Will Djokovic end up with most Masters titles in the history of tennis?

Cortana

Cortana

Legend
So Djokovic is at 21 now. He will surpass Federer this year for sure and maybe even Nadal next year.

Do you think it's possible for him to have more Masters titles than anyone else?

I even think he will have most WTF titles and 9 different Masters titles (after he wins Cincinnati).
 
100-percent-commission.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Cortana said:
So Djokovic is at 21 now. He will surpass Federer this year for sure and maybe even Nadal next year.

Do you think it's possible for him to have more Masters titles than anyone else?

I even think he will have most WTF titles and 9 different Masters titles (after he wins Cincinnati).
Click to expand...

Its possible.
 
Probably yeah, but let's not forget that this whole Master's 1000 thing is pretty new, so the way the players valued the tournaments in the past isn't the same.
 
mmmb1p31.png


He is really dominating it since 2011. Won 16 of the last 37 Masters, Nadal 9, Federer 6, Murray 3.
 
Last edited:
Cortana said:
mmmb1p31.png


He is really dominating it since 2011. Won 16 of the last 37 Masters, Nadal 9, Federer 5, Murray 3.
Click to expand...

Whoever done this is missing the e in Rome and has Canada spelled with a K. :lol: I'm sorry if it was you, but it's funny, I can't help it.
 
Cortana said:
mmmb1p31.png


He is really dominating it since 2011. Won 16 of the last 37 Masters, Nadal 9, Federer 5, Murray 3.
Click to expand...

He should do it, Nadal probably won't replicate that crushing display of 2013, and nobody else seems to be putting their hand up bar Federer recently.
 
DerekNoleFam1 said:
He should do it, Nadal probably won't replicate that crushing display of 2013, and nobody else seems to be putting their hand up bar Federer recently.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Federer won't do it on clay or in Canada. His only legit shots at Novak are Cincy, Shanghai, and Paris.
 
He will and most world tours. Plus he will catch up on slams too. Djoko could be the GOAT yet. He has time. Plus If has a similar year to 2011 he right in the conversation. Hopefully one better, getting the FO :)
 
No he won't. As long as clay comes, Nadal will sweep as usual.

Then there's the American swing which Novak suck at for the last 2 years with abysmal results in Canada and Cinci. So yeah, Novak won't surpass it imo...
 
He may or he may not. Even though he hasn't won as many slams as his potential deserves, he makes up for that with MS 1000 wins.
 
Lendl/Connors

Djokovic will certainly pass Federer and quite possibly Nadal.

Given that Lendl only competed in 10 of the 27 Masters 1000's on offer from 1990-1992 inclusive (because it was optional back then and there were a lot of tournaments that were equivalent to Masters 1000's that he chose to compete in instead - there were 8 or 9 tournaments a year at the same level as Masters 1000) - if you were to re-calculate tournaments wins of tournaments with similar prize money to Masters 1000 - then Lendl and Connors would be well over 40 in total each.
 
bullfan said:
If Nadal doesnt have a comeback year, then Novak will be the player of the decade. Which started in 2010, btw...
Click to expand...

The second decade of the XXI century started in 2011. Search a bit before you try to reply to this. And Djokovic already owns this decade and I doubt Nadal will surpass him, barring a very early retirement from DJokovic.
 
and if ifs and buts were candy and nuts every day would be christmass.
they have as much as they have. that's all.
 
In terms of Masters, the bigger question is when will Novak win Cincinatti. I wouldn't care about completing the set if he had like 2/3 masters left but when you only have 1 left, yeah it can get annoying. Just like the FO -_________-

And a decent looking Olympics medal, how he did worse in 2012 than 2008...only Novak, only Novak.
 
It's a record definitely within his reach. Lots of HC Masters to feast on, not to mention that he always puts if a stiff challenge against Nadal on clay.
 
JanowiczJ said:
The second decade of the XXI century started in 2011. Search a bit before you try to reply to this. And Djokovic already owns this decade and I doubt Nadal will surpass him, barring a very early retirement from DJokovic.
Click to expand...

So the twelve months before Earth had its first year don't count?
 
It's definitely possible. If he can pull to within 3 of Nadal by the end of this year, then very, very likely (i.e. he wins 5 this year and Nadal only 1...which would leave Djokovic at 25 and Nadal at 28 by the end of this year...which is possible).
 
Player of the Decade starts in 2010 because the ATP says so.
End of.

It's their award, so correct or not, that's the way it is.
 
I don't know.. Nadal will win a couple more on clay and he is pretty far ahead at this point.

Djokovic will be getting (noticeably) older in 2 or 3 years and Raonic is up and coming. True, at this point Djokovic is racking up Masters at an incredible pace.

So in my opinion Djokovic sure has a shot to catch Nadal, but I don't think it will be as easy as OP makes it seem.
 
It's a moot point. Without grass and carpet represented, this achievement is meaningless today. Imagine a 10 Slam calendar. Will the leader in all-time Slams supersede Federer, or whoever beats 17 in a 4 Slam calendar?
 
Am I the only one who feels like the ATP is trying to forcefully improve the prestige of the Masters events in order to draw in more interest (and of course money) throughout the year? The development in what the Masters events are perceived as has been dramatic in the past few years...
 
SpinToWin said:
Am I the only one who feels like the ATP is trying to forcefully improve the prestige of the Masters events in order to draw in more interest (and of course money) throughout the year? The development in what the Masters events are perceived as has been dramatic in the past few years...
Click to expand...

