Is winning 20 slams still that impressive nowadays?

[Hyde]

Sure it‘s impressive, but I think it is by no means as „unreachable“ as it was in the past. And I don‘t think the Big 3 set a „record for the ages/eternity“ with their 20 titles. These are the reasons:

- in the past, the careers of players were over much sooner. Players had time until their late 20‘s to win slams, now players maintain a competitive level well into their 30‘s (= much more time to win slams)

- in the past, people played just 3, some (Borg) often even just 2 slams per year. Skipping Australian Open for example. Now they always play 4 per year

- In the past, there were more differences between the surfaces than today, which made it harder to be competitive at all slams

- in the 60‘s there were no slams for pro players. Otherwise guys like Rosewall would already have gotten well over 20 back then (so the big-3 didn‘t do the „impossible“)

- So if you have a career of 15 competitive years (eg age 20-35), you „just“ have to win a little more than one slam per year to reach 20 (Nadal won 13 with yearly French Open alone)

-The Big-3 all won 20 in the same era. If a player of their quality appears in the future without the competition of the other 2, such a player could reach something around 30 slams.

So I think it won‘t be too long until we will have a new player who will overtake the mark of 20 set by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. People even thought Sampras 14 would be a record „forever“, than it was just for a few years. Certainly the records of the big-3 will not hold for the next 50 years or something. It will be broken, because 20 is not that hard than it was in the past.

 

[Halba]

are you joking. 20 slams wont be beat for 2-3 lifetimes from here.

 

[junior74]

If a player of Big3's stature had entered his peak years in 2016, he could already have around 10 slams.

 

[Oceans II]

If a player of Big3's stature had entered his peak years in 2016, he could already have around 10 slams.

Seems you're describing Nole. AO16, RG16, W18, USO18, AO19, W19, AO20, AO21, RG21 and W21 is exactly 10 slams. Maybe up to 14 if we include AO17, W17, USO17 and AO18 which were lost through injury.

 

[junior74]

Seems you're describing Nole. AO16, RG16, W18, USO18, AO19, W19, AO20, AO21, RG21 and W21 is exactly 10 slams. Maybe up to 14 if we include AO17, W17, USO17 and AO18 which were lost through injury.

US16, AO17, US17, AO18, US18, W19, US19, AO20, US20, AO21, W21 did not have the strongest versions of any of these players IMO. Novak has swept a fair bit, and his peak version would have swept it even more, as would the other 2 if peak.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

What a stupid thread.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Of course it’s ridiculously unimpressive. The 3 guys who bumbled into winning 20 slams are untalented, slow, have lousy groundstrokes and are all mental midgets.

 

[Sunny014]

Fed's 20 is impressive

the other 2 aren't so impressive since longevity of players increased a lot for Novak's generation

To be impressive Novak needs at least 25+

 

[mehdimike]

Fed's 20 is impressive

the other 2 aren't so impressive since longevity of players increased a lot for Novak's generation

To be impressive Novak needs at least 25+

Rafa is just around 5 years younger than Federer. Also Roger himself surely has enjoyed from it.

 

[Sunny014]

Rafa is just around 5 years younger than Federer. Also Roger himself surely has enjoyed from it.

Doesn't matter, in 5-6 years the game changed.


When Lendl was 31 there were like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 (Lendl 2 and Gilbert ranked 19)
When Becker was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 (Korda)
When Sampras was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 ( Agassi 2 & Pete 13 )
When Kuerten was 31 there was like 2 guys 30+ in the top 20 ( Canas & Coria )
When Federer was 31 there was like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 ( Federer 2 & Ferrer 5 )
When Djokovic was 31 there were 6 guys aged 30+ in the top 20
When Djokovic is now 34 there are 8 guys aged 30+ in the top 22

Do you see the pattern ?

Federer is from that generation which is no different from Pete's or Lendl's or Mcenroe's

Djokovic and Nadal along with their whole generation enjoyed a lot in the 30s....so their 20 slams is not impressive.

