No one's ever going to catch him, I think - Woodbridge on Djokovic's slam record

geromino

Rookie
He will be caught. Eventually an all-time-great player will come without all-time-great competition (we have seen 10+ year droughts in all-time great talents such as between Sampras and Federer or between Djokovic and Sinner). By this time, players may be in their primes until 40+ due to advancements in sports science and medicine, allowing said player to accumulate an ungodly number of slams.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
But this slam lead will take 15 years to break. Federer record lasted for 13 years. Djokovic record will last longer. That's all that matters.
 

ND-13

Legend
as much as i don’t like to see this record broken, it may be that either or both Sinner and Alcaraz may break the count.

And let us not forget it is Margaret Court’s record first
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't believe in the GOAT concept. I don't believe Djokovic is the greatest ever because I don't think there is a greatest ever. But we can't ignore circumstances that make certain records almost impossible to duplicate. Look how long it's been since Laver and his calendar year Grand Slam. And yet it has not been done again. I don't think that makes him the greatest ever. It's just that something about that time made it extremely convenient to achieve that record. He came into the pro era at a time when the amateurs had not yet caught up.

Something about Djokovic's timing was perfect for him to peak physically at the best possible time with his stretching and his two handed backhand and the sliding. He also had the perfect racket. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that he may have had the best coaching of the Big Three. All these things came together to make it the perfect time for him to set records and I don't think it is at all obvious that someone is going to surpass them. There will also be many things in the future that will make comparison either difficult or impossible. Let's say for instance that slams are changed to three sets instead of five sets, which could happen.

And by the way, even though I don't think Djokovic is the greatest of all time because I don't believe there IS a greatest of all time, I think it's fair to say that among the greatest players we have seen for a very long time no one should be placed above him.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I don't believe in the GOAT concept. I don't believe Djokovic is the greatest ever because I don't think there is a greatest ever. But we can't ignore circumstances that make certain records almost impossible to duplicate. Look how long it's been since Laver and his calendar year Grand Slam. And yet it has not been done again. I don't think that makes him the greatest ever. It's just that something about that time made it extremely convenient to achieve that record. He came into the pro era at a time when the amateurs had not yet caught up.

Something about Djokovic's timing was perfect for him to peak physically at the best possible time with his stretching and his two handed backhand and the sliding. He also had the perfect racket. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that he may have had the best coaching of the Big Three. All these things came together to make it the perfect time for him to set records and I don't think it is at all obvious that someone is going to surpass them. There will also be many things in the future that will make comparison either difficult or impossible. Let's say for instance that slams are changed to three sets instead of five sets, which could happen.

And by the way, even though I don't think Djokovic is the greatest of all time because I don't believe there IS a greatest of all time, I think it's fair to say that among the greatest players we have seen for a very long time no one should be placed above him.
It's all about professionalism. Djokovic is best professional of the past greats. The racket, the coaching, these are decisions made by sound mind.

Yes he had a brief period where Pepe Imaz was coaching him, and he sat out of slams for no reason. But aside from that briefest period, he is best professional tennis has ever seen.

The sliding is god given talent but he made himself maximizer by stretching every single day.
 

T&M Returns

Rookie
Every record is created by breaking past record.

Homogenizing surfaces guarantees new records.
The surfaces are not homogenized. I can't believe people still say and think this. Clay is not concrete is not grass. Get out and play some tennis and you'll see. Just look at the strengths of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal to see its not true as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
The surfaces are not homogenized. I can't believe people still say and think this. Clay is not concrete is not grass. Get out and play some tennis and you'll see. Just look at the strengths of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal to see its not true as well.
Clay is very similar to hard courts and grass courts today than in the past. It's not even close.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
I don't believe in the GOAT concept. I don't believe Djokovic is the greatest ever because I don't think there is a greatest ever. But we can't ignore circumstances that make certain records almost impossible to duplicate. Look how long it's been since Laver and his calendar year Grand Slam. And yet it has not been done again. I don't think that makes him the greatest ever. It's just that something about that time made it extremely convenient to achieve that record. He came into the pro era at a time when the amateurs had not yet caught up.

Something about Djokovic's timing was perfect for him to peak physically at the best possible time with his stretching and his two handed backhand and the sliding. He also had the perfect racket. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that he may have had the best coaching of the Big Three. All these things came together to make it the perfect time for him to set records and I don't think it is at all obvious that someone is going to surpass them. There will also be many things in the future that will make comparison either difficult or impossible. Let's say for instance that slams are changed to three sets instead of five sets, which could happen.

And by the way, even though I don't think Djokovic is the greatest of all time because I don't believe there IS a greatest of all time, I think it's fair to say that among the greatest players we have seen for a very long time no one should be placed above him.

