More likely to happen in the 2020s?

More likely to happen in the 2020s

  • Thiem garners 50+ weeks at #1

    Votes: 4 6.9%
  • Zverev wins 4+ Majors

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • Nadal gets 3 more Slams

    Votes: 31 53.4%
  • Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov or Aliassime becomes an All-Time Great

    Votes: 9 15.5%
  • Nobody wins more Slams than Djokovic

    Votes: 12 20.7%

  • Total voters
    58
  • This poll will close: .

BGod

Legend
I think after watching Thiem perform in Indian Wells (live) and WTF, he's got enough to branch out on hard courts if conditions are right and will absolutely dominate clay post-Nadal. That said, guys like Tsitsipas, Felix, Shap and yeah maybe Zverev have time on their side.

But I pose the following 5 scenarios and ask which is more likely to happen in the coming decade:

Thiem becomes #1 for a reasonable stretch. Over 50 weeks, as he maybe only wins 1 Slam but is consistent enough to rack up the points in a cluttered group.
Zverev figures it out and wins at least 4 Slams, which puts him in a secondary tier of all-timers the likes of Courier, Murray, etc.
Nadal wins 3 more Slams. Only Rosewall was able to win a single Slam in more than 2 decades, but Nadal enters 2020 as the #1. Rosewall won 3 Slams in the 70s so that's the bar I'm setting here.
1 of Felix, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov or Medvedev becomes an All-Timer which typically means 7+ Slams and periods of dominance.
Djokovic wins most Slams in the decade, whether tied or outright lead. This is a bet against the future generations basically having as dominant a force. For reference, nobody won more than 7 in the 80s and Borg was the only one to win more than 5 in the 70s. Federer himself won 5 in the 2010s.
 
It’s a good fun question you’ve posed here OP, however that most high probability answer is that either, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov or FAA becomes an ATG (6 slams) as by default it his highly likely someone beside Zverev will win all the slams post 2022-3.

I will go out on a limb and say that greatness is in the cards for Tsitsipas. I saw him play in London the other day and I must say he’s got it all and may indeed become the heir to Federer (though not as successful).
 

BGod

Legend
It’s a good fun question you’ve posed here OP, however that most high probability answer is that either, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov or FAA becomes an ATG (6 slams) as by default it his highly likely someone beside Zverev will win all the slams post 2022-3.

I will go out on a limb and say that greatness is in the cards for Tsitsipas. I saw him play in London the other day and I must say he’s got it all and may indeed become the heir to Federer (though not as successful).
Of course it's the highest probability because you're betting on the #5, 6, 15 and 21 ranked players that are all below the age of 22 and in Felix's case under 20. Give them 6 years and it's more a case of Djokovic being 39 and Nadal being 40 than them being necessarily great.

I myself voted for Thiem because from historical perspective he seems primed to take over at least for a few years due to his consistency and conditioning.

But as can always be argued, everyone is a red herring until the chosen one or ones come into the foreground.

Federer went from YE 29 to 13 to 6 to winning a Slam, finishing #2 and demolishing tennis for 4 seasons.
Djokovic went from YE 78 to 16 to being #3 behind only two All-Timers for 4 years.
Nadal went from YE #51 to #2 and staying in the Top 2 for 7 years.

So to me I can pick Thiem who's gone 8-5-8-4 or Felix who jumped from #108 to 21.

And yes, one can also look at Tsitsipas as the next chosen one.
 
Of course it's the highest probability because you're betting on the #5, 6, 15 and 21 ranked players that are all below the age of 22 and in Felix's case under 20. Give them 6 years and it's more a case of Djokovic being 39 and Nadal being 40 than them being necessarily great.

I myself voted for Thiem because from historical perspective he seems primed to take over at least for a few years due to his consistency and conditioning.

But as can always be argued, everyone is a red herring until the chosen one or ones come into the foreground.

Federer went from YE 29 to 13 to 6 to winning a Slam, finishing #2 and demolishing tennis for 4 seasons.
Djokovic went from YE 78 to 16 to being #3 behind only two All-Timers for 4 years.
Nadal went from YE #51 to #2 and staying in the Top 2 for 7 years.