 

[Biotic]

US16, AO17, US17, AO18, US18, W19, US19, AO20, US20, AO21, W21 did not have the strongest versions of any of these players IMO. Novak has swept a fair bit, and his peak version would have swept it even more, as would the other 2 if peak.

W17 stronk ROFLMAO

 

[junior74]

W17 stronk ROFLMAO

I think Federer of W17 could have played even better if anyone had challenged him just a tad.

But you're probably right, many versions of Big3 would have beat him... Add it to the list

 

[ollinger]

People get a little jaded around here and it's not an attractive quality. Winning one, or several, slams is very impressive. Winning 20 is a remarkable accomplishment.

 

[GameSetDjokovic]

Fed's 20 is impressive

the other 2 aren't so impressive since longevity of players increased a lot for Novak's generation

To be impressive Novak needs at least 25+

45 at least.

 

[mehdimike]

Doesn't matter, in 5-6 years the game changed.


When Lendl was 31 there were like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 (Lendl 2 and Gilbert ranked 19)
When Becker was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 (Korda)
When Sampras was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 ( Agassi 2 & Pete 13 )
When Kuerten was 31 there was like 2 guys 30+ in the top 20 ( Canas & Coria )
When Federer was 31 there was like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 ( Federer 2 & Ferrer 5 )
When Djokovic was 31 there were 6 guys aged 30+ in the top 20
When Djokovic is now 34 there are 8 guys aged 30+ in the top 22

Do you see the pattern ?

Federer is from that generation which is no different from Pete's or Lendl's or Mcenroe's

Djokovic and Nadal along with their whole generation enjoyed a lot in the 30s....so their 20 slams is not impressive.

That's because of covid ranking system.
In Race to turin, there are 5 +30 year old players.
1-Novak
2-Rafa
3-PCB
4-RBA
5-Isner
Also Roger is an active player just because of the same thing. How many players have enjoyed having match point at almost 38 in a slam final?!
They are great players mainly because of their talent not other factors.

 

[Sunny014]

That's because of covid ranking system.
In Race to turin, there are 5 +30 year old players.
1-Novak
2-Rafa
3-PCB
4-RBA
5-Isner
Also Roger is an active player just because of the same thing. How many players have enjoyed having match point at almost 38 in a slam final?!
They are great players mainly because of their talent not other factors.

When Djokovic was 31 (in 2018) I have clearly mentioned that there were 6 people in the top 20 then, don't you see the jump from previous years ???

You seriously think there has not been a jump in the longevity of players in their 30s ?

 

[Sunny014]

That's because of covid ranking system.
In Race to turin, there are 5 +30 year old players.
1-Novak
2-Rafa
3-PCB
4-RBA
5-Isner
Also Roger is an active player just because of the same thing. How many players have enjoyed having match point at almost 38 in a slam final?!
They are great players mainly because of their talent not other factors.

Roger would have been kicked out royally had the era been stronger
Same for Novak

These guys at 32 or 34 or 38 yrs of ages should not be reaching wimbledon finals or winning if the court is legit fast and has some young ATGs playing in it

 

[martinezownsclay]

Exactly. Rosewall, Laver, Tilden, Gonzales, and possibly Budge or Vines would all have gotten 20+ slams if there was no pro game back then. I have said that for years.

 

[GameSetDjokovic]

Let's wait and see who gets 20 next...might have to wait a long time friends.

 

[Sunny014]

Exactly. Rosewall, Laver, Tilden, Gonzales, and possibly Budge or Vines would all have gotten 20+ slams if there was no pro game back then. I have said that for years.

All of these names are clearly inferior to the guys who started playing tennis from the times of mcenroe onwards.

Bigger and stronger stars arrived from the 80s onwards.

 

[Sunny014]

Anyone who played tennis before Jimmy Connors should be clearly disqualified from the GOAT Discussion, the level has clearly gone up.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

It's easier to amass slams than it was. I imagine the pattern will pick up again in a couple of generation cycles.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It is extremely impressive, but you're correct that it may not last that long.

 

[ChrisRF]

I think Federer of W17 could have played even better if anyone had challenged him just a tad.

