Topic: How many grandslams will Nadal and Djokovic win by the end of their careers?

[monstertruck]

no signs of your girlfriend yet, alex......but i am sure she will be back.......she loves to tease and stir, that's it.......

yup  , I miss her. she is so smart and crazy at the same time ... just a woman I want 

S M A R T  +  C R A Z Y  =  k O O k I e

[tennisfan78]

Time to bring up this thread again after the completion of wimbledon. I have to be honest that I am surprised that Federer won this title and his 17th. He played well, and things worked out well for him in the end. Does he have another slam in him?   

[falcon]

Time to bring up this thread again after the completion of wimbledon. I have to be honest that I am surprised that Federer won this title and his 17th. He played well, and things worked out well for him in the end. Does he have another slam in him?

Certainly. If both Rafa and Nole aren't at their best, theres no consistent player out there that can beat Roger.

[Bazcovic]

Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro can all beat Federer.

[monstertruck]

The operative word in her statement was 'consistent'.

I love me some Jo Willie, Birdman is getting better, and DPot has serious game as well, but I don't consider any of them a consistent, serious threat like Nadal and Nole.

[Start da Game]

it is still 16 - 18 for nadal and 7 - 9 for djokovic.......

[swish]

I'm not sure for Nadal. He's playing good enough now to add to his totals.
 
He may also play this way for a few more years, he can also change his game some and shorten points.
 
There's a lot both Djokovic and Nadal can do, cut down scheduling is one but target slams.
 
Strange that none of the young guns have shown much, I thought by now there would be at least one or two that looks very good.
Where are they?
 
 

[monstertruck]

The gap between the top 3 or 4 players and the rest of the field is stunning.
I think it's a combination fo movement/dynamic balance, serve and ROS which set's these guys apart from the rest of the field.
I'd love to see the shot-makers like Jo Willie, Gulbis, Raonic, and crew step it up and challenge for slams but each lacks at least one of the necessary qualities required to push through 2 of the top 4 playas.

[tennisfan78]

The gap between the top 3 or 4 players and the rest of the field is stunning.
I think it's a combination fo movement/dynamic balance, serve and ROS which set's these guys apart from the rest of the field.
I'd love to see the shot-makers like Jo Willie, Gulbis, Raonic, and crew step it up and challenge for slams but each lacks at least one of the necessary qualities required to push through 2 of the top 4 playas.

Yeah, as you have mentioned before rest of the players lack consistency big time.  Jo Willie gives up so many points on his back hand side, Gulbis play awesome tennis only for two or three matches per year, Raonic stands way behind the baseline and eventually loses to better players.

Not sure who can challenge top 3 or 4 at the moment.

[oracle86]

I think Nadal will end up at 15 or more, while Djokovic will have around 10 atleast when he retires..

[Imsda]

I am not going to place it one number. I just think there going to win quite a few :P

[monstertruck]

I am not going to place it one number. I just think there going to win quite a few :P

I think you're right!

[Start da Game]

I am not going to place it one number. I just think there going to win quite a few :P

you can predict a range like i did.......

[jesse james]

Nadal -12 or13.
Djoko 8-10
Fed 17-18
Not only has Nadal not won a slam outside the french for 18 months, but as far as i know he hasn’t won a tournament outside of clay for about 18 months.
I think  his meeting Djoko on hard court in slams would favour Djoko. So while Nadal can win more French (and i’m assuming injury may be an ensuing factor in this) Djoko has the advantage in two of the four slams, allowing his slam tally to rise at a ratio of 2 to 1 over the next few years-and Djoko in scintllating form would even threaten Nadal at
the French.
How a much a factor a resurgent Federer is going to be it’s hard to know, but I don’t think he’ll be a dominant figure, let alone the primary slam winner in the next year or so-i predicted he’d win Wimbledon and I predict Djoko
will win the US Open.
Interestingly Nadal could get close to, equal or surpass Sampras’ slam tally, leaving Sampras 3rd in the all time list, who’d have even imagined that when Sampras won his last slam.   

[oracle86]

If Nole and Rafa play next year's RG final, I have a feeling it will go the distance.

[mav140]

Nadal -12 or13.
Djoko 8-10
Fed 17-18
Not only has Nadal not won a slam outside the french for 18 months, but as far as i know he hasn’t won a tournament outside of clay for about 18 months.
I think  his meeting Djoko on hard court in slams would favour Djoko. So while Nadal can win more French (and i’m assuming injury may be an ensuing factor in this) Djoko has the advantage in two of the four slams, allowing his slam tally to rise at a ratio of 2 to 1 over the next few years-and Djoko in scintllating form would even threaten Nadal at
the French.
How a much a factor a resurgent Federer is going to be it’s hard to know, but I don’t think he’ll be a dominant figure, let alone the primary slam winner in the next year or so-i predicted he’d win Wimbledon and I predict Djoko
will win the US Open.
Interestingly Nadal could get close to, equal or surpass Sampras’ slam tally, leaving Sampras 3rd in the all time list, who’d have even imagined that when Sampras won his last slam.