So to me I can pick Thiem who's gone 8-5-8-4 or Felix who jumped from #108 to 21.

And yes, one can also look at Tsitsipas as the next chosen one.
Well you did pose the question which was ‘more likely’ to happen, so I thought it was fair enough that someone answered that for you.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
I actually believe that Nadal winning 3 more slams is the most likely outcome. Is it really that much of an ask for 2 more French Opens and another US Open within the next two years?

Zverev will definitely win at least one slam as will both Thiem and Tsisitpas and probably Medvedev. Zverev winning more than four i'm not so sure on. They really should be the next big four to rule the game from 2022 onwards.

Thiem may get to #1 but i don't think 50 plus weeks. I say this for all the next gen as I believe once the big 3 retire (which will be possibly by 2024) then the ranking will be changing every couple of weeks like it was in the late 90s early 00s before Fed's reign began.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I think it's either C or D. I can see Rafa getting to 22 if he remains healthy and in-form at majors, and surely someone's gotta get to 6 slams (the min. for ATG standard), once the big 3 leave. If the Djokovic one happens that would be really sad for all players who have their primes in the 2020s
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I actually believe that Nadal winning 3 more slams is the most likely outcome. Is it really that much of an ask for 2 more French Opens and another US Open within the next two years?

Zverev will definitely win at least one slam as will both Thiem and Tsisitpas and probably Medvedev. Zverev winning more than four i'm not so sure on. They really should be the next big four to rule the game from 2022 onwards.

Thiem may get to #1 but i don't think 50 plus weeks. I say this for all the next gen as I believe once the big 3 retire (which will be possibly by 2024) then the ranking will be changing every couple of weeks like it was in the late 90s early 00s before Fed's reign began.
I don't think Thiem is consistent enough to become number one for longer than 50 weeks. Also, by the time the big 3 are all gone (we'll go with 2024 as per your post above), Dom will be north of 30 and will struggle against younger players who will be in their 20's
 
I actually believe that Nadal winning 3 more slams is the most likely outcome. Is it really that much of an ask for 2 more French Opens and another US Open within the next two years?

Zverev will definitely win at least one slam as will both Thiem and Tsisitpas and probably Medvedev. Zverev winning more than four i'm not so sure on. They really should be the next big four to rule the game from 2022 onwards.

Thiem may get to #1 but i don't think 50 plus weeks. I say this for all the next gen as I believe once the big 3 retire (which will be possibly by 2024) then the ranking will be changing every couple of weeks like it was in the late 90s early 00s before Fed's reign began.
Nadal winning 3 more slams is indeed quite realistic.

However there are three impediments that are starting to work against this scenario and I list them in order of significance:

Djokovic
Injury and Age
An increasingly competitive rest of field
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Nadal winning 3 more slams is indeed quite realistic.

However there are three impediments that are starting to work against this scenario and I list them in order of significance:

Djokovic
Injury and Age
An increasingly competitive rest of field
Option 2 is probably the biggest barrier by far. Nole isn't 25 anymore either and the nextgen still have a lot of work to do to challenge the big 3 at majors (yes I know Med nearly stole the USO but that was the first time he'd ever made it past the R16 at a slam, we'll need to see more).
 

octogon

Professional
Nadal winning 3 more slams is indeed quite realistic.

However there are three impediments that are starting to work against this scenario and I list them in order of significance:

Djokovic
Injury and Age
An increasingly competitive rest of field
I think Djokovic is becoming less of an overall threat to Nadal (Djoker has his own, bigger issues against the field than Rafa, who handles the field better). Djoker will always be heavily favored in Australia...it's his turf. But Nadal will always be more heavily favored at Roland Garros. They played each other very close last time at Wimbledon and Nadal is the better US Open player, with a H2H advantadge over Djoker there. At their current rankings they can only meet in finals, and I think there are too many players emerging who feel comfortable beating Djokovic (Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas). And the likes of Wawrinka and Murray coming back may cause him more problems as well.

Injury and Age is the obvious biggest threat, but he's defied it for so long and his longevity is so ridiculous at this point that I'd no longer bet on that.

So far, he currently handles the field better than Djokovic and Federer. I think he can definitely stave them off for a minimum of 3 more slams.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
Nadal winning 3 more slams is indeed quite realistic.

