What does Djokovic have to do to surpass Nadal?

What does Djokovic have to do to surpass Nadal as a GOAT contender?

  • Match Nadal's Slam count (without a French Open)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Surpass Nadal's Slam count by 1 (without a French Open)

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Win Cincinnati and match Nadal's Slam count (without a French Open)

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Win Cincinnati and surpass Nadal's Slam count (without a French Open)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Surpass Nadal's Slam count by 2 (without a French Open)

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Surpass Nadal's Slam count by 3 (without a French Open)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Win the French Open and come 1 Slam short of Nadal's Slam count

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Win the French Open and match Nadal's Slam count

    Votes: 11 28.2%

  • Win the French Open and surpass Nadal's Slam count by 1

    Votes: 16 41.0%

  • Win the French Open and surpass Nadal's Slam count by 2

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Total voters
    39
Eragon

Eragon

Banned
In terms of Career Accomplishments and on the GOAT-list.

Here are the things Djokovic already has (or will potentially have) over Nadal:
1. 2 WTF titles
2. Versatility in Masters 1000 titles (particularly if he does win Cincinnati)
3. Weeks at #1 (not yet, but I think he'll surpass him handily)

Here the things Nadal has over Djokovic:
1. Career Grand Slam
2. Slam Count
3. More Masters 1000 titles
4. Olympic Gold
 
Last edited:
Slam count is the most important criteria (very unlikely to pass RNadal IMHO). Then comes a number of achievements like weeks at No. 1, masters count, YECs, etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Show up. He's going to eventually surpass Nadal and push for Fed's slam count. There's nobody to stop him.
 
Clarky21 said:
Show up. He's going to eventually surpass Nadal and push for Fed's slam count. There's nobody to stop him.
Click to expand...

article-0-0487483500000514-887_634x418.jpg

hi-res-173111254_crop_north.jpg
 
I think he needs to win the French and match Nadal's major count.

He will own Nadal in all other categories: weeks/yrs at No 1, WTF titles etc. so it's all about the slams now.
 
Mustard said:
Eragon counts open era majors and professional majors (plus Wimbledon Pro), while ignoring amateur majors altogether.
Click to expand...

I think that's the most reasonable way to go about it. Wouldn't you agree? That way, counting Majors is consistent with saying Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales > Emerson. Not to mention, Majors are tournaments where the best players play; not amateurs.
 
He needs to close the slam gap and then hope that he leads in other significant categories. If he has nearly the same amount of slams plus the full set of masters + more weeks at #1 + more WTF's and the leads the h2h...then he might be as great a player.
 
Eragon said:
I think that's the most reasonable way to go about it. Wouldn't you agree? That way, counting Majors is consistent with saying Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales > Emerson. Not to mention, Majors are tournaments where the best players play; not amateurs.
Click to expand...

I count amateur majors too, since they had high numbers in the draw and were mainstream tournaments backed up by the tennis establishment.
 
I think if he gets to within +/-1 of Nadal's slam count, while winning the French, it'll probably be too close to call. If he gets 2 ahead of him though, it'll become tough to argue in Nadal's favor anymore.

That's 5-8 slams for Novak though, assuming Rafa doesn't win anymore. A tall task. More likely than Rafa winning 5 more and catching Roger? I'd say so, at this exact moment in time at least, but still not easy and years off.
 
Mustard said:
I count amateur majors too, since they had high numbers in the draw and were mainstream tournaments backed up by the tennis establishment.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, they weren't officially considered Majors, were they? Honest question, I'm not too sure about the facts.
 
Amateur majors featured the 3rd tier players. They shouldn't be counted along side the pro majors and certainly not modern slams.
 
NatF said:
Amateur majors featured the 3rd tier players. They shouldn't be counted along side the pro majors and certainly not modern slams.
Click to expand...

I agree that Amateur majors should count for slightly less than pro majors, but I think you're being a bit insulting towards them.

In the amateur majors, you usually had to win 7 5-set matches, whereas you could win a pro major in 3 matches. The latter would have had tougher opponents, but often, you only had to win 2 tough matches and you'd win the title (so a player on a hot streak could do it). Let's say Nalbandian had been around in the 1950s and turned pro: I have no doubt he would have won a pro major (he would've put a run together like he did at the WTF 2005 or in the Masters tournaments in late 2007). I'm not as sure he would have won an amateur major, having to win 7 matches in a row against increasingly tough opposition.

You also have to remember that the pros weren't some species of aliens: they were former amateur greats themselves, who had transferred to a different tour. There was often a great amateur mopping up on that circuit who would later win a pro major (Rosewall, Anderson, Sedgman, Trabert, Laver etc.) These guys were not weak.
 
Too much. Nadal has incredible records. Djokovic has too much ground to make up and too much competition from Murray.
 
Eragon said:
Strictly speaking, they weren't officially considered Majors, were they? Honest question, I'm not too sure about the facts.
Click to expand...

