Will some tennis player ever win 30 Grand Slams?

Will some male tennis player ever win 30 Grand Slams?

  • Untestable, therefore irrelevant.

    Votes: 18 28.6%

  • Most likely yes, but it won't make him the GOAT.

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Most likely yes, and it will make him the GOAT.

    Votes: 17 27.0%

  • No one will ever win 30 Grand Slams.

    Votes: 27 42.9%
  • Total voters
    63
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
For the sake of fun, let us discuss an untestable, therefore irrelevant, topic. This won't be a serious tennis discussion, just a fun talk.

We are in 2019, in what many regard as the greatest tennis era ever. The Big 3 era, which encompasses the domination period of 2003-2019. The Big 3 have won 55 Slams together between 2003 and 2019.

Now, imagine what Federer and Djokovic would have won without Nadal: they could have won 5 RG each one approximately. And Nadal could have won 7 Wimbledon titles approximately and 5 US Open titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Federer without Nadal and Djokovic would have won over 30 Slams. Nadal would also end up winning over 30 Slams without facing Federer and Djokovic. Even Djokovic could potentially win over 30 Slams if he had never faced Federer and Nadal (remember Djokovic lost 6 times to Nadal at RG, 2 times to Nadal at the USO, 3 times when he was younger agaisnt Federer at the USO, and has also lost to Federer at RG, WB and the AO).

My point is: they stopped each other from achieving 5 Slams on each surface and winning over 30 Slams.

So do you think that at some point in the following 10.000 years or so, some player in the future will take advantage of a future weak era and will win 30 or more Grand Slams? Can someone win 5 Slams on each surface? And would that make him the GOAT or there is no GOAT because it is impossible to compare different eras?

Discuss/disgust.
 
Unlikely. But what if some years down the line Asia gets another slam? Things could change. We never know what the future holds.
 
Sport said:
For the sake of fun, let us discuss an untestable, therefore irrelevant, topic. This won't be a serious tennis discussion, just a fun talk.

We are in 2019, in what many regard as the greatest tennis era ever. The Big 3 era, which encompasses the domination period of 2003-2019. The Big 3 have won 55 Slams together between 2003 and 2019.

Now, imagine what Federer and Djokovic would have won without Nadal: they could have won 5 RG each one approximately. And Nadal could have won 7 Wimbledon titles approximately and 5 US Open titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Federer without Nadal and Djokovic would have won over 30 Slams. Nadal would also end up winning over 30 Slams without facing Federer and Djokovic. Even Djokovic could potentially win over 30 Slams if he had never faced Federer and Nadal (remember Djokovic lost 6 times to Nadal at RG, 2 times to Nadal at the USO, 3 times when he was younger agaisnt Federer at the USO, and has also lost to Federer at RG, WB and the AO).

My point is: they stopped each other from achieving 5 Slams on each surface and winning over 30 Slams.

So do you think that at some point in the following 10.000 years or so, some player in the future will take advantage of a future weak era and will win 30 or more Grand Slams? Can someone win 5 Slams on each surface? And would that make him the GOAT or there is no GOAT because it is impossible to compare different eras?

Discuss/disgust.
Click to expand...
If Fed wins WTF he will have 30 slams no? 20 + 7 + 3

r4kv8jua5645f21914612309962391.gif
 
Spider said:
Unlikely. But what if some years down the line Asia gets another slam? Things could change. We never know what the future holds.
Click to expand...
James P said:
Maybe if there is a 5th slam down the line. But that would water down the record. InB4 Cinci
Click to expand...
Interesting. But I meant specifically in a hypothetical scenario with only 4 Slams. Of course with an Asian 5th Slam the comparison between eras would be impossible (if it is not impossible already). But as I said, my question was if do you think someone will win 30 Slams in the current format with only 4 Slams in the calendar and taking advantage of having little competition in a "weak era" with no other dominant player.

History indicates that it is unlikely as there has always been a rival for a dominant player. Laver had Rosewall and to a lesser degree Emerson. Borg had McEnroe. Sampras had Agassi. The Big 3 were playing against each other.
 