Yeah, this is a mistake many people make, and that’s actually 2 mistakes:

1) If someone is head and shoulders above the competition it doesn't have to be a weak field.
2) Even if the field was weak, that doesn’t mean the (lopsided) winner couldn’t have beaten a strong field as well.

Federer’s 2017 grass season was one of the best he ever played, besides that strange loss to Haas which may have been a gift. After that he didn’t lose a single set in Halle and Wimbledon. That was unprecedented dominance.

 

[zvelf]

So I think it won‘t be too long until we will have a new player who will overtake the mark of 20 set by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Yes, and the player who will overtake the 20 mark will be Djokovic himself. Okay, to be less facetious, I have to take issue with your "it won't be too long." If this hypothetical player comes along and averages 2 slams a year, it will still take over 10 years to break the record and there's no guarantee whatsoever this player will come along next year. So a reasonable expectation is that the 20-slam record won't be broken by anyone in the next 15-20 years aside from Djokovic or Nadal. That's not exactly a "won't be too long" time period.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Sure it‘s impressive, but I think it is by no means as „unreachable“ as it was in the past. And I don‘t think the Big 3 set a „record for the ages/eternity“ with their 20 titles. These are the reasons:

- in the past, the careers of players were over much sooner. Players had time until their late 20‘s to win slams, now players maintain a competitive level well into their 30‘s (= much more time to win slams)

- in the past, people played just 3, some (Borg) often even just 2 slams per year. Skipping Australian Open for example. Now they always play 4 per year

- In the past, there were more differences between the surfaces than today, which made it harder to be competitive at all slams

- in the 60‘s there were no slams for pro players. Otherwise guys like Rosewall would already have gotten well over 20 back then (so the big-3 didn‘t do the „impossible“)

- So if you have a career of 15 competitive years (eg age 20-35), you „just“ have to win a little more than one slam per year to reach 20 (Nadal won 13 with yearly French Open alone)

-The Big-3 all won 20 in the same era. If a player of their quality appears in the future without the competition of the other 2, such a player could reach something around 30 slams.

So I think it won‘t be too long until we will have a new player who will overtake the mark of 20 set by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. People even thought Sampras 14 would be a record „forever“, than it was just for a few years. Certainly the records of the big-3 will not hold for the next 50 years or something. It will be broken, because 20 is not that hard than it was in the past.

Agree. It is about masters now.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Lol

It's the record so of course it's that impressive, but maybe not in 50 years from now.

 

[martinezownsclay]

All of these names are clearly inferior to the guys who started playing tennis from the times of mcenroe onwards.

Bigger and stronger stars arrived from the 80s onwards.

I don't disagree with that part neccessarily. I am just saying that many guys would have atleast close to 20 slams before now, so the shock at 3 guys reaching 20 or more is short sighted. I said this for years, I said Sampras was delusional to think 14 was a safe mark. 14 was literally only the first real mark that even existed, as he was the first person to even try and win as many majors as he could. Even Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, often skipped the Australian and French Opens, and Borg retired super early.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Yes, and the player who will overtake the 20 mark will be Djokovic himself. Okay, to be less facetious, I have to take issue with your "it won't be too long." If this hypothetical player comes along and averages 2 slams a year, it will still take over 10 years to break the record and there's no guarantee whatsoever this player will come along next year. So a reasonable expectation is that the 20-slam record won't be broken by anyone in the next 15-20 years aside from Djokovic or Nadal. That's not exactly a "won't be too long" time period.

Given the players we see now and on the horizon i think it could be a very long while, but for those players good enough I do think 20+ slams won't be that difficult. A lot of that is the playing conditions, the really homogenized conditions, make all surface dominance easier. So the best players are the top contenders on every surface. I mean without Nadal's clay dominance, Federer and Djokovic would have dominated every surface. Nadal would even have a dominant record on every surface if Djokovic didn't exist (even with Federer existing, as Federer rarely stops Nadal over the years anyway).

 

[Arak]

I’m sure, Tsitsimedzverev will easily reach 20+ slams.

 

[Enceladus]

Many here underestimate the hard work and determination needed to achieve 20 Grand Slam titles. Whatever the situation on the Tour, it is never easy to achieve 20 Grand Slam titles.

