Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
You're also a great fan 125 and we desperately need many more like you around here.
Predict final slam totals of top 10 (replacing Ferrer/Berdych with Murray/Del Potro
- Thread starter saintlaurent
- Start date
You're also a great fan 125 and we desperately need many more like you around here.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Yeah, the horrible works of AssaultNadal need to be undone. BTW where is he?
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Glad to see another new poster in here recognizing the magnitude of accomplishments of pre-open era players.
Pretty much agree with you in regards to Laver, Gonzalez, and Nadal.
As for Nadal vs Fed though, I would say if its 17-17, it would depend on the distribution and other factors (YE #1s, WTF wins, Masters titles) who is ahead. If Nadal got to 17 via 12-2-2-1 for example with no WTF titles, no more YE #1s, and only a couple more Masters titles, I don't think I'd rate him above Federer necessarily on the h2h alone.
As for the topic:
My predictions are:
Fed - 18 (Wimbledon)
Nadal - 16 (2 more RGs)
Djok - 11 (2 AO, 1 RG, 1 USO)
Murray - 3 (1 Wimb/USO)
Del Po/Cilic/Nishikori/Dimitrov/Wawrinka - 2 each not sure who wins where
Raonic - 1 (1 Wimb/USO)
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Hopefully with General Zod in the phantom zone. :grin:
Last edited:
dlk
Hall of Fame
1) I'm 45, I've seen the "pre-open players play," they are not better than today's physical specimens (juice is another story).
2) I'm okay with your top four's predictions.
3) Nishikori will not win 2. And pretty scarce odds for other three you feel will win two (Healthy DelPo best option).
4) Don't care for Raonic's game, but he Cillic, Gulbis, and some player ranked between 20&50 right now, will claim 1-2.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
LOL! GOAT of gifs.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Nadal or Djokovic, fighting off the new guard.
I think either the 4 Slams will be split 50/50 between the usual suspects and either new Slam champions or current 1 Slam champions, or, that Nadal will have his final standout year giving another sudden boost to his Slam tally, before riding out the rest of his career mainly on 1 Slam win a year until inescapable serious decline.
dlk
Hall of Fame
Can't argue with your sound judgement. I rooting for Murray & Gulbis, I know this is not happening, but I like Goffin.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
1) Obviously with improved training methods, physical conditioning, nutrition, and general evolution of the game the physical specimen's are better today. But I am talking about "greatness" in terms of accomplishments and standardizing for similar levels of training and equipment, which is the only way you can make these comparisons.
To put it simply as Bud Collins said "If you put Federer in 1956 and gave him a wooden racket and asked him to beat Pancho Gonzalez, my money is going on Pancho 10 times out of 10. If you put Gonzalez in 2006 and gave him a graphite racket and asked him to beat Roger Federer, my money is staying in my pocket 10 times out of 10."
2) Good
3/4) I think Nadal/Djokovic will win the next 3 RG titles, after that I see Nishikori being the best player on clay given the forms he has shown capable of producing when healthy. I don't think its unreasonable to think he can win 1 RG near the end of the decade and 1 hard court slam. You just said you have Raonic/Cilic/Gulbis as winning 1-2, I'm banking that on Raonic and Cilic each winning 1 and you have granted Del Po is most likely to win a 2nd slam. Dimitrov should win a Wimbledon before its all said and done. Might be a reach to see him win a 2nd slam and same with Wawrinka, but until we see what the next next gen (Coric, Zverev, Kyrgios, Thiem) can really do, I think the safe bet is on those for now.
dlk
Hall of Fame
So perhaps our cordial discord is the age-old ERA question. I believe Fed would win with a wooody over players from 60s & 70's if given a woodie, as well as, dominate any of the old Aussies or Americans using today's equipment. That's hard for us old farts...realizing that today's game is better than it was twenty-years ago. NO evolution affects humans equally.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
I think some approximation of this is the answer. I really thought 2014 would be Djokovic's second multislam season, but after the Nishikori SF, I think he'll win 1-2 more over the next 2-3 seasons. Hard to imagine he'll have a better crack at Nadal at RG than he just had; hard to imagine he'll get the green SF opponent/graying finals opponent combo again at SW19; and hard to understand weeks later just how he lost that match to Nishikori at the Open.