Officially recognised majors
Australian Championships/Australian Open (1924 to the Present Day)
French Championships/French Open (1925 to the Present Day)
Wimbledon (1913 to the Present Day)
US Championships/US Open (1924 to the Present Day)

World Hard Court Championships (1913 to 1923)
World Covered Court Championships (1913 to 1923)

Wembley Pro (1934 to 1967)


Unofficial majors
Wimbledon (1877 to 1912)
US Championships (1882 to 1923)

World Hard Court Championships (1912)

US Pro (1927 to 1967)
French Pro (1930 to 1967)
Tournament of Champions (1956 to 1959)
World Pro (1932 and 1933)
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
Officially recognised majors are:

Australian Championships/Australian Open (1924 to the Present Day)
French Championships/French Open (1925 to the Present Day)
Wimbledon (1912 to the Present Day)
US Championships/US Open (1924 to the Present Day)

World Hard Court Championships (1913 to 1923)
World Covered Court Championships (1913 to 1923)

Wembley Pro (1934 to the Present Day)


Unofficial majors are:

Wimbledon (1877 to 1911)
US Championships (1882 to 1923)

World Hard Court Championships (1912)

US Pro (1927 to 1967)
French Pro (1930 to 1967)
Tournament of Champions (1956 to 1959)
World Pro (1932 and 1933)
Click to expand...

Wow, that's interesting. Turns out the tournaments I believe to be worthy of being Majors are not and Amateur Slams are :oops: I still stand by what I believe.
 
Eragon said:
Wow, that's interesting. Turns out the tournaments I believe to be worthy of being Majors are not and Amateur Slams are :oops: I still stand by what I believe.
Click to expand...

The tennis establishment firmly backed amateur tennis over professional tennis for a LONG time. It took decades of attempts by tennis professionals to get the open era establishment.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
^ Mustard, how are you defining "official" and "unofficial".

It looks like that is just your opinion.
Click to expand...

Official are majors recognised as such by the International (Lawn) Tennis Federation. Unofficial majors are big events that weren't officially majors, for whatever reason (before USLTA affiliation to the ILTF in 1924, for example), but were widely seen as such.
 
Mustard said:
The tennis establishment firmly backed amateur tennis over professional tennis for a LONG time. It took decades of attempts by tennis professionals to get the open era establishment.
Click to expand...

Well, you go where the money goes. Pro Slams > Amateur Slams to my mind. Always will be.
 
Eragon said:
I was talking about the players. Pro Slams were paying, Amateur Slams were not.
Click to expand...

Yes. As I said, the professionals had to fight for decades for an open era to be established. There's a reason why many people say that Jack Kramer is the most influential person in tennis history.
 
Eragon said:
In terms of Career Accomplishments and on the GOAT-list.

Here are the things Djokovic already has (or will potentially have) over Nadal:
1. 2 WTF titles
2. Versatility in Masters 1000 titles (particularly if he does win Cincinnati)
3. Weeks at #1 (not yet, but I think he'll surpass him handily)

Here the things Nadal has over Djokovic:
1. Career Grand Slam
2. Slam Count
3. More Masters 1000 titles
4. Olympic Gold
Click to expand...

I was surprised that 5555 is not the poster.

So Nole has only 2 WTF over him? I guess he has to win a lot more.

With what both have Nole has to have this to be considered greater:
-13 majors (distribution doesn't matter, Nadal has 8-2-1-1 also)
-more weeks nr.1
-career slam (maybe)

Maybe he doesn't need career slam. He is amazing on clay. I don't think not winning RG is a hole with Sampras. It's that he was bellow average on clay.
If he made more semis and one final and win a bit more titles, that would not be so bad. Nole lost to only 1 guy on clay - Nadal. And he defeated Rafa in 3 clay finals. So I don't think not winning RG is a must for Nole to surpass Rafa.

He has WTF to compensate against Olympic gold.
 
Eragon said:
Wow, that's interesting. Turns out the tournaments I believe to be worthy of being Majors are not and Amateur Slams are :oops: I still stand by what I believe.
Click to expand...

It turns out.... and full stop after "Amateur Slams are" :twisted:
 
jg153040 said:
I was surprised that 5555 is not the poster.

So Nole has only 2 WTF over him? I guess he has to win a lot more.

With what both have Nole has to have this to be considered greater:
-13 majors (distribution doesn't matter, Nadal has 8-2-1-1 also)
-more weeks nr.1
-career slam (maybe)

Maybe he doesn't need career slam. He is amazing on clay. I don't think not winning RG is a hole with Sampras. It's that he was bellow average on clay.
If he made more semis and one final and win a bit more titles, that would not be so bad. Nole lost to only 1 guy on clay - Nadal. And he defeated Rafa in 3 clay finals. So I don't think not winning RG is a must for Nole to surpass Rafa.

He has WTF to compensate against Olympic gold.
Click to expand...

I don't think 2 WTF titles are to be scoffed at, considering Nadal hasn't even managed 1 in all these years. Other than that, I more or less agree with you.
 
I didn't choose in the poll since I believe there there is more than one combination that would allow Nole to "surpass" Rafa.

