Where would Nole rank in list of all-time greats if he...

[TommyA8X]

I am not a fan of Rafa. I am a Tennis fan first and foremost. The reason I like Pistol and Rafa is because their games are incomparable both from a technical and aesthetic point of view. Add to the fact that they are both clutch in a way certain other players never were and you can see why they have more fans. Rafa has more fans on the social media than anyone else.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

if he manages to manages to play the ravel's bolero in farts and coconuts!.

"what if goat, what if not goat... my player is the goat, your player is the goat,"...

jesus christ!!!

 

[John6239]

He would still be below nadal

 

[Djokovic2011]

He would still be below nadal

Not with those stats he wouldn't be.

 

[Cup8489]

Sorry, but I don't see what listing Nadal's actual achievements has to do with what ifs.

Did you read the title?

Just kidding, I know you only stopped at Nadal.

 

[5555]

Can I deduce from this that you think Djokovic can overtake Federer in due time:shock:?

Double Career Grand Slam is a huge deal. Also, I believe that in the future slam count will be much less important than now. Before Sampras, slam count was not the most important factor.

 

[SpinToWin]

Double Career Grand Slam is a huge deal. Also, I believe that in the future slam count will be much less important than now. Before Sampras, slam count was not the most important factor.

You're just butterhurt

 

[Russeljones]

Double Career Grand Slam is a huge deal. Also, I believe that in the future slam count will be much less important than now. Before Sampras, slam count was not the most important factor.

It's not more impressive than 8 Slams of any distribution. The Calendar Slam holds weight because of the near impossibility of maintaining that level for a full calendar year. The moment you throw in the word 'Career', you're basically saying "the guy's been around long enough to win these". Does that sound "huge"? Just look at the consecutive Slam quarterfinals and semifinals Novak was able to achieve in this homogenized surface era. Should a Career Slam of today hold the same value as one of 20-25 years ago? No way.

You can keep of thinking of innovative ways to prop up one player or another but the fact remains, the titles need to be won and the opposition needs to be overawed for a long period of time for the player to make his mark as an all time great. In Novak's most prolific period, he is only marginally more successful than Nadal. That's the bottom line.

 

[La_Para]

Double Career Grand Slam is a huge deal. Also, I believe that in the future slam count will be much less important than now. Before Sampras, slam count was not the most important factor.

...ends up with the following:

12 slams
Double Career Grand Slam
5 Year-end No. 1
230 weeks at No. 1?

I can see where you're coming from, but I have a hard time seeing how the stats above would make Djokovic equal to or above Federer.
Looking at Federer's stats on the same metrics:
17 slams
career Grand slam
5 Year- end No. 1
302 week at No. 1

The only thing he'd really have over Federer would be the double career Grand slam, which would have to compensate for five slams. Even now Djokovic is three slam away from a double Career Grand slam. If he'd win those three I don't see him being mentioned in the same sentence as Federer, the same thing even if he won two additional slams.

Slams are the most important parameters, isn't it also part of the reason why you have the double Career Grand slam in such high esteem? I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I do think your scenario could come true, Djokovic does have that much potential, but he's got his work cut out for him. I believe no one has won more than five slams after turning 28, so he can't allow any missteps along the way.

 

[5555]

It's not more impressive than 8 Slams of any distribution. The Calendar Slam holds weight because of the near impossibility of maintaining that level for a full calendar year. The moment you throw in the word 'Career', you're basically saying "the guy's been around long enough to win these". Does that sound "huge"?

No player in the Open Era has ever won a Double Career Grand Slam. Rod Laver completed the Calender Grand Slam in 1969.

Just look at the consecutive Slam quarterfinals and semifinals Novak was able to achieve in this homogenized surface era. Should a Career Slam of today hold the same value as one of 20-25 years ago? No way.

Just look at the level of competition now and 20-25 years ago. Due to tougher competiton, now is more difficult to complete a DCGS than 20-25 years ago.

You can keep of thinking of innovative ways to prop up one player or another but the fact remains, the titles need to be won and the opposition needs to be overawed for a long period of time for the player to make his mark as an all time great. In Novak's most prolific period, he is only marginally more successful than Nadal. That's the bottom line.

How prolific would Federer have been in 2004-2007 if he had faced Nadal who is on hard courts equally good as in the last 5 years?