I also have a weird hunch both Federer and Nadal have another Wimbledon title each in them (or at least another final in Nadal's case) - regarding Federer, I keep thinking about Pete falling short after deep runs at the Open from 1998-2001, followed by all the cards falling into place for him in 2002. I suppose that may've already happened for Roger in 2012, but I have a sneaking suspicion otherwise.
As for Nadal, he's due for one of those 2006/2011 easier first week draws at SW19, and should benefit from the extra week b/w RG and SW19 as much as anyone. I posted this the other day, but the list of Open Era players who've won multiple Wimbledons and made at least 5 finals is a pretty elite club:
Federer (7 titles, 9 finals)
Sampras (7 titles, 7 finals)
Borg (5 titles, 6 finals)
Becker (3 titles, 7 finals)
McEnroe (3 titles, 5 finals)
Connors (2 titles, 6 finals)
Nadal (2 titles, 5 finals)
That's the list, and we're approaching 50 years of Open Era tennis. So although Nadal's been a mess at Wimbledon overall since 2012, and was even wobbling against journeymen in the first week as early as 2010, it's hard to ignore that resume and say he's over and done with at the event. I foresee at least one more great run there for him as well.
Add to that two more RGs and another Open, and there's 18 for Nadal. Ironically, I think he never gets another AO title - thus ensuring (as it must) that the Federer-Nadal wars rage until the sun burns out.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
The season was ripe for Nole to dominate it and he just couldn't do it. He had inexplicable and confusing periods of listlessness on hot days in the RG final and the US Open semi-final.
I agree with you about Nadal. I think reports of his Wimbledon demise are greatly exaggerated.
As for your hunch on Federer at Wimbledon, I can only hope to the hope of hopes that you're right, and that he does it by beating Nadal in the final.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
The question isn't just about the woodies, but also with the same level of training and conditioning if placed in those eras. What I am saying is the game is a higher quality now due to the physicality, but I don't really see the shot making and pure skills as being better today and in many ways is actually worse than the 60s, 70s, 80s. Granted I've never seen Pancho play and only limited post prime Rosewall stuff as the earliest matches I have gotten the chance to see is from 63+, but I have seen a lot of Laver's prime.
I do agree that performance by Nole in the USO SF was puzzling. I think Nole really needs ideal conditions to win at the USO going forward (good draw, little wind, and temperatures not in the destructive range), but I have to expect he will get the favorable circumstances again at some point in his career to pull out one more. As for Nadal, thats a wildcard. His hard court form has looked pretty off since USO 13, but of course he could capture it again. However, with the new gen coming, I don't know if I see him winning another Open at some point.
In regards to RG, does this year really make you MORE confident that Nadal will keep winning there? To me it seems his decline is headed more sharply than Nole's and at some point (be it 15, 16, or 17), Nole will have a chance to convert one.
Wimbledon, I am surprised with your assessment. I get what you are saying about Nadal, but that was all 3+ years ago. Djokovic from 10-14 has been in the final weekend every year, I find it tough to say Nadal is more likely to win there again over Djokovic and I feel neither will win another title there. Most likely Federer will close out his career with a title there and it will be the place where a lot of the attacking young guns (Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Raonic, Cilic) will cause disturbances and its where Murray is most likely to win again.
cronus
Professional
no qatar exxon mobil x 20 wins?:-?
Day Tripper
Semi-Pro
Nadal is easily the overrated player of the open era. Many seem to think that his H2H against Federer somehow elevates him to becoming a candidate for GOAT.
His dominance at Roland Garros is nothing short of staggering but the rest of resume is sadly lacking when compared to the great of the game..
Look at the cold hard facts
141 weeks at number 1 - (not even half of Federer's record!)
1 Aust Open
2 US Opens
2 Wimbledons
0 WTF
Those numbers just arn't good enough.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
I had it in my head recently (roughly after the Murray QF) that Novak would earn a well-deserved second multislam season with a victory at the Open this year, and that he may have a transitional "exhale" 2015 before earning another 1-3 slam titles in late 2015 -17, including a cathartic triumph at RG.
