If Djokovic wins Roland Garros 2012, will it be the strongest top 3 in history?

Mike Sams

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Federer is the holder of all 4 Slams.
Nadal is the holder of all 4 Slams.
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros next year, he becomes the holder of all 4 Slams.

Is this a big deal in the context of tennis history where the top 3 players all have THE Grand Slam (all 4 Slams)? :)
 
It would cement Djokovic as a top 15 player all time, so yes it probably would be the strongest top 3 in history. It would mean 3 different players who have 3 slams in the same year, been consistent top 3 (or better) players for many years, and who also have the Career Slam to boot. Pretty amazing. One has to feel sorry for Andy Murray if he is still slamless at that point (maybe Murray will win Australia and Djokovic the French though).
 
NadalAgassi said:
It would cement Djokovic as a top 15 player all time, so yes it probably would be the strongest top 3 in history. It would mean 3 different players who have 3 slams in the same year, been consistent top 3 (or better) players for many years, and who also have the Career Slam to boot. Pretty amazing. One has to feel sorry for Andy Murray if he is still slamless at that point (maybe Murray will win Australia and Djokovic the French though).
Click to expand...

You dont feel sorry for Andy Murray. No one should. The guy pushes. Watch AO final again. Djokovic was swatting the ball, while Murray was just putting it back with his practice match style forehands.
 
Mike Sams said:
Federer is the holder of all 4 Slams.
Nadal is the holder of all 4 Slams.
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros next year, he becomes the holder of all 4 Slams.

Is this a big deal in the context of tennis history where the top 3 players all have THE Grand Slam (all 4 Slams)? :)
Click to expand...

None of the top three would have "THE Grand Slam", only Laver and Budge can claim that. ;)

By the numbers Fedalovic [sic] is the "strongest". However, given that prior to the late '80s the Australian Open was of a lower priority than today, it's possible to compare, say, a top 3 from the early 'eighties comprising Borg, Connors, and McEnroe. They eventally accumulated 26 major wins between them, while typically playing only three quarters of the slam events of today's champions.

And if you're allowed to count the old Pro Tour, you might find some candidate years from the 1960s that included Laver, Rosewall, and A. N. Other, although of course you'd need to choose one of the subjectively compiled rankings since an official list didn't yet exist. I'll leave it up to others to select the best candidate to complete that triumvirate.


Regards,
MDL
 
Monsieur_DeLarge said:
None of the top three would have "THE Grand Slam", only Laver and Budge can claim that. ;)

By the numbers Fedalovic [sic] is the "strongest". However, given that prior to the late '80s the Australian Open was of a lower priority than today, it's possible to compare, say, a top 3 from the early 'eighties comprising Borg, Connors, and McEnroe. They eventally accumulated 26 major wins between them, while typically playing only three quarters of the slam events of today's champions.

And if you're allowed to count the old Pro Tour, you might find some candidate years from the 1960s that included Laver, Rosewall, and A. N. Other, although of course you'd need to choose one of the subjectively compiled rankings since an official list didn't yet exist. I'll leave it up to others to select the best candidate to complete that triumvirate.


Regards,
MDL
Click to expand...

Fedalovic will surpass that easily. They only need 5 more majors which is just over a year also given that there's nobody on the horizon it should be an easy feat
 
MrFlip said:
You dont feel sorry for Andy Murray. No one should. The guy pushes. Watch AO final again. Djokovic was swatting the ball, while Murray was just putting it back with his practice match style forehands.
Click to expand...

Say what you will about Murray but he has twice the # of Masters titles as any other slamless player. Plus being in 3 slam finals. Having a winning record vs Federer, and alot of wins over Nadal and Djokovic. Being very close to the year end #3 sevearl times and never getting it. You have to feel for him atleast a bit to still be slamless even if you arent a fan (which I am not).
 
NadalAgassi said:
Say what you will about Murray but he has twice the # of Masters titles as any other slamless player. Plus being in 3 slam finals. Having a winning record vs Federer, and alot of wins over Nadal and Djokovic. Being very close to the year end #3 sevearl times and never getting it. You have to feel for him atleast a bit to still be slamless even if you arent a fan (which I am not).
Click to expand...

He has to play like he did against Nadal in that first set of Wimbledon 2011. Aggression, attack and patience. That pushing nonsense he does won't cut it. Looping forehands! :lol:
 
History is long. As Ms. DeLarge writes, there were some other great trios or quartets in the history of tennis. Brookes-Wilding-McLoughlin, Tilden-Lacoste-Cochet-Johnston, Vines-Perry-Budge-von Cramm, Gonzalez-Sedgman-Hoad-Rosewall, Laver-Rosewall-Gonzalez for instance, all pre 1968.
 
furryballs said:
muzza prefers to lurk in the shadows as.................................THE PHANTOM.......have a good look at his ring and u 2 shall know.
Click to expand...

you had it right the first time, he is more like The Shadow, roflmao.

What evil lurks in the heart of man.....
 