There's no doubt about that. Top players used to skip them regularly.
 
Russeljones said:
It's a moot point. Without grass and carpet represented, this achievement is meaningless today. Imagine a 10 Slam calendar. Will the leader in all-time Slams supersede Federer, or whoever beats 17 in a 4 Slam calendar?
Click to expand...

I would suggest you follow a different sport if you think the ATP calendar renders achievements moot points.
 
125downthemiddle said:
I would suggest you follow a different sport if you think the ATP calendar renders achievements moot points.
Click to expand...

You're free to suggest anything that doesn't violate forum rules. I am sure there are others who have followed tennis for longer than a decade who can attest to the affect the morphing of the calendar is having on the weight ascribed to players' achievements. Suggest away.
 
Russeljones said:
You're free to suggest anything that doesn't violate forum rules. I am sure there are others who have followed tennis for longer than a decade who can attest to the affect the morphing of the calendar is having on the weight ascribed to players' achievements. Suggest away.
Click to expand...

Using that logic you could render slams meaningless since grass and clay aren't adequately represented.
 
SpinToWin said:
Am I the only one who feels like the ATP is trying to forcefully improve the prestige of the Masters events in order to draw in more interest (and of course money) throughout the year? The development in what the Masters events are perceived as has been dramatic in the past few years...
Click to expand...

No you're not. It's actually funny because they used to have 5 set finals everywhere except Canada and Cincinnati, but they don't anymore.
 
As there are currently only two players around to realisticly stop Djokovic (Federer and Wawrinka) ... very possible.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Using that logic you could render slams meaningless since grass and clay aren't adequately represented.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, anything would be possible. I don't see how it is representative of fact. 4 majors historically - 4 majors today. Masters? How long have they been on this perch? 20 years? Within this same time period has carpet been taken out of the game? Has grass, a surface that represents the roots of the game, been represented in this supposedly prestigious series? Not using your logic, I'd say there are plenty of question marks regarding the significance of winning the most of an event in history when for the biggest part of the game's history, people coveted other events more.
 
NatF said:
There's no doubt about that. Top players used to skip them regularly.
Click to expand...

In Federer's case, I'm pretty sure he skipped Paris in 2004 and 2006 even though he was perfectly healthy both times. 2005 was the ankle injury. He and Nadal also missed Hamburg 2006 (where he (Federer) was defending champion) after the 5 set final in Rome.
 
Steve0904 said:
In Federer's case, I'm pretty sure he skipped Paris in 2004 and 2006 even though he was perfectly healthy both times. 2005 was the ankle injury. He and Nadal also missed Hamburg 2006 (where he (Federer) was defending champion) after the 5 set final in Rome.
Click to expand...

Federer was injured in 2004 at the end of the season. He skipped Madrid too, still came back and played awesome tennis at the TMC though.

I haven't done an exhaustive examination but the top 10's in 04-05 missed 36 masters series events, 17 and 19 respectively. Need to look into it a bit more to see if that was usual in the years before it, certainly from 2006 onwards the numbers are much more consistent with years I've looked having around 12 skips per year.
 
SpinToWin said:
Am I the only one who feels like the ATP is trying to forcefully improve the prestige of the Masters events in order to draw in more interest (and of course money) throughout the year? The development in what the Masters events are perceived as has been dramatic in the past few years...
Click to expand...
So you think that only GS titles matter? The competition in Indian Wells is almost the same. Winning it isn't easier than winning the AO for example.
 
Cortana said:
So you think that only GS titles matter? The competition in Indian Wells is almost the same. Winning it isn't easier than winning the AO for example.
Click to expand...

Way to misunderstand what I was saying :roll:

I meant to say that it is difficult to compare the number of Masters titles of players from different generations linearly, as the value of Masters has been dramatically changed over time by the ATP and hence the amount of effort/energy players put into the Masters is very different. Whereas it was normal for top players to skip a few of the Masters tournaments a few years ago, nowadays they are practically (and to a certain extent literally) mandatory.

If you compare how much focus Djokovic in his prime puts into the Masters and how much Federer used to in his prime for instance, you'll see a large difference (not to mention the 90s where it was even worse).
 
I think it's fair to include something similar to pc1's "slam conversion" metric where you count not only masters won but the ratio of those won to those entered. That might have a leveling effect w/r/t somebody like Fed, who's missed/skipped over 20 MS1000 events since 2003, and somebody like Novak, who's missed/skipped only 3 or 4 total in the last 8-9 years.

Though I suppose you could also say it isn't Novak's fault that the other guys don't schedule as efficiently as he does.

As far as 20th century players - and particularly guys in the 70s and early 80s - that's another sport entirely in terms of "prestigious" events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

powerangle
  • Poll Poll
Who will end up with more Masters 1000 titles? Federer or Djokovic?
Replies
16
Views
3K
Tenez101
Tenez101
LazyNinja19
  • Poll Poll
Who will end up with the Masters 1000 titles record?
2
Replies
72
Views
4K
DSH
DSH
6-1 6-3 6-0
  • Poll Poll
Will Federer catch Nadal in the Masters 1000 count?
Replies
29
Views
6K
6-1 6-3 6-0
6-1 6-3 6-0
M
Most Titles in a Year - 1000+ - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Replies
0
Views
443
McEnroeisanartist
M
T
How many Masters titles for the top four?
Replies
0
Views
685
tudwell
T
Back
Top