Sport said:
Interesting. But I meant specifically in a hypothetical scenario with only 4 Slams. Of course with an Asian 5th Slam the comparison between eras would be impossible (if it is not impossible already). But as I said, my question was if do you think someone will win 30 Slams in the current format with only 4 Slams in the calendar and taking advantage of having little competition in a "weak era" with no other dominant player.

History indicates that it is unlikely as there has always been a rival for a dominant player. Laver had Rosewall and to a lesser degree Emerson. Borg had McEnroe. Sampras had Agassi. The Big 3 were playing against each other.
Click to expand...
20 is a daunting enough task. Then you want someone to do 150% of that? I voted no. On a long enough timeline, anything is possible, but I don't see it happening.
 
StANDAA said:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. This one is testable, provable AND relevant.
Click to expand...
It may not be untestable for future generations from 10.000 years from now. But it is still untestable to us, as it refers to a distant future.
 
Sport said:
For the sake of fun, let us discuss an untestable, therefore irrelevant, topic. This won't be a serious tennis discussion, just a fun talk.

We are in 2019, in what many regard as the greatest tennis era ever. The Big 3 era, which encompasses the domination period of 2003-2019. The Big 3 have won 55 Slams together between 2003 and 2019.

Now, imagine what Federer and Djokovic would have won without Nadal: they could have won 5 RG each one approximately. And Nadal could have won 7 Wimbledon titles approximately and 5 US Open titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Federer without Nadal and Djokovic would have won over 30 Slams. Nadal would also end up winning over 30 Slams without facing Federer and Djokovic. Even Djokovic could potentially win over 30 Slams if he had never faced Federer and Nadal (remember Djokovic lost 6 times to Nadal at RG, 2 times to Nadal at the USO, 3 times when he was younger agaisnt Federer at the USO, and has also lost to Federer at RG, WB and the AO).

My point is: they stopped each other from achieving 5 Slams on each surface and winning over 30 Slams.

So do you think that at some point in the following 10.000 years or so, some player in the future will take advantage of a future weak era and will win 30 or more Grand Slams? Can someone win 5 Slams on each surface? And would that make him the GOAT or there is no GOAT because it is impossible to compare different eras?

Discuss/disgust.
Click to expand...

Martina has 59
Court has 62
 
Sport said:
It may not be untestable for future generations from 10.000 years from now. But it is still untestable to us, as it refers to a distant future.
Click to expand...

when it’s vaguely formulated like that it’s unclear. If you had asked whether someone would win 30 GS in the next 100 years, it’s definitely testable.

It may not be testable even for future generations in 10k years if the question is "will someone ever win GS" and there will still be no one like that by then
 
Unfortunately for Federer, two other great players had to come along and deprive him of this great honor.
Back in the real world, probably not, not unless an era comes along that makes even this schmucky glock and Fed's gooftroopers look like gods
 
If the tennis tour continues in its current format of four slams per year for 10,000 years, it is almost certain that some man will win 30+ singles slams. But it is even more close to certainty that the tennis tour will not continue in its current format - or even in any format - for 10,000 years.
 
Sport said:
It may not be untestable for future generations from 10.000 years from now. But it is still untestable to us, as it refers to a distant future.
Click to expand...
StANDAA said:
when it’s vaguely formulated like that it’s unclear. If you had asked whether someone would win 30 GS in the next 100 years, it’s definitely testable.

It may not be testable even for future generations in 10k years if the question is "will someone ever win GS" and there will still be no one like that by then
Click to expand...
helterskelter said:
If the tennis tour continues in its current format of four slams per year for 10,000 years, it is almost certain that some man will win 30+ singles slams. But it is even more close to certainty that the tennis tour will not continue in its current format - or even in any format - for 10,000 years.
Click to expand...
First: There will be no humans on earth in 100 years.

Secondly: In 10,000 years, Rafa will be winning RG on planet Terra (dirt planet), Fed will be winning on planet Prairie (grass planet), and Djoker will be eating the grass on planet Prairie.

Thirdly: Next gen will be winning Virtual slam on the Oculus Headset on the space station.
 