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.
 
helloworld said:
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.
Click to expand...

considering this federer/nadal/djokovic dynamic started around 2007/2008, let's give them a few more years until we compare them with a decade's worth of tennis greats.

for all we know, these three could start to fall short at future slams and allow murray, tsonga, delpo, sod, berd, and others to win majors for a few years, which will make this era appear even stronger with so many winning slams + the 30 slam trio.
 
MrFlip said:
You dont feel sorry for Andy Murray. No one should. The guy pushes. Watch AO final again. Djokovic was swatting the ball, while Murray was just putting it back with his practice match style forehands.
Click to expand...

There was nothing to do against Djokovic in the AO. I actually think that he never played that good again after that, even if he won everything. Murray gave up very quickly, it's true. But every player with 0 slam would have done the same, methinks. Watch Djokovic's SF against Federer. Federer would have won against everyone else that day. Djokovic was just terrifying. I remember watching it and think "OMG, Djokovic is unbeatable right now". He didn't play that well again after that, even if he won all those tournaments.
 
Has there ever been a top 3 where each man had at least 4 slams at the time? I started digging but I'm too lazy to continue =p

But yes, if Novak wins RG, it'll definitely be the strongest top 3, even though most would contend that it already is.
 
Mike Sams said:
Federer is the holder of all 4 Slams.
Nadal is the holder of all 4 Slams.
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros next year, he becomes the holder of all 4 Slams.

Is this a big deal in the context of tennis history where the top 3 players all have THE Grand Slam (all 4 Slams)? :)
Click to expand...

Apart from Laver´s bislam, and Agassi´s career
slam,Connors,Wilander,Vilas,Becker,Edberg,Sampras,Newcombe,Rosewall,Ashe and others have won 3 out of 4 majors.It was much, but so much more difficult to win 3 out of 4 in the 70´s,80´s and 90´s than winning the big four today, because competition atop has reduced a lot.And courts are pretty much the same.
 
helloworld said:
I think the 80s were stronger overall at the top with McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander all competing for the slams. The current era looks weak compared to the 80s.
Click to expand...

The names you listed above have played from the 70s to the 90s(3 decades), but Fed/Rafa/Nole only a little over 10 years(so far).

kiki said:
How true¡¡¡
Click to expand...

How clueless !!!
 
TMF said:
The names you listed above have played from the 70s to the 90s(3 decades), but Fed/Rafa/Nole only a little over 10 years(so far).




How clueless !!!
Click to expand...

you are the clueless

Connors,Mc,Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg were the top 6 in 1985, so they shared courts.
 
1971: Laver,Newcombe,Rosewall,Kodes,Smith,Ashe and Nastase, plus Okker,Roche and Gimeno

1975: Connors,Ashe,Borg,Vilas,Orantes,Panatta,Ramirez,Rosewall,Tanner and Laver

1979: Borg,Mc Enroe,Connors,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Vilas,Pecci,Ashe,Solomon,Dibbs

1981: Mc Enroe,Lendl,Connors,Borg,Clerc,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Tanner.Mayer,Kriek

1985:

Lendl,Mac,Connors,Wilander,Becker,Edberg,Cash,Noah,Mecir and Curren


1993:

Sampras,Edberg,Courier,Agassi,Becker,Stich,Bruguera,Ivanisevic,Rafter,Krajicek or Chang


Any of those top 10 wipes out the floor with any of the top 10 you can make from 2000 till 2011...
 
The sport is so grueling now it's hard for top players to be at their peak all year so it doesn't help to only look at how they play when at their best.

Peakwise I would say yes.
 
kiki said:
you are the clueless

Connors,Mc,Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg were the top 6 in 1985, so they shared courts.
Click to expand...

Becker was a baby in 1985. Mac never won a slam again after 1984. Connors was a shadowed of himself...only won 4 more mickey mouse tittles after 1984.

Bringing up names doesn't mean anything if you don't look at their current playing level. I would say 1985 Lendl, Wilander and Edberg is a good comparison to Fed/Nadal/Nole, but still, the current top 3 are better.
 
TMF said:
Becker was a baby in 1985. Mac never won a slam again after 1984. Connors was a shadowed of himself...only won 4 more mickey mouse tittles after 1984.

Bringing up names doesn't mean anything if you don't look at their current playing level. I would say 1985 Lendl, Wilander and Edberg is a good comparison to Fed/Nadal/Nole, but still, the current top 3 are better.
Click to expand...

1981

Borg ( retiring) : 11
Mc: 7
Lendl: 8
Connors: 8

total 34

1993

Sampras: 14
Agassi: 8
Edberg: 6
Becker: 6

Total 34

Now

Federer: 16
nadal: 10
Djokovic: 5
Murray: 0

Total 31

Thank you, sirs
 
1969

Laver 11
Rosewall 8
Emerson 12
Newcombe 7

Total 38

Had the top players competed, we all agree Laver and Rosewall would have won almost all titles Emmo wouldn´t have won.Maybe 2 clay court titles for Santana and Gimeno..still that would make 36, thus, the best modern era top.