I still think he'll have another great, roaring cathartic triumph at a slam, but it's seeming more and more like it'll be at the Open, where he's been maybe even more snakebitten now than at RG. So I'm predicting two more HC titles for Novak - one at Melbourne to take sole ownership of the Open Era title count there, and one at the Open to exorcise all those demons that've somehow stalled him at 1 title between 2007-14.
As for RG, I think Nadal will get to 10 next year and 11 in either 2016 or 2017. I don't see anyone but Novak taking him out there for at least another season or two, and remember now even Novak's got the muscle memory not only of 2012-14 but also 2006-08 as well. It's not so much that I see Nadal slipping in the next 1-2 years, it's that Djokovic had such wonderful momentum on clay and in the matchup coming into their 2014 final, it's hard for me to envision that not wearing on him.
As for Wimbledon, it's just a betting window hunch with Nadal. I don't think he's got more than one deep run left in him, but I see it happening nonetheless in 2015 or 2016. That said, another first week loss will probably beat the last vestiges of 2006-11 out of my system (though I still got that hunch as of today). Agree that a new era of SW19 champs is approaching.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
That would be a hell of a final - if that SW19 final happened again, no matter who won I think both guys would get carried out of Centre Court at the end by the adoring crowds like a 1930s newsreel.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
Great opportunity for dusting off the pom-poms on this thread! It also seems that GS victories are being thrown around like confetti! The approximate average is that about 15 new slams have been liberally dished around. Put another way that's 4 of tennis and takes us up to 2018! Wow, that's some crystal ball. Unsurprisingly, as we all do it, the slam awards have been biased towards the existing elite players, despite the fact that they are or will be entering reasonably sharp declines over the next 2 years. Federer and Nadal are already showing a marked drop off, Murray and his back and Djoker, well he's the joker in the pack so who knows with him. But it is comforting, to anchor our expectations, on what has worked in the past. Though as the Chinese proverb goes 'this too shall pass' and with that my predictions over the next 3 years (12 slams)
Djokovic 3
Murray 1
Nadal 1
Dimitrov 2
Cilic 2
Rest of Field 3
Djokovic 3
Murray 1
Nadal 1
Dimitrov 2
Cilic 2
Rest of Field 3
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I think if Nadal reaches 17, he'll push for 1 more to break the record unless his body is a total wreckage or something.
If the young guys (Raonic, Nishi, Dimi, Cilic, Delpo) are going to end up with so few slams, then where are all those slams going? Are Kyrgios and Thiem going to do a major sweep and become the new Fedal? Often people forget that the slams HAVE to go to someone in the future, even if there aren't any real "star players". So it can't be that those guys win only 1 RG between all of them, unless Nadal is going to keep winning RG until he's 35
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
1 + 10 + 2 + 3 = 16.
Not trying to be a smart arse, just want to know if you really predict 16 or 17...
If 17, where would you put that extra slam?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Thanks
I really try to be impartial and fair to every player when discussing the greatness of their careers and accomplishments, and likely future scalps.But I also like to be honest about who I root for and not pretend I don't care. Nadal was my first "love" and it's amazing to see what he's accomplished and because he is closer to the pinnacle and I have many years rooting for (dating back to 2005 when I was 16) I feel a bit more invested in his career arc.
I can admit however that I prefer Djokovic slightly overall, in both his game (I see "robotic" as "ruthlessly efficient" and his emotional disposition (Nadal brings a lot of passion to the game famously but seems patient, grounded and a shy guy off the court. Djokovic is famously temperamental, tempestuous and at times his desire and the flame that burns inside of him can get in his own way.) Nadal's is probably the greater recipe for winning...especially in pressure situations...but Djokovic's speaks to me more on a personal level--I relate to it better which is what being a fan is all about.