SaintPetros said:
Unfortunately for Federer, two other great players had to come along and deprive him of this great honor.
Back in the real world, probably not, not unless an era comes along that makes even this schmucky glock and Fed's gooftroopers look like gods
Click to expand...
But then on the other hand,how long ago would Federer have retired if not for Nadal and Djokovic? I mean,I know he loves the sport but in a scenario where he has 20 slams at 30 or younger,I can't see what drives him when he has all the records and no one breathing down his neck.
 
Sport said:
For the sake of fun, let us discuss an untestable, therefore irrelevant, topic. This won't be a serious tennis discussion, just a fun talk.

We are in 2019, in what many regard as the greatest tennis era ever. The Big 3 era, which encompasses the domination period of 2003-2019. The Big 3 have won 55 Slams together between 2003 and 2019.

Now, imagine what Federer and Djokovic would have won without Nadal: they could have won 5 RG each one approximately. And Nadal could have won 7 Wimbledon titles approximately and 5 US Open titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Federer without Nadal and Djokovic would have won over 30 Slams. Nadal would also end up winning over 30 Slams without facing Federer and Djokovic. Even Djokovic could potentially win over 30 Slams if he had never faced Federer and Nadal (remember Djokovic lost 6 times to Nadal at RG, 2 times to Nadal at the USO, 3 times when he was younger agaisnt Federer at the USO, and has also lost to Federer at RG, WB and the AO).

My point is: they stopped each other from achieving 5 Slams on each surface and winning over 30 Slams.

So do you think that at some point in the following 10.000 years or so, some player in the future will take advantage of a future weak era and will win 30 or more Grand Slams? Can someone win 5 Slams on each surface? And would that make him the GOAT or there is no GOAT because it is impossible to compare different eras?

Discuss/disgust.
Click to expand...
If Nadal and Djokovic didn't exist, Federer would've probably retired soon after passing Sampras' 14. No way would he be still in the sport trying to compete for Slams at this age. You need real competition to stay sharp, hungry and motivated. Same applies to Nadal. He probably would've left by age 27-28.
 
With the surface specialists a thing of the past and top players gunning for 4 slams every year -especially when Big 3 retire,this is very much possible
 
Nadal will probably end up somewhere close to 25 Slemz and that having 2 top tier ATGs as his rivals. So I’d say 30 Slemz is highly likely if we put a player of Big3 level into a vacuum era like 2003-2007 for ~10 years.
 
If you lifted one of those three fellas out of history then there's a pretty decent chance that one of the other two would have done it. As fitness, and training, and general human evolution continues to improve, and if the slams continue to play as relatively similarly as they do, if the skillsets required to succeed at them remain as relatively one dimensional as they are, and of course if more slams are added... Then, sure. Doesn't seem unthinkable.
 
I'd say yes, we only need 1 above average player to dominate, in this era we got 3 so they took their slice of the cake but if in 3 years some ATG arrived to the circuit he would face almost no resistance at any tournament, I'm not talking Big3 level, if Murray appeared today with 19 years of age I think he facing the current field would have a decent chance of reaching 30 Slams.
 
Yugram said:
Nadal will probably end up somewhere close to 25 Slemz and that having 2 top tier ATGs as his rivals. So I’d say 30 Slemz is highly likely if we put a player of Big3 level into a vacuum era like 2003-2007 for ~10 years.
Click to expand...
You forgot to add 'while sustaining more injuries than any other player in history'.
 
Sport said:
For the sake of fun, let us discuss an untestable, therefore irrelevant, topic. This won't be a serious tennis discussion, just a fun talk.

We are in 2019, in what many regard as the greatest tennis era ever. The Big 3 era, which encompasses the domination period of 2003-2019. The Big 3 have won 55 Slams together between 2003 and 2019.

Now, imagine what Federer and Djokovic would have won without Nadal: they could have won 5 RG each one approximately. And Nadal could have won 7 Wimbledon titles approximately and 5 US Open titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Federer without Nadal and Djokovic would have won over 30 Slams. Nadal would also end up winning over 30 Slams without facing Federer and Djokovic. Even Djokovic could potentially win over 30 Slams if he had never faced Federer and Nadal (remember Djokovic lost 6 times to Nadal at RG, 2 times to Nadal at the USO, 3 times when he was younger agaisnt Federer at the USO, and has also lost to Federer at RG, WB and the AO).