However there are three impediments that are starting to work against this scenario and I list them in order of significance:

Djokovic
Injury and Age
An increasingly competitive rest of field
Yep definitely injuries and age are still the biggest hindrance for Nadal for overtaking Roger's slam tally. Although he can't control the aging, he can limit the risk of injury with a smarter schedule. If 100% fit and in form, who can really stop him at the French for at least the next two years.

Of course Djokovic will remain the biggest obstacle for the rest of his career. Though I would still favour Rafa in any FO final and give him at least 45-55 chance at any US Open.

I still question on the next gen and if they can deliver at the slams consistently. They will rack up more wins over the big 3 at Masters for sure. Rafa is beating them all at the slams mostly comfortably right now.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
I think Djokovic is becoming less of an overall threat to Nadal (Djoker has his own, bigger issues against the field than Rafa, who handles the field better). Djoker will always be heavily favored in Australia...it's his turf. But Nadal will always be more heavily favored at Roland Garros. They played each other very close last time at Wimbledon and Nadal is the better US Open player, with a H2H advantadge over Djoker there. At their current rankings they can only meet in finals, and I think there are too many players emerging who feel comfortable beating Djokovic (Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas). And the likes of Wawrinka and Murray coming back may cause him more problems as well.

Injury and Age is the obvious biggest threat, but he's defied it for so long and his longevity is so ridiculous at this point that I'd no longer bet on that.

So far, he currently handles the field better than Djokovic and Federer. I think he can definitely stave them off for a minimum of 3 more slams.
It's definitely interesting on how the Next Gen are achieving better results against Djoker & Fed than they are against Rafa. I just think they have a hard time adjusting to Nadal's style and pace as with Nole or Fed where the rallies are quick and flow a lot more smoothly making easier to get into rhythm and form with their shots.
 
It's definitely interesting on how the Next Gen are achieving better results against Djoker & Fed than they are against Rafa. I just think they have a hard time adjusting to Nadal's style and pace as with Nole or Fed where the rallies are quick and flow a lot more smoothly making easier to get into rhythm and form with their shots.
Well Nadal has just come off the back of one of his best ever seasons. Nadal has been less consistent in putting in back to back great seasons than Fed and Novak and with age increasing, the egg timer is running out for him.

There are carefully weighted arguments on both sides for Nadal, so it’s going to be interesting to see how this pans out for Rafa over the 2020 season.
 
I think Djokovic is becoming less of an overall threat to Nadal (Djoker has his own, bigger issues against the field than Rafa, who handles the field better). Djoker will always be heavily favored in Australia...it's his turf. But Nadal will always be more heavily favored at Roland Garros. They played each other very close last time at Wimbledon and Nadal is the better US Open player, with a H2H advantadge over Djoker there. At their current rankings they can only meet in finals, and I think there are too many players emerging who feel comfortable beating Djokovic (Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas). And the likes of Wawrinka and Murray coming back may cause him more problems as well.

Injury and Age is the obvious biggest threat, but he's defied it for so long and his longevity is so ridiculous at this point that I'd no longer bet on that.

So far, he currently handles the field better than Djokovic and Federer. I think he can definitely stave them off for a minimum of 3 more slams.
You make a fair point here with regard to the field against Novak though personally I would like to see a bit more evidence of this before I could begin to call it a trend.

As for the US Open I have to disgaree. I don’t wish to bash Nadal but his recent vcitories really were cupcake based draws. He’s just not the same calibre hardcourt player as Novak in my opinion.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
It's definitely interesting on how the Next Gen are achieving better results against Djoker & Fed than they are against Rafa. I just think they have a hard time adjusting to Nadal's style and pace as with Nole or Fed where the rallies are quick and flow a lot more smoothly making easier to get into rhythm and form with their shots.
because Fed and Djok don’t do ******** games like letting an ace go by on match point and then saying “no no, I wasn’t ready”

Rafa did that to Kyrgios in MX and Medvedev at USO. **** him.

Having said that, he will win 7-8 more Slams in the 2020s and possibly 2 or 3 in the 2030s.
 

octogon

Professional
You make a fair point here with regard to the field against Novak though personally I would like to see a bit more evidence of this before I could begin to call it a trend.

