Who will be our next Two Digit Majors winner?
- Thread starter gn
- Start date
gn
G.O.A.T.
A
AllCourtHeathen
Guest
TimeToPlaySets
Xemi666
Professional
None of the above probably. People are jumping the gun on Shapovalov as usual, it's still way too early to tell how he'll end up, he could go the way of Dimitrov for all we know. Murray, Stan, Cilic and Del Potro have very little chance of doing it, but at least they are all slam winners already.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
:| Aside from Tilden, every other time it's happened it has been within the lifetime of the next guy that did it. Borg was 10/13 when Emmo and Laver did it, Sampras about 9 when Borg did it, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic 16, 11, and 10 or so when Sampras did it.
I'd say the next guy is probably already out there and has picked up the game already. Keep your eyes peeled y'all!
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
The 'others' option is by far the mathematically safest bet, regardless of what you think of the players in the poll.
But seriously, double-digit slam winners don't grow on trees. We've been spoiled by the Big 3. The last one before them was Pete, who's 10 years older than the oldest of the Big 3.
Before Pete, it was Borg, who was a good couple of tennis generations older.
It's extremely optimistic to expect any young player of any generation to win 10+ slams in the future.
But seriously, double-digit slam winners don't grow on trees. We've been spoiled by the Big 3. The last one before them was Pete, who's 10 years older than the oldest of the Big 3.
Before Pete, it was Borg, who was a good couple of tennis generations older.
It's extremely optimistic to expect any young player of any generation to win 10+ slams in the future.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
The poll is ridiculous. Why are Murray and Stan even listed when it's impossible for guys 30+ to win 7 more majors? Why is Cilic on there when he's 28 or Del Po? Who expects Del Po in his late 20's to suddenly grab 9 more slams? This has gotta be some lame joke.
Anyway... the answer is Shapo.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
I like and dislike your post evenly. Shame there's no button to choose that option.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Question needs to be disambiguated:
1. Will someone win 10+ Slams in the future? Answer: almost definitely yes.
2. Will player X get to 10+ Slams? Answer: for all male players in the planet, the answer is "probably not." [It might well be "probably not" for all female players, too, but I think that Muguruza's chances are a bit more reasonable than are any man who doesn't yet have 10+ Slams. Still odds against her, though].
Betting on someone who has never made the quarter-finals of a major is a bad bet. Actually, it's probably a worse bet than betting on a 30-year-old who has already won three Slams. But both are bad bets.
1. Will someone win 10+ Slams in the future? Answer: almost definitely yes.
2. Will player X get to 10+ Slams? Answer: for all male players in the planet, the answer is "probably not." [It might well be "probably not" for all female players, too, but I think that Muguruza's chances are a bit more reasonable than are any man who doesn't yet have 10+ Slams. Still odds against her, though].
Betting on someone who has never made the quarter-finals of a major is a bad bet. Actually, it's probably a worse bet than betting on a 30-year-old who has already won three Slams. But both are bad bets.
gn
G.O.A.T.
Winners of the last 5 Majors were at least 31 years old while winning it. Stan was 30 when he won FO and it took peak Djokovic to stop 32/33 year old Federer. Both Lost Gen and Next Gen does not have the experience of Big 5. Even if they get there, they are usually humiliated. So I don't think it is impossible for guys aging 30+ to win 7 slams. May be Shapo can stop them. But I can't imagine him beating Murray and Djokovic in tandem at Majors within the next couple of years.
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
Shapovalov
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
possible others is overrated
Only 8 guys in all of tennis history on the men's side have won 10+ plus slams -
1) Federer - 19
2) Nadal - 16
3) Pistol - 14
4) Djoko - 12
4) Emerson - 12
5) Laver - 11
5) Bjorg - 11
6) Tilden - 10
Only five guys in the open era have won 10 + slams -
1) Federer - 19
2) Nadal - 16
3) Pistol - 14
4) Djoko - 12
5) Bjorg - 11
Conclusion - Double digit slam holders do not grow on trees. However, I think that because we literally have had three double digit slam holders within the same time period (2003-present) playing each other has made it remarkable. Who knows, but from the current crop there is no one that screams 10+ slam winner, shapavolov needs more time and Zverev needs to scalp big wins in the majors, lets see how it goes.
1) Federer - 19
2) Nadal - 16
3) Pistol - 14
4) Djoko - 12
4) Emerson - 12
5) Laver - 11
5) Bjorg - 11
6) Tilden - 10
Only five guys in the open era have won 10 + slams -
1) Federer - 19
2) Nadal - 16
3) Pistol - 14
4) Djoko - 12
5) Bjorg - 11
Conclusion - Double digit slam holders do not grow on trees. However, I think that because we literally have had three double digit slam holders within the same time period (2003-present) playing each other has made it remarkable. Who knows, but from the current crop there is no one that screams 10+ slam winner, shapavolov needs more time and Zverev needs to scalp big wins in the majors, lets see how it goes.
Jon Snow
Semi-Pro
Why is that?
I've seen bumped threads in this forum where people predicted Djokovic would be on 1 slam and boom...you had 12.
vanioMan
Legend
Because we've had 3 of them in the past 10 years, and if you count the last 15-20 years you can add Petros as well. People often tend to underestimate just how hard it is to win so many Slams and be so consistent for 10+ years. We've been really spoiled (mainly by by Fedalovic) that every rising star will rack up 8-10 Slams, countless Masters and etc. Yes, Shapovalov, Zverev or somebody else might dominate in the near future and win lots of tournaments, but even then I doubt one of them will reach 10 Majors. There's a reason why only 8 men in the history of the game have won double digit Slams in their careers.