I claim that after the end of Big 3 we will wait a long time for another tennis player with 10 grandslams and more. And the Big 3 member will hold the record for the number of grand slams won also in the second half of the 21st century.

 

[mehdimike]

When Djokovic was 31 (in 2018) I have clearly mentioned that there were 6 people in the top 20 then, don't you see the jump from previous years ???

You seriously think there has not been a jump in the longevity of players in their 30s ?

Of course it was! I just wanted to say Roger has also benefited from the same trend. Nadal won his first slam less than 2 years After Roger so career wise they are from the very same generation. It's not like Rafa and Novak has been playin 2 decades after Roger! Heck even the Swiss is not retired yet.
But I agree with you that the absence of an ATG is the reason for the domination of the old guard.

 

[jm1980]

When Lendl was 31 there were like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 (Lendl 2 and Gilbert ranked 19)
When Becker was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 (Korda)
When Sampras was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 ( Agassi 2 & Pete 13 )
When Kuerten was 31 there was like 2 guys 30+ in the top 20 ( Canas & Coria )
When Federer was 31 there was like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 ( Federer 2 & Ferrer 5 )
When Djokovic was 31 there were 6 guys aged 30+ in the top 20
When Djokovic is now 34 there are 8 guys aged 30+ in the top 22

Do you see the pattern ?

I see you trying to pull a fast one. It was all Top 20 but you switched the last one to Top 22 to inflate the number of 30+, which would have been 6 if it were Top 20

The only "pattern" is a pattern of intellectually dishonest arguments from you

 

[Sunny014]

Of course it was! I just wanted to say Roger has also benefited from the same trend. Nadal won his first slam less than 2 years After Roger so career wise they are from the very same generation. It's not like Rafa and Novak has been playin 2 decades after Roger! Heck even the Swiss is not retired yet.
But I agree with you that the absence of an ATG is the reason for the domination of the old guard.

Doesn't matter if Nadal won his 1st slam 3 years after Fed, all that is not gonna change the fact that Rafa benefitted or at COULD HAVE BENEFITTED ..... but nobody asked him to ruin his knees .... right ? .... It is his problem

His whole generation benefitted, even Gael Monfils and John Isner are playing into their mid 30s and if Rafa could not then that is a lame excuse

 

[Sunny014]

I don't disagree with that part neccessarily. I am just saying that many guys would have atleast close to 20 slams before now, so the shock at 3 guys reaching 20 or more is short sighted. I said this for years, I said Sampras was delusional to think 14 was a safe mark. 14 was literally only the first real mark that even existed, as he was the first person to even try and win as many majors as he could. Even Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, often skipped the Australian and French Opens, and Borg retired super early.

Borg would not have won anything even if he continued, he was actually done and dusted, yes he could have vultured some AOs in his peak, 2 or 3 maybe, he missed them. Connors too missed them, however these guys played a lot of their tour finals in their time and honestly goat race is not only about slams, a lot of other factors also matter you know. 20 is a big number in any era, not easy unless you are dominant for a decade or more.

Sampras could not have won more than 20, anyway Fed's gen had arrived and Pete was horribly inconsistent in 90s in 2 slams, FO and AO, that itself ruined his chances

 

[socallefty]

Everything is impressive when a media darling like Federer does it - amazing records like 300 weeks at #1 and 20 Slams. When Djokovic does it, the media and Federer’s legions of fans seem to be trying to downplay it. Heck, Djokovic can win 4 Slams in a row (and 5/6 Slams) and it wasn’t a big deal for the media. All I know is that watching them play in person throughout their careers, Djokovic has been a more impressive player with no weaknesses and impressive strengths (GOAT BH, GOAT returns, GOAT movement) in addition to being mentally tougher than Federer.

Federer behaves better on court though and is a nicer role model if that counts for something.

