, Nadal is always a beast on it. Im not sure of the math, but its very possible he gets the 3rd seed (unless he really pulls away from Fed), at which point I dont think he could beat both Nadal and Federer.
I'll go full **** and say that even if he doesn't win FO, he'll still win the Calendar GS in 2011. There!
Separate names with a comma.