As for the US Open I have to disgaree. I don’t wish to bash Nadal but his recent vcitories really were cupcake based draws. He’s just not the same calibre hardcourt player as Novak in my opinion.

Nadal beat Djokovic in two US Open finals. He beat him at the Olympics to win the singles Gold medal Djokovic so desperately craved.

2017 US Open was a fortunate draw for Rafa, but I don't believe there was anything easy about having to beat Medvedev, the red hot form hardcourt player of the year to win US Open 2019. Medvedev waa beating everyone else on hardcourts including Djokovic. He was the player that most deserved to be in the final based on his hardcourt run. The two best hardcourt players of the year are Nadal and Medvedev and they were in the final. It was a richly deserved win for Nadal.

Djokovic is a greater hardcourt player than Nadal in general. It'd be ridiculous to claim otherwise. But the US Open hardcourt series has always been Djokovic's weakest part of the hardcourt calender. It's telling in how often he loses there, the fact that Nadal has more US Open titles and a H2H advantadge over Djoker there. Not all hardcourt surfaces are exactly the same, and something about the North American hardcourts during that swing equalises things between Rafa and Novak. Those courts help Nadal's hardcourt game and make Djokovic's just a little bit less efficient (than say in Australia or indoors). Like the altitude of Madrid makes Nadal just a little bit more beatable on clay.

There is no contradiction in saying Djokovic is a greater hardcourt player overall, but the conditions of the US Open help make Nadal better at that slam than Djokovic.
 
Nadal beat Djokovic in two US Open finals. He beat him at the Olympics to win the singles Gold medal Djokovic so desperately craved.

2017 US Open was a fortunate draw for Rafa, but I don't believe there was anything easy about having to beat Medvedev, the red hot form hardcourt player of the year to win US Open 2019. Medvedev waa beating everyone else on hardcourts including Djokovic. He was the player that most deserved to be in the final based on his hardcourt run. The two best hardcourt players of the year are Nadal and Medvedev and they were in the final. It was a richly deserved win for Nadal.

Djokovic is a greater hardcourt player than Nadal in general. It'd be ridiculous to claim otherwise. But the US Open hardcourt series has always been Djokovic's weakest part of the hardcourt calender. It's telling in how often he loses there, the fact that Nadal has more US Open titles and a H2H advantadge over Djoker there. Not all hardcourt surfaces are exactly the same, and something about the North American hardcourts during that swing equalises things between Rafa and Novak. Those courts help Nadal's hardcourt game and make Djokovic's just a little bit less efficient (than say in Australia or indoors). Like the altitude of Madrid makes Nadal just a little bit more beatable on clay.

There is no contradiction in saying Djokovic is a greater hardcourt player overall, but the conditions of the US Open help make Nadal better at that slam than Djokovic.
On the surface what you say is true, but I say beware of extrapolating trends from extenuating circumstances (though granted it what’s people do here, for example remember all this arguments a few years back that Murray was a better grass court player than Djokovic).
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
I think it's either C or D. I can see Rafa getting to 22 if he remains healthy and in-form at majors, and surely someone's gotta get to 6 slams (the min. for ATG standard), once the big 3 leave. If the Djokovic one happens that would be really sad for all players who have their primes in the 2020s
Like I pointed out with the 70s and 80s, it is in the realm of plausibility given how the big 3 have extended age demographics and modern health. If we set the bar at 5 for example.

There are a total 40 Slam titles for the taking. Divided evenly by 5 that means 8 players winning. Now in both the 70s and 90s a total 16 different players won a Slam, 9 and 8 respectfully winning multiple times. Two plausible breakdowns below to consider that have some historical precedent:

Spread 1
5 Slams: 2 Players
4 Slams: 3 Players
3 Slams: 5 Players
1 Slam: 3 Players

13 different champions, 10 multiple champions

Spread 2
5 Slams: 3 Players
3 Slams: 3 Players
2 Slams: 4 Players
1 Slam: 8 Players

18 different champions, 10 multiple champions


Or if you did have serious dominant reigns you could have a breakdown such as this:

8 Slams: 1 Player
7 Slams: 1 Player
4 Slams: 4 Players
2 Slams: 2 Players
1 Slam: 5 Players

13 different champions, 8 multiple champions

2017 US Open was a fortunate draw for Rafa, but I don't believe there was anything easy about having to beat Medvedev, the red hot form hardcourt player of the year to win US Open 2019. Medvedev waa beating everyone else on hardcourts including Djokovic. He was the player that most deserved to be in the final based on his hardcourt run. The two best hardcourt players of the year are Nadal and Medvedev and they were in the final. It was a richly deserved win for Nadal.
Not having much competition before a final should not be overlooked. Having to grind out a 5 set contest in the R16 and Quarter for example, like Roger had to do in 2017 AO. One match does not alone justify an entire draw. And Medvedev was down 2-0 so Nadal allowing him to push it to 5 doesn't make him look good. He had a walkover in the SF and arguably QF as well.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Like I pointed out with the 70s and 80s, it is in the realm of plausibility given how the big 3 have extended age demographics and modern health. If we set the bar at 5 for example.

There are a total 40 Slam titles for the taking. Divided evenly by 5 that means 8 players winning. Now in both the 70s and 90s a total 16 different players won a Slam, 9 and 8 respectfully winning multiple times. Two plausible breakdowns below to consider that have some historical precedent:

Spread 1
5 Slams: 2 Players
4 Slams: 3 Players
3 Slams: 5 Players
1 Slam: 3 Players

13 different champions, 10 multiple champions

Spread 2
5 Slams: 3 Players
3 Slams: 3 Players
2 Slams: 4 Players
1 Slam: 8 Players

18 different champions, 10 multiple champions


Or if you did have serious dominant reigns you could have a breakdown such as this:

8 Slams: 1 Player
7 Slams: 1 Player
4 Slams: 4 Players
2 Slams: 2 Players
1 Slam: 5 Players

13 different champions, 8 multiple champions



Not having much competition before a final should not be overlooked. Having to grind out a 5 set contest in the R16 and Quarter for example, like Roger had to do in 2017 AO. One match does not alone justify an entire draw. And Medvedev was down 2-0 so Nadal allowing him to push it to 5 doesn't make him look good. He had a walkover in the SF and arguably QF as well.
AO 2018 and US Open 2018 should also be added to your list!
:p
 

BGod

Legend
What is the definition of an All-Time Great for you, OP?
:unsure:
It's generally agreed upon to be 6 Slams where Edberg & Becker occupy. Courier & Murray are often discussed as being borderline because of their extended periods at #1 and contention on all surfaces but have 4 & 3 Slams. McEnroe & Wilander had 7 and Connors, Agassi, Lendl had 8. Let's not forget before the Big 3, those totals were quite high given the competitive field. Borg's 11 Slams were highly regarded despite Emerson in a pre-open era having 12. Then Sampras went and got 14.

Despite the Big 3 holding 16, 19 and 20 Slam titles it does not eliminate the definitive reigns of Connors, McEnroe, Lendl & Sampras, etc. And at the end of the day YE #1 which the Big 3 have not demolished like the Slam count.

However with all 4 Slams being contested to a degree that wasn't the norm prior to the 90s, it can be argued upping that Slam number from 6 to 8 in compensation for players moving forward.
 

octogon

Professional
On the surface what you say is true, but I say beware of extrapolating trends from extenuating circumstances (though granted it what’s people do here, for example remember all this arguments a few years back that Murray was a better grass court player than Djokovic).
Well, those arguments about Murray were valid at the time
Like I pointed out with the 70s and 80s, it is in the realm of plausibility given how the big 3 have extended age demographics and modern health. If we set the bar at 5 for example.