 

[Sunny014]

Everything is impressive when a media darling like Federer does it - amazing records like 300 weeks at #1 and 20 Slams. When Djokovic does it, the media and Federer’s legions of fans seem to be trying to downplay it. Heck, Djokovic can win 4 Slams in a row (and 5/6 Slams) and it wasn’t a big deal for the media. All I know is that watching them play in person throughout their careers, Djokovic has been a more impressive player with no weaknesses and impressive strengths (GOAT BH, GOAT returns, GOAT movement) in addition to being mentally tougher than Federer.

Federer behaves better on court though and is a nicer role model if that counts for something.

Federer has better attacking game than Novak, that counts a lot and overall is a better player to fit across eras, GOAT means Greatest of All Time and All time includes the olden era courts too where Novak would not be so good, thats where Federer emerges ahead if all the hypotheticals.

Federer is the darling of the media because he is the best ever, everyone knows it, thats why they back it.

Novak is below him, deal with it !

 

[DjokoLand]

What does still mean ? The 3 players too do it are from the last 20 years and it was the first time in history. You can see from next gen that all have some weakness on certain surfaces just like Sampras on clay etc. Nobody will win 20 slams probably again in our lifetime just because these 3 are freaks doesn’t make it the norm

 

[Sunny014]

The next person who will win 20 slams is alive right now, probably some kid born in early 2010s, wait and watch.

 

[Cortana]

The next person who will win 20 slams is alive right now, probably some kid born in early 2010s, wait and watch.

So year 2045 till we see it?

 

[Sunny014]

So year 2045 till we see it?

2030s

 

[DjokoLand]

The next person who will win 20 slams is alive right now, probably some kid born in early 2010s, wait and watch.

While it’s impossible to predict from both sides I’m convinced this won’t happen. Look at WTA and ATP without bug 3 and it’s all shared. Before 2002 the record in history was 14

 

[Sunny014]

While it’s impossible to predict from both sides I’m convinced this won’t happen. Look at WTA and ATP without bug 3 and it’s all shared. Before 2002 the record in history was 14

Do you think Djokodal reached 20 each without any assistance from the ATP by slowing down of courts ???
ATP will ensure someone else reaches 20 as well, don't worry.

 

[Mark-Touch]

What a stupid thread.

BRILLIANT!
You have just figured out a way to implement a 'Dislike' button on this site!
Take note fellow TTW'ers.

 

[King No1e]

Sure it‘s impressive, but I think it is by no means as „unreachable“ as it was in the past. And I don‘t think the Big 3 set a „record for the ages/eternity“ with their 20 titles. These are the reasons:

- in the past, the careers of players were over much sooner. Players had time until their late 20‘s to win slams, now players maintain a competitive level well into their 30‘s (= much more time to win slams)

- in the past, people played just 3, some (Borg) often even just 2 slams per year. Skipping Australian Open for example. Now they always play 4 per year

- In the past, there were more differences between the surfaces than today, which made it harder to be competitive at all slams

- in the 60‘s there were no slams for pro players. Otherwise guys like Rosewall would already have gotten well over 20 back then (so the big-3 didn‘t do the „impossible“)

- So if you have a career of 15 competitive years (eg age 20-35), you „just“ have to win a little more than one slam per year to reach 20 (Nadal won 13 with yearly French Open alone)

-The Big-3 all won 20 in the same era. If a player of their quality appears in the future without the competition of the other 2, such a player could reach something around 30 slams.

So I think it won‘t be too long until we will have a new player who will overtake the mark of 20 set by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. People even thought Sampras 14 would be a record „forever“, than it was just for a few years. Certainly the records of the big-3 will not hold for the next 50 years or something. It will be broken, because 20 is not that hard than it was in the past.

 

[DjokoLand]

Do you think Djokodal reached 20 each without any assistance from the ATP by slowing down of courts ???
ATP will ensure someone else reaches 20 as well, don't worry.

Well while that’s your opinion and yes I agree the courts are slower Nadal still only has 1 AO, 2 W yet has 13 FO’s, you can slow the courts but the surface still exists.
3 next Gen have made the 3 slam Finals this year. Med had 20 HC wins in a row when he lost yet is woeful on Clay.
Tsitsipas had won a title then made the final of RG yet goes out R1 at W.
Berrintini made the F of W then has been awful on HC.