Laver's calendar Slam is a lot less impressive now that the game is so much deeper and played on a variety of surfaces
 

Pheasant

Legend
Sampras' record of 14 in 2002 seemed unbreakable. 7 years later, that was broken, then later destroyed years later by Fed. Within 5 years of Fed bagging his 20th, 2 more guys broke his record.

Why does 24 seem unbreakable again? Why? If somebody with close to his talent doesn't have 2 others in the 20+ range blocking him, then he can get to 30.

This being said, I think that Djoker has 1-2 more him. But again, why would 26 be unbreakable?
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
He will be caught. Eventually an all-time-great player will come without all-time-great competition (we have seen 10+ year droughts in all-time great talents such as between Sampras and Federer or between Djokovic and Sinner). By this time, players may be in their primes until 40+ due to advancements in sports science and medicine, allowing said player to accumulate an ungodly number of slams.
This is certainly a possible scenario. With enough time, I suppose it will become a likely scenario. But what is also possible is that the game will change in a way that facilitates the banking of slam titles. E.g., a fifth and perhaps even a sixth annual major could be recognized someday. If that were to happen, the partisans of the holders of the old records might at first whine about how it's unfair to wipe out the records due to new, greater playing opportunities. This has happened before in other sports, the most famous example (in the U.S., at least) being Babe Ruth's single-season home run record, which was set in a 154-game season, finally falling after the switch to a 162-game season. The whiners were at first appeased (via an infamous "asterisk" in the books), then ignored, and finally silenced. In fact, something similar has already happened in tennis, since almost no one regularly played all four slams in the first 15 years or so of the Open Era. Fans of Borg, Connors, Mac, etc., can argue with some justification that their guys would have won more slams, possibly many more, if they had simply played more. But no one cares about these excuses anymore, at least when it comes to acknowledging the actual records (the larger GOAT question may be fuzzier). The men's slam record is 24. It doesn't matter how many slams were played or not played. If/when the record is broken, it won't matter how many slams are then available.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Thats been said about 9999999 records throughout history.

Records gets beaten, always. Noles will too.

i%27m-just-telling-the-truth-saul-durand.gif
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't believe in the GOAT concept. I don't believe Djokovic is the greatest ever because I don't think there is a greatest ever. But we can't ignore circumstances that make certain records almost impossible to duplicate. Look how long it's been since Laver and his calendar year Grand Slam. And yet it has not been done again. I don't think that makes him the greatest ever. It's just that something about that time made it extremely convenient to achieve that record. He came into the pro era at a time when the amateurs had not yet caught up.

Something about Djokovic's timing was perfect for him to peak physically at the best possible time with his stretching and his two handed backhand and the sliding. He also had the perfect racket. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that he may have had the best coaching of the Big Three. All these things came together to make it the perfect time for him to set records and I don't think it is at all obvious that someone is going to surpass them. There will also be many things in the future that will make comparison either difficult or impossible. Let's say for instance that slams are changed to three sets instead of five sets, which could happen.

And by the way, even though I don't think Djokovic is the greatest of all time because I don't believe there IS a greatest of all time, I think it's fair to say that among the greatest players we have seen for a very long time no one should be placed above him.
There is no GOAT, it is just very profitable for mass media and big sports brands to contribute to that narrative for obvious reasons.
:D
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras' record of 14 in 2002 seemed unbreakable. 7 years later, that was broken, then later destroyed years later by Fed. Within 5 years of Fed bagging his 20th, 2 more guys broke his record.

Why does 24 seem unbreakable again? Why? If somebody with close to his talent doesn't have 2 others in the 20+ range blocking him, then he can get to 30.

This being said, I think that Djoker has 1-2 more him. But again, why would 26 be unbreakable?
As he approaches 38, the chances of that happening are virtually zero.
:)
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
This is certainly a possible scenario. With enough time, I suppose it will become a likely scenario. But what is also possible is that the game will change in a way that facilitates the banking of slam titles. E.g., a fifth and perhaps even a sixth annual major could be recognized someday. If that were to happen, the partisans of the holders of the old records might at first whine about how it's unfair to wipe out the records due to new, greater playing opportunities. This has happened before in other sports, the most famous example (in the U.S., at least) being Babe Ruth's single-season home run record, which was set in a 154-game season, finally falling after the switch to a 162-game season. The whiners were at first appeased (via an infamous "asterisk" in the books), then ignored, and finally silenced. In fact, something similar has already happened in tennis, since almost no one regularly played all four slams in the first 15 years or so of the Open Era. Fans of Borg, Connors, Mac, etc., can argue with some justification that their guys would have won more slams, possibly many more, if they had simply played more. But no one cares about these excuses anymore, at least when it comes to acknowledging the actual records (the larger GOAT question may be fuzzier). The men's slam record is 24. It doesn't matter how many slams were played or not played. If/when the record is broken, it won't matter how many slams are then available.
Also Laver's record is 11. No one says he has 19 or so.
 