There are a total 40 Slam titles for the taking. Divided evenly by 5 that means 8 players winning. Now in both the 70s and 90s a total 16 different players won a Slam, 9 and 8 respectfully winning multiple times. Two plausible breakdowns below to consider that have some historical precedent:

Spread 1
5 Slams: 2 Players
4 Slams: 3 Players
3 Slams: 5 Players
1 Slam: 3 Players

13 different champions, 10 multiple champions

Spread 2
5 Slams: 3 Players
3 Slams: 3 Players
2 Slams: 4 Players
1 Slam: 8 Players

18 different champions, 10 multiple champions


Or if you did have serious dominant reigns you could have a breakdown such as this:

8 Slams: 1 Player
7 Slams: 1 Player
4 Slams: 4 Players
2 Slams: 2 Players
1 Slam: 5 Players

13 different champions, 8 multiple champions



Not having much competition before a final should not be overlooked. Having to grind out a 5 set contest in the R16 and Quarter for example, like Roger had to do in 2017 AO. One match does not alone justify an entire draw. And Medvedev was down 2-0 so Nadal allowing him to push it to 5 doesn't make him look good. He had a walkover in the SF and arguably QF as well.
You can't blame Nadal for being efficient. He had a tougher US Open 2019 draw on paper than Djokovic's 2018 US Open draw. Nadal just took care of business more efficiently against oppenents that at one time might have caused him more trouble. Aside from the final, his toughest match was a potential 4th round bannana skin match against Cilic that went 4 sets.

There is a reason people now realise Nadal performs better against the field. He has an easier time beating players Djokovic and Federer now struggle with. It's neither his fault nor his problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Well, those arguments about Murray were valid at the time


You can't blame Nadal for being efficient. He had a tougher US Open 2019 draw than Djokovic's 2018 US Open draw. Nadal just took care of business more efficiently against oppenents that at one time might have caused him more trouble. Aside from the final, his toughest match was a potential 4th round bannana skin match against Cilic that went 4 sets.

There is a reason people now realise Nadal performs better against the field. He has an easier time beating players Djokovic and Federer now struggle with. It's neither his fault nor his problem.
No, I didnt think they were valid. They were an expression of typical TTW logic that Murray had won more and therefore he was better. It was clear to some of us that Murray’s success‘ on grass were due to extenuating circumstances, not that he was actually ever better than Djokovic on grass. Most importantly those arguments were a poor tool (a trap?) when crystal ball gazing as to how the future would pan out.

I would gently say you are possibly falling into the same trap with your Nadal Djokovic analysis of the US Open going forward from this point in time.
 
Nadal winning 3 more slams is easily the safest bet of all, djokovic winning most in this decade is a long shot especially for a 32 year old, it would mean a really poor decade for the next gen and basically wta type tour with any random players winning slams.
 

octogon

Professional
I would gently say you are possibly falling into the same trap with your Nadal Djokovic analysis of the US Open going forward from this point in time.
I'm really not. At this point, Djokovic would have to become the US Open co-GOAT to even draw ahead of Nadal at that slam. Nadal is so successful at the US Open now that there is a fairly realistic possibility that he ends up the sole US Open GOAT in terms of titles won. He'd need just two more.

The Murray/Djokovic/Wimbledon comparison isn't particularly valid. Nadal is far too successful at the US Open (in comparison to Murray at Wimbledon) for it to be a useful comparison. He's not far off from being the most successful US Open titilist in the Open era. Murray was very far off from being the most successful Wimbledon titlist in the open era. There's almost 0% chance of Djokovic opening up a 3 slam advantadge over Nadal at the US Open like he's done with Murray to put the Wimbledon argument to bed.

And let's take stock....Nadal is actually getting better on hardcourts. I think he almost certainly wins another US Open title to become co-GOAT at that slam. And there is an off-chance that he gets to 6 and just becomes the outright greatest US Open player.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
I'm really not. At this point, Djokovic would have to become the US Open co-GOAT to even draw ahead of Nadal at that slam. Nadal is so successful at the US Open now that there is a fairly realistic possibility that he ends up the sole US Open GOAT in terms of titles won. He'd need just two more.

The Murray/Djokovic/Wimbledon comparison isn't particularly valid. Nadal is far too successful at the US Open (in comparison to Murray at Wimbledon) for it to be a useful comparison. He's not far off from being the most successful US Open titilist in the Open era. Murray was very far off from being the most successful Wimbledon titlist in the open era. There's almost 0% chance of Djokovic opening up a 3 slam advantadge over Nadal at the US Open like he's done with Murray to put the Wimbledon argument to bed.