Make your bit, Gentlemen
 
kiki you do know, however, that Federer,Djokovic,Nadal are still competing and could well win a combined 10+ majors if not more? That would make any trio from any era look like a joke
 
kiki said:
1981

Borg ( retiring) : 11
Mc: 7
Lendl: 8
Connors: 8

total 34

1993

Sampras: 14
Agassi: 8
Edberg: 6
Becker: 6

Total 34

Now

Federer: 16
nadal: 10
Djokovic: 5
Murray: 0

Total 31

Thank you, sirs
Click to expand...

I had no idea that Sampras had 14 Major titles by 1993, among other things.
 
tennis_pro said:
Agassi had 1 himself at the time :) way da go kiki
Click to expand...

Out of the top 3 and Del potro/roddick...how many majors have the rest of the top 10?

Look at Sampras time, the 10 th best player had a major title...:)

Just as happened in 1985 or 1971, to set a few examples
 
tennis_pro said:
kiki you do know, however, that Federer,Djokovic,Nadal are still competing and could well win a combined 10+ majors if not more? That would make any trio from any era look like a joke
Click to expand...

Well, what do you expect from kiki who doesn't watch tennis. He's assuming none of these 3 will win anymore slams from now on.
 
It seems some posters are unable to even understand the thread title. This isnt a question about the deepest top 10 ever (which nobody would argue, it is well noted the bottom of the current top 10 is a joke) or the strongest overall top 6. It is the strongest "top 3" and nothing else. So bringing up 6 names and an entire top 10 is just evidence of being unable to argue another top 3 against the current one.
 
TMF said:
Well, what do you expect from kiki who doesn't watch tennis. He's assuming none of these 3 will win anymore slams from now on.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could but...against which competition? looks to me like Emerson,Santana and Stolle:)
 
Number of slam winners in the top 10

1971

Laver
Newcombe
Rosewall
Ashe
Smith
Kodes
Nastase
Roche
Gimeno

(9)

1981

Borg
Mc Enroe
Lendl
Connors
Vilas
Gerulaitis
Tanner
Kriek

(8)

1985

Mc Enroe
Lendl
Wilander
Connors
Edberg
Becker
Noah
Cash
Gomez
(9)

1993

Sampras
Courier
Agassi
Edberg
Becker
Bruguera
Rafter
Ivaniseic
Stich
Chang

(10)

NOW

Djokovic
Nadal
Federer
Del Potro Roddick

(5)

WOAT era is now...numbers never lie.. and the rest of top tenners are old enough to have achieved something in their lifes, ain´t it?
 
You may be onto something here. If you just looked at the incredible records Fedal had set before 2010, and not just in the slams, and if you add what Novak has done this year, plus the fact he has been in the top three since 07...it certainly looks like a powerful top three for sure.
 
kiki said:
Number of slam winners in the top 10:

WOAT era is now...numbers never lie.. and the rest of top tenners are old enough to have achieved something in their lifes, ain´t it?
Click to expand...

You just took the best players from one era and put them in the top 10, let's look at 1993 for example, you said:

1993

Sampras
Courier
Agassi
Edberg
Becker
Bruguera
Rafter
Ivaniseic
Stich
Chang

Now this is the REAL top 10 at the end of 1993
1 Sampras, Pete (USA) 4,128 0 0
2 Stich, Michael (GER) 3,445 0 0
3 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,390 0 0
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP) 2,590 0 0
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 2,571 0 0
6 Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) 2,415 0 0
7 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,186 0 0
8 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,154 0 0
9 Muster, Thomas (AUT) 2,033 0 0
10 Pioline, Cedric (FRA) 2,012 0 0

Pioline, Muster, Ivanisevic, Medvedev had 0 majors at the time. Chang, Bruguera, Stich had 1. Sampras had 3, Courier had 4, Edberg had 6.

Becker and Agassi weren't even in the top 10 at the time. In fact, Agassi finished the year ranked 24.
Rafter was a complete non-factor for another 4 years. FAIL.

I assume you screwed up the other eras as well.

The same way I can make a big top 10 that consists of: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, is GAUDIO still playing :D (well his ranking doesn't even matter cause if you put 1993 Rafter as a tough opposition even though he finished the year ranked 66th :D, Gaudio's ranking would really matter, right? He's a slam champ!)
 
Last edited:
kiki said:
Out of the top 3 and Del potro/roddick...how many majors have the rest of the top 10?

Look at Sampras time, the 10 th best player had a major title...:)

Just as happened in 1985 or 1971, to set a few examples
Click to expand...

If Del Potro goes on to win another 4 majors he'll be know as tough opposition in THIS era, right? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The 2017 USO mens final will be the central junction point of the tennis time continuim
Replies
4
Views
735
QuentinFederer
QuentinFederer
F
  • Poll Poll
What tournament would you like Federer to win one last time?
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
SStrikerR
S
Noleberic123
if djokovic wins roland garros will he dominate for the rest of the year?
Replies
3
Views
591
Noleberic123
Noleberic123
Hitman
Why there will be no more Djokodal matches
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Neptune
Neptune
N
Nadal's unique achievement on Grass, Clay and Hardcourt
Replies
5
Views
1K
sbengte
sbengte
Back
Top