We've had the absolute privilege to witness 3 of the greatest ever players play and compete in the same era (I'd even say the 2 greatest and another one who is Top 6) and win 47 Slams between them. I think that after such incredible accumulation of talent, skill and greatness we'll witness a decline in men's game and it will take quite some time to see somebody reach the heights of Fedalovic. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
Maestroesque
Professional
Leo and Lenny Federer
Mainad
Bionic Poster
When you consider that just 8 men have won double digit Slams in the entire history of the game its incredible to think that 3 of those men are still active today!!!
Maestroesque
Professional
Sureshs
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
It's impossible. It's not happening. Murray, Djokovic, Stan, Federer, Nadal, etc. are not going to win 7 more slams at their age. Maybe if they stay healthy they can win a couple/a few more but 7? Come on!
As for the last sentence, you must be very young to think that. Murray and Djokovic are over 30. Murray allegedly has a hip problem and Djokovic appears to have "injury" issues and motivational problems. Even if they didn't have those problems, they simply won't continue to rack up slams at the same rate they did in their primes and yes, younger players WILL develop and beat them at the slams within the next year or two. That's the way it goes. You'll see.
The only player from the OP's list who has a shot at winning double digit majors is Shapovalov.
Last edited:
Tommy Haas
Hall of Fame
Jack Sock when he gets a backhand.
vex
Legend
Yah wtf this poll....
On topic, unless some more talented guys arrive in the next 4-5 years I like the professionalism I've seen from both Big Z and Shap, I wouldn't be surprised if either got around 10. How it pans out should be exciting once their own rivalry builds. Maybe one dominates the other. They seem head and shoulders better than anyone else after the Big3 are gone. I still think that Big Z's talent and height combo (serve advantage) makes it almost inevitable that he'll be a multi slam winner. Maybe Rubs will be a factor...
vex
Legend
Do you think the big 3 have 7 total slams left in them? Thats a closer call. Guess it depends on what Djokovic comes back... I could see Fed winning 1 more, can def see Rafa winning 1-2 more. Djoker could win 0-4, god knows lol. Man now that I think about it I guess the answer is no, they probably don't have 7 total left in them. (Probably)
vex
Legend
Now this is a bold prediction considering the era we're exiting. I get ur rationale tho. Should be interesting bc I think the fanatical professionalism and obsesssive drive of the big 3 is what got them each to double digits. If Shap and Big Z have those attributes they could dominate their field....BUT you make a great point about the rarity of that...
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
Fair chance the next double digit slam winner hasn't been born yet.
16-19? Winning 16-19 slams probably isn't quite as easy as Nadal and Fed make it look - not quite as easy as it seems to a bunch of posters like us on an internet forum.
16-19? Winning 16-19 slams probably isn't quite as easy as Nadal and Fed make it look - not quite as easy as it seems to a bunch of posters like us on an internet forum.
Thundergod
Hall of Fame
With how desolate the fields might look in 5+ years, I wouldn't be surprised if someone vultured 10. On the other hand there could just be a ton of 1-3 slam winners.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
You know, after the 1999 Roland Garros finals, I was discussing the next period of tennis with a very knowledgable fan. He was pretty sure that there were no players active on either tour apart from Sampras and Graf (who already had 10+ Slams) and Seles and Hingis (who had nine and five Slams, respectively) who would get to 10+ Slams, and that it would become progressively more difficult to get to that hurdle. As it happened, neither Seles nor Hingis got to 10 Slams. In fact, neither won another one. But Federer and Serena Williams were both on tour at the time, and both sailed past 10. We probably don't know enough about the future to predict whether there will be 10+ Slam winners soon or not.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I don't think the first sentence is true. There probably is a fair chance that the next double digit slam winner isn't yet known to us by name, because that just means that there may well be a 10-15 year break until the next double digit slam winner. But if nobody born yet wins 10+ Slams, then it's unlikely that anyone will get to 10 Slams within the next 30 years, and I think that rather unlikely. Even in the hyper-competitive 80s and 90s, it was only 17 years between Borg (who got to 10 Slams at Wimbledon 1980) and Sampras (who got to 10 Slams at Wimbledon 1997). I think it's doubtful that we'll see a gap of almost double that one in an age when tennis is more commercialized and tour organizers will do what they can to encourage dominance by the top players.
deacsyoga
Banned
In fairness any poll option would seem silly. Even Shapovalov seems like a crazy thing to project as even a possability now. Maybe in a few years it wont seem that way, but it sure does now.
A poll that included say Kygrios, Coric, Rublev, Zverev would look just as silly as this one, despite being more realistic age wise and everything.
deacsyoga
Banned
I think by 2050 there will probably be atleast 4 or 5 more double digit slam winning men, and similar women. Winning many slams isnt that hard in the game today with the homogenization of the playing surfaces. Nobody young or up and coming now on either side strike as having the talent or consistency for doing that (not even Garbine although she has a shot), but then again someone might surprise.
vex
Legend
Nah nah, screw 7 slams each, that's crazy. Honestly I'm struggling to see 7 total...
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
Del Potro LOL
Dope Reign
Banned
Similar threads