And let's take stock....Nadal is actually getting better on hardcourts. I think he almost certainly wins another US Open title to become co-GOAT at that slam. And there is an off-chance that he gets to 6 and just becomes the outright greatest US Open player.
It's not just titles. I don't think for example that anyone is going to best Connors as USO great unless they win 8 titles there. He's likely to be the only man winning the tournament on 3 different surfaces (hard, grass, clay), made 2 additional finals, 12 consecutive semifinals which is a Slam record Federer came close to but ultimately fell short and 14 semifinals overall (which Nadal could break at the French) with 3 additional Quarter exits. Sampras with 8 finals winning 12 years apart is a strong 2nd although Fed's 5 in a row is special he's struggled to be as consistent and the back to back epic chokes.

Nadal at 6 USOs might get some fanfare but not from the majority of tennis fans who know about Connors, Sampras and yes the Fed fans. Let's not forget Nadal has never repeated at the USO let alone 3 titles in a row.
 
I'm really not. At this point, Djokovic would have to become the US Open co-GOAT to even draw ahead of Nadal at that slam. Nadal is so successful at the US Open now that there is a fairly realistic possibility that he ends up the sole US Open GOAT in terms of titles won. He'd need just two more.

The Murray/Djokovic/Wimbledon comparison isn't particularly valid. Nadal is far too successful at the US Open (in comparison to Murray at Wimbledon) for it to be a useful comparison. He's not far off from being the most successful US Open titilist in the Open era. Murray was very far off from being the most successful Wimbledon titlist in the open era. There's almost 0% chance of Djokovic opening up a 3 slam advantadge over Nadal at the US Open like he's done with Murray to put the Wimbledon argument to bed.

And let's take stock....Nadal is actually getting better on hardcourts. I think he almost certainly wins another US Open title to become co-GOAT at that slam. And there is an off-chance that he gets to 6 and just becomes the outright greatest US Open player.
I guess we are going to find out but put me in the sceptic’s camp.
 

octogon

Professional
It's not just titles. I don't think for example that anyone is going to best Connors as USO great unless they win 8 titles there. He's likely to be the only man winning the tournament on 3 different surfaces (hard, grass, clay), made 2 additional finals, 12 consecutive semifinals which is a Slam record Federer came close to but ultimately fell short and 14 semifinals overall (which Nadal could break at the French) with 3 additional Quarter exits. Sampras with 8 finals winning 12 years apart is a strong 2nd although Fed's 5 in a row is special he's struggled to be as consistent and the back to back epic chokes.

Nadal at 6 USOs might get some fanfare but not from the majority of tennis fans who know about Connors, Sampras and yes the Fed fans. Let's not forget Nadal has never repeated at the USO let alone 3 titles in a row.
Not to be blunt, but most people nowadays count slams won, not the number of quarters, semis and finals you made but didn't win. If they did, Ivan Lendell would be a heavy feature in the GOAT debate.

Nadal wins 6 US Opens, he'll be universally acknowledged as the greatest ever US Open player, till someone else gets 7. Whether you think that's fair or not that he becomes described as such is an individual choice, but those are the numbers people will rely on. Most slams won.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
Not to be blunt, but most people nowadays count slams won, not the number of quarters, semis and finals you made but didn't win. If they did, Ivan Lendell would be a heavy feature in the GOAT debate.

Nadal wins 6 US Opens, he'll be universally acknowledged as the greatest ever US Open player, till someone else gets 7. Whether you think that's fair or not that he becomes described as such is an individual choice, but those are the numbers people will rely on. Most slams won.
There's no proof of this. Yes the majority of tennis fans attending big tournaments are fickle as they come but they're also not obsessed with numbers like those on this board. Federer is such a massive brand most of these people will just guess he's won the most titles at every tournament. So by that measure most under 30 won't even know who Jimmy Connors is. Your Lendl reference falls short because he lost more Slam Finals than he won but until Federer destroyed all his consistency records, people did know he was around a long time at the top. But at the USO grounds when you look at all the champions list or you get a souvenir cup you know what people's eye gravitate towards? Those 5 consecutive titles by Federer. It only helps his case nobody after him has won even 2 in a row so the names get cluttered and you see Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka. Hell, Rafter fits in nicely between Sampras winning back to back.