 

[MTF07]

U]now[/U] is more difficult to complete a DCGS than 20-25 years ago.



How prolific would Federer have been in 2004-2007 if he had faced Nadal who is as goog as on hard court as in the last 5 years?

Federer would have won every slam he still won in that period.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Federer would have won every slam he still won in that period.

Ill take as many laughs as I can get today. Thanks! :lol:

 

[5555]

You're just butterhurt

"Novak Djokovic is the king"
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/nov/17/novak-djokovic-top-six-players-2014

Federer would have won every slam he still won in that period.

Are you serious or are you trolling?

 

[TMF]

It's pointless to discuss something that is not going to happen.

It's like asking what is Murray's placement in all time great when he wins 10 slams.

Not worth the time.

 

[90's Clay]

1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Rosewall
4. Tilden
5. Federer for now
6. Nadal
7 . Sampras
8. Nole

 

[Djokovic2011]

It's pointless to discuss something that is not going to happen.

It's like asking what is Murray's placement in all time great when he wins 10 slams.

Not worth the time.

Not really. Nole is much closer to reaching 12 Slams and all those other accomplishments than Murray is to winning 8 more majors.

 

[TMF]

Not really. Nole is much closer to reaching 12 Slams and all those other accomplishments than Murray is to winning 8 more majors.

But the OP asked a lot out of Nole. I don't think he can accomplished everything from his list.

12 slams
Double Career Grand Slam
5 Year-end No. 1
230 weeks at No. 1

 

[D.Nalby12]

...ends up with the following:

12 slams
Double Career Grand Slam
5 Year-end No. 1
230 weeks at No. 1?

This is not even realistic scenario for Djokovic.

Djokovic winning 6 slams after turning 27? LMAO!


9-10 slams would be more realistic slam count.

 

[D.Nalby12]

How prolific would Federer have been in 2004-2007 if he had faced Nadal who is on hard courts equally good as in the last 5 years?

I don't know about Nadal but I can definitely say Federer would not have lost 2 GS finals to player like Murray (LOL) or he would have lost GS matches to Wawrinka, Nishikori, 31 year old past prime legend during 2004-07 period. :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't know about Nadal but I can definitely say Federer would not have lost 2 GS finals to player like Murray (LOL) or he would have lost GS matches to Wawrinka, Nishikori, 31 year old past prime legend during 2004-07 period. :lol:

What's so funny about losing to Murray? :-? And Wawrinka and Nishikori are both excellent players too.

 

[5555]

I don't think he can accomplished everything from his list.

Why?

Djokovic winning 6 slams after turning 27? LMAO!

What if level of competition in the next 4 years is going to be weaker than in 2007-2014?

I don't know about Nadal but I can definitely say Federer would not have lost 2 GS finals to player like Murray (LOL) or he would have lost GS matches to Wawrinka, Nishikori, 31 year old past prime legend during 2004-07 period. :lol:

Can you prove it?

 

[TMF]

Why?

Because it's unrealistic for him to accomplish that much. Even though the competition is not as strong as it use to be when Federer was in his prime, but Nole is 27 and now a family man, so if you expect that Nole can win everything as you have listed, that's a wishful thinking.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

 

[Djokovic2011]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

I agree. Novak's already an all time great anyway so threads like this really aren't necessary.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Novak is an ATG certainly.

ATGs in Open Era are Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Djokovic, Becker, Edberg, and a couple of others.

But Federer and Nadal are on another tier compared to Djokovic.
They are Immortals.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Novak is an ATG certainly.

ATGs in Open Era are Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Djokovic, Becker, Edberg, and a couple of others.

But Federer and Nadal are on another tier compared to Djokovic.
They are Immortals.

They are as immmortal as Jean René.

 

[5555]

if you expect that Nole can win everything as you have listed, that's a wishful thinking.

Is it a fact or an opinion?

 

[RF-18]

From that list, he will most likely get 5 year end number ones and a career golden slam. That I see as a must for him.

But 12 slams is a bit to much ATM, but I don't rule out anything when it comes to Nole. You never know. He has the potential to get 12+ slams, but will he convert that potential on the court? thats something we have to see.

As oppose to 230 weeks at number one (he has like 150 right now or something), thats achieveable too.