Namely:

Surpass Nadal's Slam count by 1 (without a French Open)

OR

Win the French Open and come 1 Slam short of Nadal's Slam count
 
powerangle said:
I didn't choose in the poll since I believe there there is more than one combination that would allow Nole to "surpass" Rafa.

Namely:

Surpass Nadal's Slam count by 1 (without a French Open)

OR

Win the French Open and come 1 Slam short of Nadal's Slam count
Click to expand...

If you think both of the options work, kindly choose the option which you think Djokovic is more likely (however unlikely) to achieve.
 
If he gets to double digits in slams, he'd have surpassed Nadal in my book. Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay, so he's padded up his slam count winning RGs,that has to be factored in.

Ralph has overtaken Borg in slam count yet Borg is tier 1 and Ralph still isn't tier 1. That says a lot.
 
monfed said:
If he gets to double digits in slams, he'd have surpassed Nadal in my book. Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay, so he's padded up his slam count winning RGs,that has to be factored in.

Ralph has overtaken Borg in slam count yet Borg is tier 1 and Ralph still isn't tier 1. That says a lot.
Click to expand...

Tell me, Monfed; how many of Cvac's slams are at the AO?
 
monfed said:
If he gets to double digits in slams, he'd have surpassed Nadal in my book. Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay, so he's padded up his slam count winning RGs,that has to be factored in.

Ralph has overtaken Borg in slam count yet Borg is tier 1 and Ralph still isn't tier 1. That says a lot.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion though. And as for Ralph having 8/12 slams on clay...it's not totally unlikely that Novak will end up with having something like 8/12 slams on hard (if he gets to 12 slams himself), or having a similar lopsided ratio favoring hard courts.
 
monfed said:
If he gets to double digits in slams, he'd have surpassed Nadal in my book. Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay, so he's padded up his slam count winning RGs,that has to be factored in.

Ralph has overtaken Borg in slam count yet Borg is tier 1 and Ralph still isn't tier 1. That says a lot.
Click to expand...

Well if Nole has 6 AO, that won't be a lot better either.

Nadal not surpassing Borg is very debatable. The reason is Borg stopped in his prime. You can't be greater than Nadal if you don't play.

Also Borg being tier 1 is debatable.
I thought Laver and Fed are tier 1. Toni said this. He said Pete, Nadal and Agassi are tier 2 :)
 
powerangle said:
I didn't choose in the poll since I believe there there is more than one combination that would allow Nole to "surpass" Rafa.

Namely:

Surpass Nadal's Slam count by 1 (without a French Open)

OR

Win the French Open and come 1 Slam short of Nadal's Slam count
Click to expand...

Why does Nole surpass him 1 slam short? What does he have to compensate? Did you include 2 WTF? Did you assume Nole passes 102 weeks being nr.1 ?
 
powerangle said:
That's your opinion though. And as for Ralph having 8/12 slams on clay...it's not totally unlikely that Novak will end up with having something like 8/12 slams on hard (if he gets to 12 slams himself), or having a similar lopsided ratio favoring hard courts.
Click to expand...

8/12 Hardcourt Slams is better than 8/12 Claycourt Slams. But yes, 8/12 AOs would be just as bad, if not worse.
 
monfed said:
Ralph has overtaken Borg in slam count yet Borg is tier 1 and Ralph still isn't tier 1. That says a lot.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, Nadal has (just) surpassed Borg.

They're certainly in the same tier of greatness, though. You can't put Borg a tier above Nadal.
 
jg153040 said:
Why does Nole surpass him 1 slam short? What does he have to compensate? Did you include 2 WTF? Did you assume Nole passes 102 weeks being nr.1 ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I included the 2 WTFs, and am assuming that Nole will pass 102 weeks at being number 1 (he is on track). And is on track to have more YE #1s.
 
Last edited:
powerangle said:
That's your opinion though. And as for Ralph having 8/12 slams on clay...it's not totally unlikely that Novak will end up with having something like 8/12 slams on hard (if he gets to 12 slams himself), or having a similar lopsided ratio favoring hard courts.
Click to expand...

Sorry Novak can rack up slams on HC as that is the majority surface and there are 2 slams on HC,nothing odd about it. OTOH Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay when there's only one slam on it, his game is far too clay specific. Infact he's gone 2 seasons(coming up on 3 now) winning just RG in the middle of his prime.

Borg won 6 RGs but the reason why he's rated so highly is because he won 5 consecutive Wimbys when grass was quick and he played lot of S&V.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
  • Poll Poll
Who is the second best german player of the open era? Stich or Zverev?
2 3
Replies
134
Views
6K
SonnyT
S
LazyNinja19
  • Poll Poll
Which year tops as the most successful for Rafa?
2
Replies
81
Views
7K
robertharris
R
Eragon
  • Poll Poll
Is Djokovic more versatile than Nadal is?
2
Replies
77
Views
10K
xan
xan
N01E
Djokovic now holds the 5 biggest records in tennis
Replies
0
Views
668
N01E
N01E
Eragon
Give your personal weightage/value for each ATP Tournament
Replies
6
Views
891
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Back
Top