You really under-estimate the Federer brand precisely because of dominance, I urge you to attend more big tournaments so you can see for yourself.
 
In order of decreasing likelihood imo:
Nadal winning 3 slams > One of the group becoming an ATG > Thiem getting 50 weeks as #1 > Djok winning most slams in 2020s > Zverev getting 4+ slams
 
"None will win more slams than djokovic" seems the most realistic option to me, as I don't see any player from the current crop being capable of winning 16 slams in 10 years with 2020-21 probably still shaded by big3
 

TripleATeam

Legend
ATG? If we mark that at 6 slams, like many do, then it's a fair chance that one of these 4 does it, but I wouldn't exactly put that high on the list.

In my opinion, most likely to least.
1. Nadal wins 3 slams
2. Thiem gets 50+ weeks at #1 (Clay wins + an uncharacteristically good HC season)
3. One of the 4 becomes an ATG
4. Djokovic wins the most slams.
5. Zverev gets 4+.

Clearly my disbelief in Zverev speaks for itself. Also, Djokovic is hoping for 5 slams in the 20s, and while I don't exactly believe he'll get there, I do believe some player will win 4 or 5 slams in the 20s. There will probably be an ATG in the 20s, and I suspect he was born post 2000 - I just don't think it's one of those 4. It could be, and they have talent, but it's more likely to me that we're witnessing some in-between talent before the next true wave of ATGs.

And of course, you can never count Rafa out of RG, and he's in the top 3 favorites for all the other slams. Chances aren't great for 3, but certainly that's realistic.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
"None will win more slams than djokovic" seems the most realistic option to me, as I don't see any player from the current crop being capable of winning 16 slams in 10 years with 2020-21 probably still shaded by big3
That option doesn't mean "wins more than 16 slams" it's "wins more slams in the 2020s than Djokovic wins in the 2020s."
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I think after watching Thiem perform in Indian Wells (live) and WTF, he's got enough to branch out on hard courts if conditions are right and will absolutely dominate clay post-Nadal. That said, guys like Tsitsipas, Felix, Shap and yeah maybe Zverev have time on their side.

But I pose the following 5 scenarios and ask which is more likely to happen in the coming decade:

Thiem becomes #1 for a reasonable stretch. Over 50 weeks, as he maybe only wins 1 Slam but is consistent enough to rack up the points in a cluttered group.
Zverev figures it out and wins at least 4 Slams, which puts him in a secondary tier of all-timers the likes of Courier, Murray, etc.
Nadal wins 3 more Slams. Only Rosewall was able to win a single Slam in more than 2 decades, but Nadal enters 2020 as the #1. Rosewall won 3 Slams in the 70s so that's the bar I'm setting here.
1 of Felix, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov or Medvedev becomes an All-Timer which typically means 7+ Slams and periods of dominance.
Djokovic wins most Slams in the decade, whether tied or outright lead. This is a bet against the future generations basically having as dominant a force. For reference, nobody won more than 7 in the 80s and Borg was the only one to win more than 5 in the 70s. Federer himself won 5 in the 2010s.
Idk I don't see Thiem being a force in his 30's like the big 3. Dude is already getting a bit old imo to start "dominating" anything
 

Yugram

Hall of Fame
Nadal winning 3 more Slams stands out as the only realistic prediction on the list.

Others are more like crazy "what if.." scenarios.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
3 more for Rafa?

He could do that next year alone. Dude just made 3 Slam Finals and one SF. He isn't going to fall off a cliff next year.

He will end on 25-30 Slams. He could reach 30 by the time he is not even 40 years old.

He could win the next 5-8 RGs...then add a few more US and maybe a Wimbledon title just for chits and giggles.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
3 more for Rafa?

He could do that next year alone. Dude just made 3 Slam Finals and one SF. He isn't going to fall off a cliff next year.

He will end on 25-30 Slams. He could reach 30 by the time he is not even 40 years old.

He could win the next 5-8 RGs...then add a few more US and maybe a Wimbledon title just for chits and giggles.
Ok. If Nadal gets close to 30 I'll put him #1.
 
Top