My point is: they stopped each other from achieving 5 Slams on each surface and winning over 30 Slams.

So do you think that at some point in the following 10.000 years or so, some player in the future will take advantage of a future weak era and will win 30 or more Grand Slams? Can someone win 5 Slams on each surface? And would that make him the GOAT or there is no GOAT because it is impossible to compare different eras?

Discuss/disgust.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of the big 3 would have won 30 without the others due to motivation. For sure the chase keep them in the game and on edge.

Now that the goal post is at 20+, the next player of their calibre could do it, because the motivation will there to beat the record. Provided that there is no big change in the rules, surface variety or seeding system.
 
"Untestable, therefore unprovable, therefore irrelevant."
Can I get this on a t-shirt?
Actually, this useful saying only would seem to apply for hypothetical matches that have "happened", not for projections into the future - which are, by their nature, untestable. No?

Anyway, there is something to the premise (while unprovable) that any one of the three "goats" could have possibly racked up 30 slams were not for the other two. Looking ahead, I won't rule it out, but I don't see it happening in the next 50 or so years. It would require someone being dominant enough - and healthy and motivated enough - to win, say, two slams per year for 15 years. Now, in the 9,940 years after that...sure, why not?
 
Smith-Court won 24 Majors and lost 5 Finals.
Serena has won 23 Majors and lost 10 Finals.
Evert won 18 Majors and lost 16 Finals.
Navratilova won 18 and lost 14.
Federer has won 20 and lost 11.
Nadal has won 18 and lost 8.
Djokovic has won 16 and lost 9.

Could a player achieve a 15 year Professional Career and win at least 2 Major Titles every year? I think it is possible depending on the competition.

I can't see it happening with the current crop of 20yo players.(Although the young fellow Jannik Sinner might give it a shake)
 
Sport said:
For the sake of fun, let us discuss an untestable, therefore irrelevant, topic. This won't be a serious tennis discussion, just a fun talk.

We are in 2019, in what many regard as the greatest tennis era ever. The Big 3 era, which encompasses the domination period of 2003-2019. The Big 3 have won 55 Slams together between 2003 and 2019.

Now, imagine what Federer and Djokovic would have won without Nadal: they could have won 5 RG each one approximately. And Nadal could have won 7 Wimbledon titles approximately and 5 US Open titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Federer without Nadal and Djokovic would have won over 30 Slams. Nadal would also end up winning over 30 Slams without facing Federer and Djokovic. Even Djokovic could potentially win over 30 Slams if he had never faced Federer and Nadal (remember Djokovic lost 6 times to Nadal at RG, 2 times to Nadal at the USO, 3 times when he was younger agaisnt Federer at the USO, and has also lost to Federer at RG, WB and the AO).

My point is: they stopped each other from achieving 5 Slams on each surface and winning over 30 Slams.

So do you think that at some point in the following 10.000 years or so, some player in the future will take advantage of a future weak era and will win 30 or more Grand Slams? Can someone win 5 Slams on each surface? And would that make him the GOAT or there is no GOAT because it is impossible to compare different eras?

Discuss/disgust.
Click to expand...
Good post OP. My hypothesis is YES. The reason for that is lack of depth in the field in general. Which makes it easy for one GREAT player to dominate.
As you correctly said, Fed/Nadal/Djoko are unlucky to be in the same era. They would have won more had they been playing before or after.

The real problem is that we don't have enough talent overall in tennis amongst all players. Think about the field of the 80s and 90s. It was impossible for one player to keep winning slams because there were too many good players.
I mean it's crazy when a 38 year old octogenarian Fed or a 33 years old battered Nadal - still THRASH players who are 10+ years younger.
The reason Fed/Nadal/Djoker keep on winning is not ONLY because they are good, but also because the field sucks. The best athletes NO LONGER come to tennis, and the next-gen/new-gen etc are NOT good enough. That's why even old diminished Fedalovic keep dominating.

It's a natural law of the universe that the young devour the old. But in Tennis this seems to have been subverted.
My fear is the problem will be exacerbated in the future. There will be a further lack of depth.
One future GREAT player who cares a lot will win 30 slams. No one else would really meaningfully compete. Tennis will be uninteresting and die a slow death.
 
