Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Frying Pan Forehand, Jan 27, 2013.
Will he more than ********?
he can easily win 40 , nadal is almost broke ,fed never know , murraa pathetic 7 years with 5 slams each can easily take him till 41 and he will be only 30
20 slams minimum
Not nearly enough.
When Federer was Djokovic's age (25 years 8 months), he had 10. Just two months later, he won his 11th, and two months after that he won his 12th. And Federer's game is far less physical than Novak's.
Barring a miracle, it's not happening. I don't think 12 is outside the realm of possibility, though.
"will Djokovic will....." wtf?
Whatever the thread question is,
17 slams and probably counting,- those are Godzilla-like numbers. I love Nole but sometimes you've got to acknowledge that some hurdles are just insurmountable.
IF he can win all 4 this year that could put him in position to attempt to challenge the slam record
Will posters please learn grammar and spelling? Maybe I'll start a poll...
He has a chance of surpassing Nadal, but I highly doubt his body will hold up long enough to win any more slams after that.
Look....surpassing Fed means your body has to hold up....
Lance, Rafa and the Scotsmans games are just too physical......
Unless they develop the ability to actually kill the ball before the 40th stroke of a rally they will surpass fed....
If Lance wants to do it got to tailor his regime perfectly....With testing to get more stringent soon dont see it happening. Without the juice or (gluten free) as he calls it I dont see his body holding up.......
Rafa well all he has to do is give up playing just come back each year and play the French open for the next 8 years and he will surpass fed............
Muzza mentally an infant
Mentally though in all seriousness the Djoker is the most toughest. The guy is Big Time. Clutch points , phases of matches he raises his games and goes for bigger shots.......
Mentally he is a giant.....Added with the juice the guy is unbeatable on a hard court
LOL at the poll results
for those who didnt get it: yea he will WILL 40 slams for sure.
Only about a 5% chance to win that many slams. He would need to either average 1.5 slams per year for the next 8 years, or average 2.5 slams per year for the next 4 years, then win another couple more after that at 29/30 and beyond. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. I know this is a troll thread anyway though.
Players who've won three slams or more in one season during the Open Era:
Laver (all 4 in 1969)
Connors (3 in 1974)
Wilander (3 in 1988)
Federer (3 in 2004, 2006, 2007)
Nadal (3 in 2010)
Djokovic (3 in 2011)
A list of greats, to be sure. And there's many more ~ Agassi, Sampras, Lendl, Borg ~ who are absent, having never achieved that particular success. But the important thing to note is that Federer is the only one to have managed the feat more than once. There's too many people on this board who think that the last ten years is the be-all and end-all of tennis. It's not. Federer is, statistically, a tennis anomaly, hence how he has so many more major titles to his name than any of his rivals. Djokovic himself fulfilled a pattern I highlighted at the end of 2011: that players who win three slams in a year tend to win no more than one the following year.
There are things in Djokovic's favour compared to his predecessors: 32 seeds in a draw intead of 16, more homogenized surfaces, etc etc. But people talking about "if he wins all four this year..." or "if he wins three per year for the next five years..." are getting a wee bit carried away based on the flimsiest of evidence.
He's already 25, he's only [sic] got six slams to his name so far, and he has a very physical, strenuous style of play. And for all the hyperbole, can I point out that apart from his glory year in 2011 ~ which as I've pointed out he's statistically unlikely to repeat ~ he's never won a single slam anywhere outside Melbourne. So I think the Nole-haters should relax a little bit. He's getting nowhere near Roger's tally. Matching Nadal's going to be a push even if the Spaniard doesn't add to his slam count this year.
Well duh. He's gonna do AT LEAST 5 calendar slams.
You're basically asking a baby to stop peeing on himself.
Not everybody is murrican.
I cant agree more with the poll. If Federer is human and he wins 17 slams then Djokovic as an alien can do much more!
you can not predict the future or change the future
41, I guess.
LOL @ the typo.
Yes, he will will 18 slams or more to himself, just by thinking about the achievement. There's no need to actually play the tournaments if the Djoker can will himself into becoming the champion.
How's this even a question? He's easily going to get 40
He is on pace to match Wilander.
Somewhere around 10 most likely.
there's a lot of *********s lol
LOL, people don't even know how tough is to win a GS tournament.
Even in a homogeneous conditions era like the current one (where it is easier for the top top players, in my opinion, to inflate their nº of GS titles, finals, SF, QF,...), to win 10+ GS is very very difficult.
In about 34 years (from 1968 to about 2001, both included) of polarized conditions eras, only two players did it (Borg with 11 and Sampras with 14 ).
In about a decade of homogenous conditions era, another two players have done it (Federer with 17 and Nadal with 11 ).
Djokovic will probably get there, with 11 or 12 GS, but I think he is not winning 18 GS at all.
The only chance for him to achieve something like 15+ GS is Nadal not getting back to top-level and Murray stopping improving so that he could be head and shoulders the best player for the following 3 or 4 years (something similar to Federer 2004-2007 seasons).