Jonas78

Legend
I don't believe in the GOAT concept. I don't believe Djokovic is the greatest ever because I don't think there is a greatest ever. But we can't ignore circumstances that make certain records almost impossible to duplicate. Look how long it's been since Laver and his calendar year Grand Slam. And yet it has not been done again. I don't think that makes him the greatest ever. It's just that something about that time made it extremely convenient to achieve that record. He came into the pro era at a time when the amateurs had not yet caught up.

Something about Djokovic's timing was perfect for him to peak physically at the best possible time with his stretching and his two handed backhand and the sliding. He also had the perfect racket. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that he may have had the best coaching of the Big Three. All these things came together to make it the perfect time for him to set records and I don't think it is at all obvious that someone is going to surpass them. There will also be many things in the future that will make comparison either difficult or impossible. Let's say for instance that slams are changed to three sets instead of five sets, which could happen.

And by the way, even though I don't think Djokovic is the greatest of all time because I don't believe there IS a greatest of all time, I think it's fair to say that among the greatest players we have seen for a very long time no one should be placed above him.
Id say his timing was good, but not perfect.

First, he had to fight two of the greatest ATGs in history for most of his career, which costed him a lot of slams. He is 4-5 in slam finals vs Rafa, and 7-11 in slam matches. Vs Federer he is 11-6. So Fedal alone costed him 17 slam losses. Im not saying he would win all of these slams, but 17 is many.

Second, he was a somewhat late bloomer, and won his 2nd slam well into age 23.

Third, apart from being a late bloomer, 2012-2014 wasnt too great either, only winning one slam a year in his prime age.

This is why i think the record definetly is breakable. Longevity is here to stay, and future players will have longer careers, like the Big3.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Id say his timing was good, but not perfect.

First, he had to fight two of the greatest ATGs in history for most of his career, which costed him a lot of slams. He is 4-5 in slam finals vs Rafa, and 7-11 in slam matches. Vs Federer he is 11-6. So Fedal alone costed him 17 slam losses. Im not saying he would win all of these slams, but 17 is many.

Second, he was a somewhat late bloomer, and won his 2nd slam well into age 23.

Third, apart from being a late bloomer, 2012-2014 wasnt too great either, only winning one slam a year in his prime age.

This is why i think the record definetly is breakable. Longevity is here to stay, and future players will have longer careers, like the Big3.

No player is gonna be able to feast at 33-40 like has though. He did get kind of a late start but more than made up for it from 2018 on
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Very odd to think it's impossible.

Three players have achieved 20 plus despite taking Slams off each other yet somehow it's impossible for anyone to get to 25?

If Alcaraz was to play to 37 he "only" needs to win a little over one slam a year to get there. Obviously there are many things that could intervene but it doesn't look insurmountable on the surface.

Plus Djoko almost certainly lost one slam to Covid, one to a silly bit of indiscipline and two over the vaccine issue. So if he can get to 24 even with those misses it suggests the optimal limit is a bit higher.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Very odd to think it's impossible.

Three players have achieved 20 plus despite taking Slams off each other yet somehow it's impossible for anyone to get to 25?

If Alcaraz was to play to 37 he "only" needs to win a little over one slam a year to get there. Obviously there are many things that could intervene but it doesn't look insurmountable on the surface.

Plus Djoko almost certainly lost one slam to Covid, one to a silly bit of indiscipline and two over the vaccine issue. So if he can get to 24 even with those misses it suggests the optimal limit is a bit higher.

Djokovic is going to play another three years after this.

He isn't playing to win more Slams as much as he is playing to continue tripping up Alcaraz and Sinner.
 

Jonas78

Legend
No player is gonna be able to feast at 33-40 like has though. He did get kind of a late start but more than made up for it from 2018 on
Sure, this is where his timing WAS perfect. He didnt have any younger ATGs chasing him for most of his career. But Fedal still caused him 17 slam losses, he didnt do too good 2012-2014, and he was a late bloomer for an ATG.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't have time or the will to keep track of flip-flopping. Why don't you try responding to me rather than him. If you have a problem with him then take it up with him and leave me the hell out of it please.
The guy is not calm even though his idol has the most important records in tennis, why is that?
:giggle:
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Laver turned professional in late 1962, and couldn't play in the mainstream majors before the open era began in April 1968. The mainstream majors before the open era were for amateur players only.

Emerson turned professional in January 1968, so just months before the open era began.
Joker fans only know the tennis story from 2011 onwards, don't forget that.
:p
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Laver turned professional in late 1962, and couldn't play in the mainstream majors before the open era began in April 1968. The mainstream majors before the open era were for amateur players only.

Emerson turned professional in January 1968, so just months before the open era began.
Exactly. It is what it is.

Just like a fifth slam will make 24 look small. Whatever laver went through shows his number is 11. Not 19. That is official record. Every time he is introduced as 11 time slam winner.
 
Top