TennisFan3 said:
Good post OP. My hypothesis is YES. The reason for that is lack of depth in the field in general. Which makes it easy for one GREAT player to dominate.
As you correctly said, Fed/Nadal/Djoko are unlucky to be in the same era. They would have won more had they been playing before or after.

The real problem is that we don't have enough talent overall in tennis amongst all players. Think about the field of the 80s and 90s. It was impossible for one player to keep winning slams because there were too many good players.
I mean it's crazy when a 38 year old octogenarian Fed or a 33 years old battered Nadal - still THRASH players who are 10+ years younger.
The reason Fed/Nadal/Djoker keep on winning is not ONLY because they are good, but also because the field sucks. The best athletes NO LONGER come to tennis, and the next-gen/new-gen etc are NOT good enough. That's why even old diminished Fedalovic keep dominating.

It's a natural law of the universe that the young devour the old. But in Tennis this seems to have been subverted.
My fear is the problem will be exacerbated in the future. There will be a further lack of depth.
One future GREAT player who cares a lot will win 30 slams. No one else would really meaningfully compete. Tennis will be uninteresting and die a slow death.
Click to expand...
Your comment is immeasurably profound, as you defined exactly the real, obscure and unconfessable reason why this scenario is not so implaussible as it should be. As you coment with accurate precission, there is a giant lack of talent and tennis is dying, in the sense that it will no longer have a popularity remotely comparable to these golden years. It requires millenials for individuals with the genius and talent of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic to be born. Just like there is only one Aristotle, Da Vinci or Einstein every 1.000 years, there should be only one Federer, Nadal or Djokovic every 1.000 years. Yet we get to observe a gigantic anomaly, a macroscopical coincidence: the three most talented and powerful tennis players to ever exist playing in the same era.

One player will be born and, in the absence of real talent, will vulture 30 Majors. Without any meaningful competence, he will achieve the highest Year End #1 ranking, 5 Slams on each surface, etc. The real question, I believe, is what will be the consequences of it? Will this hypothetical player be considered the undisputable GOAT or will people put an asterisk to his legacy because of the weak competition?

Examples from other sports:

The legendary Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game and 25 rebounds per game in 1962. Unfortunately for him, many people put an asterisk to his legacy because they presume he faced a relatively weak competition, and so he is not considered the basketball GOAT by the majority of basketball fans.

Emmanuel Lasker was World Chess Champion 27 years between 1894 and 1921. Surprisingly, he is typically ignored in GOAT discussions, presumably because of the competition he faced.
 
Last edited:
helterskelter said:
If the tennis tour continues in its current format of four slams per year for 10,000 years, it is almost certain that some man will win 30+ singles slams. But it is even more close to certainty that the tennis tour will not continue in its current format - or even in any format - for 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

Even closer to certainty is that, in 10,000 years, Nadal's Roland Garros record (at least 12 titles) will still stand.
 
For whatever reason the Goat syndrome seems to focus on slams. Question, Is that the best way to evaluate the greats? Wat about career wins or career titles? If we took that into consideration might we talk more about Conners? I am not saying I consider him the best of all time, but if you get past the one type of title mania there might be an interesting debate
 
Medvedev is not as good as Rafa and Federer, but he's as good as Djokovic.
And I think Djokovic would have won 30 slams if Rafa/Federer did not exist.
So I think Medvedev can win 30 slams :) but only if none of the players in his generation turn into a Rafa/Federer-type player.
But each decade tends to have a couple of all-time greats, so Medvedev probably will run into a rival at some point that could slow him down....
Impossible to predict, but Medvedev is good enough to cash-in if he find himself in a weak era, that is for sure.
 
Tough to say. But it this homogenised surfaces era all you'd need is a talent of Nad/Fed/Djok caliber and weak competition. Because the three of them took slams away from each other during the las 10-12 years.
 
Grand slam title, 30+ ? yes, that's already been done. Martina Navratilova won 18 GS singles, 31 GS womens doubles, and 10 GS mixed doubles - 59 total which has to make her a better candidate for the greatest of all time over the men's big three. Not as impressive as Margaret Court - (24 singles, 19 doubles, 21 mixed doubles) - GOAT!