I of course appreciate most pro players for the sheer work, dedication, and skill it takes to entertain us all, so there is no way I could not admire Federer, who currently is imo the greatest player ever. His game is beautiful, classic, and timelessly elegant...it just does not speak to me personally, just like his disposition does not either. Both seem to do so for the majority....different strokes for different folks. I feel similarly about Murray, admire his talent and game, don't relate to him or what he brings to the court enough to carry a rooting interest on his behalf. I think I tend to prefer a "gladiator" style tennis.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The players back in the 50's and 60's also weren't as fit or motivated as the players today. I mean, 40 year old Australian men dominated the game and now we have a mix of different cultures, countries and age groups dominating and they spend all their time focused on tennis. The people back then, not so much..
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I knew I screwed up when I thought about this later - if I'd have to give him another slam it'd be at the US Open.
Chico
Banned
Cilic and Delpo are not young at all. If thy are young than Djokovic and Murray are young as well.
To answer your question. Most of the slams in the next 3-4 years are going to Djokovic.
F
Federer302
Guest
Federer 17
Nadal 16
Djokovic 9
Dimitrov 3
Murray 2
Nishikori 2
Cilic 2
del Potro 2
Raonic 1
Wawrinka 1
Berdych 1
Janowicz 1
Nadal 16
Djokovic 9
Dimitrov 3
Murray 2
Nishikori 2
Cilic 2
del Potro 2
Raonic 1
Wawrinka 1
Berdych 1
Janowicz 1
Based on what? Even prime Djokovic only was able to win 1 major per year.
So, now past his prime he is going to do better?
What makes you think that in his decline he is going to do better than in his prime?
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
That's a very bold statement to make and it implies Djokovic will win between 6-10 slams more from this point. Seriously, how likely is that given he has one just one slam per year over the last 3 years?
WarriorRafa
Hall of Fame
1. Djokovic 10 - 5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 3 Wimbledons, 1 U.S Open
2. Nadal 18 - 2 Australian Opens, 11 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 3 U.S Opens.
3. Federer- 17.
4. Wawrinka- 1
6. Raonic 0
8. Nishikori 0
9. Cilic 2 - Another US title or one at Wimbledon maybe
10. Dimitrov 0
12. Murray 2 - 1 Wimbledon, 1 U.S Open
14. Del Potro 1.
2. Nadal 18 - 2 Australian Opens, 11 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 3 U.S Opens.
3. Federer- 17.
4. Wawrinka- 1
6. Raonic 0
8. Nishikori 0
9. Cilic 2 - Another US title or one at Wimbledon maybe
10. Dimitrov 0
12. Murray 2 - 1 Wimbledon, 1 U.S Open
14. Del Potro 1.
Last edited:
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
you cannot compare 22 slams and GRand slam year in open era, compared to the old era, or the transition between old and open era. Tennis is much more competitive now,and far harder to maintain the level and win it all
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
because nadal has been winning slams for a decade in a row, and reaching multiple slam finals in already 8 different calendar years in the span of a decade (including the last season). And he achieved all of this skipping many GS tournaments in that road.. Aussie open 2006, Wimbledon 2009, USO 2012, AO 2013 and USO 2014. In his winning span he skipped 5 slams, and out of those he had clear chances in 4 of them. NOt to mention he skipped couple of tournaments before that where he had clear chances at RG 2004. You are the only one here overrating djokovic a playear that after his absolute peak, but still remaining in his prime (post AO 2012) only achieved 2/11 slams, despite being the favorite in every single one of them, no? thats being overrated, and he depended of Nadal being absentin AO 2013, and of a declined 33 years old in Wimby 2014 (which he barely did beat in 5 sets) to win.
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
Dimitrov Wont win any ... he is overrated 
SeriousSummer
New User
The open era in tennis began in 1968--46 years ago. If you're only 45, then you didn't see the pre-open players play except on film or maybe at the very end of their careers when you were a very small child.
I'm considerably older and I did see Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe, among others, play in the early 70s, but I don't see any real way to determine how they would compare to players of the current day.
Wood rackets, fast courts and serve and volley tennis is so very different from today's style that it is like a different game. They were great players. Today we have great players. I think it's only possible to compare their achievements against their contemporaries.
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
just like djokovic won 2/11 slams despite being at his absolute prime? he was favorite at all those.. and won 1 of those with rafa being absent. I wouldnt be surprised if djokovic goes slamless next year..
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Similar threads