Surfaces still exists and you won’t find players as all rounded as the big 3

 

[SonnyT]

If a player of Big3's stature had entered his peak years in 2016, he could already have around 10 slams.

Only if he owns Djokovic, Federer and Nadal, which I'm sure he couldn't, under any circumstances.

 

[HelenCH]

Since Federer won his first slam in 2003 and until now, 1 slam was won by Roddick, 1 slam was won by Gaudio, 1 slam was won by Safin, 1 slam by Del Potro, 1 slam by Cilic, 1 by Thiem, 3 slams by Murray, 3 slams by Wawrinka, 19 by Federer, 20 by Nadal, and 20 by Djokovic. So in 18 years that have passed since Wimbledon 2003, there were 71 Slams and only 12 of them were won by people not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. So on what planet winning 20 is not impressive?

 

[martinezownsclay]

Since Federer won his first slam in 2003 and until now, 1 slam was won by Roddick, 1 slam was won by Gaudio, 1 slam was won by Safin, 1 slam by Del Porto, 1 slam by Cilic, 1 by Thiem, 3 slams by Murray, 3 slams by Wawrinka, 19 by Federer, 20 by Nadal, and 20 by Djokovic. So in 18 years that have passed since Wimbledon 2003, there were 71 Slams and only 12 of them were won by people not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. So on what planet winning 20 is not impressive?

It is impressive, just not as unprecedented as it seems. In the 50s and 60s Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall would have each combined for 20ish. Rosewall would have probably wound up with the highest number, despite that he is clearly the weakest and least great player of the the 3, which yes does show it isn't all about numbers in some cases anyway. If you say that would have required them to win say 60 of 72 slams from 52-69, well yes it would have, and anyone familiar with that time period realizes the 3 would have in fact combined for nearly every slam over that time period too.

Budge, Tilden, Vines all had decent likelihood to have reached that range too, and Tilden would have been nearly a lock to do so if everyone regularly played all 4 slams + no pro game then (Tilden likely goes well beyond 20).

It was immortalized more than reality since a)people had a flawed perspective since Sampras was the first one to set an actual mark of someone trying to win as many majors as possible. I remember mocking and outright ridiculing people who thought 14 would be a nearly impossible mark to beat, and this was before Federer was even relevant, let alone Nadal and Djokovic. Turns out I was right even more emphatically than I thought. b)since the mark was set by the super popular Federer, who people like to fantasize as being the Michael Phelps of tennis, and echeclons above all others in history, which reality is he isn't, and never was. He might be the GOAT but he is definitely not the Michael Phelps of tennis either.

 

[Milanez82]

It is impressive, just not as unprecedented as it seems. In the 50s and 60s Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall would have each combined for 20ish. Rosewall would have probably wound up with the highest number, despite that he is clearly the weakest and least great player of the the 3, which yes does show it isn't all about numbers in some cases anyway. If you say that would have required them to win say 60 of 72 slams from 52-69, well yes it would have, and anyone familiar with that time period realizes the 3 would have in fact combined for nearly every slam over that time period too.

Budge, Tilden, Vines all had decent likelihood to have reached that range too, and Tilden would have been nearly a lock to do so if everyone regularly played all 4 slams + no pro game then (Tilden likely goes well beyond 20).

It was immortalized more than reality since a)people had a flawed perspective since Sampras was the first one to set an actual mark of someone trying to win as many majors as possible. I remember mocking and outright ridiculing people who thought 14 would be a nearly impossible mark to beat, and this was before Federer was even relevant, let alone Nadal and Djokovic. Turns out I was right even more emphatically than I thought. b)since the mark was set by the super popular Federer, who people like to fantasize as being the Michael Phelps of tennis, and echeclons above all others in history, which reality is he isn't, and never was. He might be the GOAT but he is definitely not the Michael Phelps of tennis either.

All those PRO slams had only 3-4 rounds of play
Now imagine how many slams Federer could win if he had to win only 3 matches to win the slam
And amateur tour lacked the top players for a good deal of years
And there was bunch of tournaments which were more important at the time then any of Pro or amateur slams.
So in the end can't compare to modern tennis