To win 30+ mens singles GS, another Fed/Nadal/Djokovic will have to surface with no rivals or injuries. Seems unlikely and would be horrible for tennis.
 
Raphael Nadal said:
Medvedev is not as good as Rafa and Federer, but he's as good as Djokovic.
And I think Djokovic would have won 30 slams if Rafa/Federer did not exist.
So I think Medvedev can win 30 slams :) but only if none of the players in his generation turn into a Rafa/Federer-type player.
But each decade tends to have a couple of all-time greats, so Medvedev probably will run into a rival at some point that could slow him down....
Impossible to predict, but Medvedev is good enough to cash-in if he find himself in a weak era, that is for sure.
Click to expand...
I like Med's game, but to flatly say that he's as good as Djokovic is incredibly premature. I'll be surprised if he doesn't win at least a few HC majors in his career, but still don't have a strong sense of how he'll fare on grass and clay.

(And if he's as good as Djokovic (who he more resembles as a player), he's as good as Roger and Rafa, too.)!
 
If a player does it I think it would be a female, not a male. Court could have possibly done it had she not taken periods of time off to have all of her kids.
 
Sport said:
Your comment is immeasurably profound, as you defined exactly the real, obscure and inconfessable reason why this scenario is not so implausible as it should be. As you comment with accurate precision, there is a giant lack of talent and tennis is dying, in the sense that it will no longer have a popularity remotely comparable to these golden years. It requires millenials for individuals with the genius and talent of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic to be born. Just like there is only one Aristotle, Da Vinci or Einstein every 1.000 years, there should be only one Federer, Nadal or Djokovic every 1.000 years. Yet we get to observe a gigantic anomaly, a macroscopical coincidence: the three most talented and powerful tennis players to ever exist playing in the same era.

One player will be born and, in the absence of real talent, will vulture 30 Majors. Without any meaningful competence, he will achieve the highest Year End #1 ranking, 5 Slams on each surface, etc. The real question, I believe, is what will be the consequences of it? Will this hypothetical player be considered the undisputable GOAT or will people put an asterisk to his legacy because of the weak competition?

Examples from other sports:

The legendary Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game and 25 rebounds per game in 1962. Unfortunately for him, many people put an asterisk to his legacy because they presume he faced a relatively weak competition, and so he is not considered the basketball GOAT by the majority of basketball fans.

Emmanuel Lasker was World Chess Champion 27 years between 1894 and 1921. Surprisingly, he is typically ignored in GOAT discussions, presumably because of the competition he faced.
Click to expand...
Excellent post again. Those are very important points. Thanks for sharing.
That's why I figured that GOAT discussions are futile. A slam in a weak era is different from the one in a strong era.
The level of play, quality of opposition etc all matter.

And as you know, # of slams never used to be the biggest criteria to measure GOATness. Most of the earlier players did not even play the AO. They never considered # of slams as a benchmark to anything.
It was Pete Sampras - who was almost the first player to focus on that. He won 14 slams and retired when he figured it was enough. Had he (and players such as Borg etc) made slams a priority - they would have won more.
Now Fedalvoic are chasing # of slams alone. Once they retire there will another player who takes Fedalovic as a benchmark and aims to better them, and considering the state of competition probably will..
 
Sudacafan said:
Federer mental disorder is serious and needs to be properly diagnosed. Please do your homework and return to this arena later.
Click to expand...
Hey I'm a rog fan and definitely not trolling him.
Despite outplaying his opponent throughout the entire match, feder has often failed to capitalize on big points, costing him 7-8 slams, and plenty of other big trophies...
The latest example of which is WIM19,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Do you remember that time when people here said that players over 30 won‘t win many slams?
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
abmk
abmk
M
Will any player ever win 6 of 7 Grand Slams again
Replies
6
Views
959
DSH
DSH
S'in-net
Winning consecutive Grand Slams...
2 3
Replies
115
Views
6K
itrium84
itrium84
Madinolf
Longest win streaks in Grand Slams from Big3
Replies
32
Views
1K
pj80
P
D
  • Poll Poll
which current atp player will win the most singles slams after turning 30?
Replies
5
Views
398
Tennisgods
T
Back
Top