He can definitely win 40. And I'm glad so many people agree, because anything less would be underrating Djokovic.
Interesting. Do you still hold the same sentiments now, 3 years later?
Now I think his chances of surpassing Nadal are more remote than what they were in 2013
Even if Nadal doesn't win another one, 4 Slams is a lot of Slams for someone who's almost 29
It's possible until he hangs it up.
It will be less and less likely every time he loses a Grand Slam.
This is a strange thread to start in 2013 when he was struggling to maintain dominance post 2011, even if he was mostly ranked #1. I would expect threads like this at the end of 2011, or today, but not sometime in 2013.
LOL at Djokovic having a hard time winning another 4 slams. 4 slams is the absolute minimum realistically.
To be fair, this was made at the very start of 2013 when he won Australia for the 4th time. Nadal was still injured, Murray was not too much of a threat, Federer was getting older, and he started the season off great, so I guess people were feeling optimistic that he would dominate again.
Do I need to remind you he won a total of 3 Slams in 2012-2014?
Too many wasted opportunities for Djoko in his prime
do i need to remind you that the tour had a pulse in 2012-2014?
He had much tougher competition in 2012 and 2013 than he does the next 2-3 years. You forget he was losing many of those slams to Nadal (4 in fact) for starters, 3 of those at RG. Hard to fault him for that.
I would just contain my enthusiasm for a bit. At right around this age Fed fans (2010) and Nadal fans (2014) both thought their guys would win a ton of Slams.
I cant speak for others, but I thought Nadal was almost done winning slams after his 2014 RG title. He looked pretty mediocre even in winning there. I would have guessed 2 more slams for Federer right after the 2010 Australian Open (1 more after say the 2010 U.S Open) and like I always am was pretty much right on the mark. For Djokovic I would give the range of a lowest possible of 15 and a highest possible of 20. Given my extremely high end intelligence and immense tennis knowledge (despite being even more knowledgable in the areas of football, yoga, and a few other things than tennis), and that I give myself a pretty large and safe range without being bold or more specific, it is pretty much a certain guarantee it will be somewhere in that range. Where exactly we will find out. Yes though worst case Djokovic will end up with 15 slams, which in worst case would tie Nadal in the unlikely event Nadal wins another slam (thus for them to even be tied in slam wins requires 2 unlikely events, only 4 more slams for Djokovic, and another slam for Nadal).
If only you joined before 2010 so we could actually dig up your posts where you were making those predictions about Fed and Nadal.
Especially at TTW where unless you have just won a major without dropping a set then you suck and need to retire immediately.
I have no problems admitting when I was wrong about something (extremely rare given my high end intelligence and depth of tennis knowledge, but it does happen). I have no problem admitting I would have only predicted 3 or 4 slams for Djokovic at the end of 2010, and definitely never winning Wimbledon, so that is one rare instance even I was wrong. Everyone will be wrong sometimes, from the most intelligent individuals like myself, to the very bottom feeders in intellect and tennis knowledge such as TMF, and everyone in between.
I also have no problem admitting I was wrong and an idiot to trust Boston Rob during my Survivor stint. On my vote off episode I had 110% certainly that Rob and Phillip were going to go along with what they told me about voting off Natalie T and didn't even remotedly consider them voting me out instead, so that is another example of when I was extremely wrong in what I believed would happen, and openly admit it. It happens even to the best of us.
There was genuine feeling that 2013 was going to be an epic year after that AO, that is correct, even from non-Djoker fans and neutral tennis commentators.
Nobody expected that Nadal resurgence so quickly, or Murray at Wimby etc.
Even after that 2013 RG loss it was expected he would bound back quickly. (not take until Wimby 2014!). Nadal's stunning 2013 hard court summer caught everyone off guard too.
But, the OP was still very optimistic for a then 6 Slam champion.
I always expected him to get to 10-12 Slams, but in a slightly different and more consistent fashion.
He may well exceed this, but he has done more than enough already.
I am sick of this topic. I know I am partly at fault since while I don't start the discussion I give my views and evaluate pros and cons and odds in depth for no reason other than that is what I like to do in general. Lets not even discuss it until Novak gets to 15 ok please. I would rather discuss his current tennis and everyone elses current tennis, and the interesting things going on in the game NOW then the Novak 18 or more slams for the 1000th time (then again maybe the overdoing of this topic is a sad reflection of the lack of decent storylines in the game today).
again you keep ignoring the big ass elephant in the room. Nadal might have been down around the 2010 AO but he was still a very real threat. Djokovic and Murray weren't looking great but still around. Granted no one predicted that 2010 would turn up like that but it was very possible and even likely that Nadal would return to #1 before long. Djoker might have been down around the 2014 FO but he was still a very real threat. Everyone is down right now and no one is a real threat.
20 is a given now.
Just noticed this now. I think he has a good shot at reaching 12. He might even go beyond 12.
Separate names with a comma.