But Nadal is already in his 11th. GS.. so to assume he is only going to win 1 or 2 more slams in his career is a bit "drastic".. I think Nadal has still 3 RGs left in him.. But only time will tell.
I am rooting for Federer or Murray to take the USO.. if Murray can win USO in a final vs. Fed it would be just awesome!!!! that would mean 4 different players will hold a GS each... and that would just be great for tennis!! On the other hand.. it would be amazing if Federer can reach another USO and get his tally to 18..

One thing is for sure.. there is no way I am missing next year's wimbledon.. I want to watch Federer in action at least for the last time!!

[Emma]

Nadal -12 or13.
Djoko 8-10
Fed 17-18
Not only has Nadal not won a slam outside the french for 18 months, but as far as i know he hasn’t won a tournament outside of clay for about 18 months.
I think  his meeting Djoko on hard court in slams would favour Djoko. So while Nadal can win more French (and i’m assuming injury may be an ensuing factor in this) Djoko has the advantage in two of the four slams, allowing his slam tally to rise at a ratio of 2 to 1 over the next few years-and Djoko in scintllating form would even threaten Nadal at
the French.
How a much a factor a resurgent Federer is going to be it’s hard to know, but I don’t think he’ll be a dominant figure, let alone the primary slam winner in the next year or so-i predicted he’d win Wimbledon and I predict Djoko
will win the US Open.
Interestingly Nadal could get close to, equal or surpass Sampras’ slam tally, leaving Sampras 3rd in the all time list, who’d have even imagined that when Sampras won his last slam.

Hi Jesse, long time no see.

Anyway, re: the bolded part - well, that's mostly because from 2003 to 2010, the era saw only two top players going for everything and pretty much grabbing everything in sight, so it's no surprise there. That's along with surface homogenization, new racquet technology and a lack of competition in general since 2003. 

Federer was clearly the best player in his time (2003-2007) but the players he was faced with in that time period were simply not good enough with the exception of Safin and Nalbandian, but specifically Safin. He came at a time when all the great players were either in decline (Hewitt due to injuries, Agassi due to old age,) or into self-indulgence (Safin, Nalbandian etc.) or too young (Nadal, Nole and Andy), so Federer was basically left with a bunch of mediocre players.

The 2nd phase (2008-2010) saw the rise of Nadal who pretty much dominated the tour including Federer. It was no surprise there either when Federer took two more titles home in absence of Nadal (ousted by Soderling at 2009 RG followed by withdrawal from Wimbledon). Things only got tougher for the top two players in 2011 when Djokovic took himself to another level and grabbed 3 of the 4 majors in 2011 along and another one in 2012. Now both Federer and Nadal know that nothing is guaranteed with the rise of Nole.

Sampras in his time didn’t have things this easy. The first half of the 90 was one of the toughest eras of all time and the 2nd half also saw a lot more competition in each field be it clay or hard or grass. Even in early 00s, Sampras had to fight against young guns like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Federer.

Here's a list of the top seeds at Wimbledon in 2003 – Federer first Wimbledon title and first Slam. You can see Mark Phillippousis, the finalist, wasn't even seeded there. And you'll also notice a lot of the leftovers from the 90s.

1. Australia Lleyton Hewitt (First Round)
2. United States Andre Agassi (Fourth Round)
3. Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero (Fourth Round)
4. Switzerland Roger Federer (Champion)
5. United States Andy Roddick (Semifinals)
6. Argentina David Nalbandian (Fourth Round)
7. Argentina Guillermo Coria (First Round)
8. Netherlands Sjeng Schalken (Quarterfinals)
9. Germany Rainer Schüttler (Fourth Round)
10. United Kingdom Tim Henman (Quarterfinals)
11. Czech Republic Jiří Novák (Third Round)
12. Thailand Paradorn Srichaphan (Fourth Round)
13. France Sébastien Grosjean (Semifinals)
14. Belgium Xavier Malisse (First Round)
15. France Arnaud Clément (Second Round)
16. Russia Mikhail Youzhny (Second Round)
17. Brazil Gustavo Kuerten (Second Round)
18. n/a
19. Chile Fernando González (First Round)
20. Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov (First Round)
21. Netherlands Martin Verkerk (First Round)
22. Spain Félix Mantilla (First Round)
23. Argentina Agustín Calleri (Second Round)
24. n/a
25. Spain Tommy Robredo (Third Round)
26. United States James Blake (Second Round)
27. Morocco Younes El Aynaoui (Third Round)
28. South Africa Wayne Ferreira (First Round)
29. Argentina Gastón Gaudio (First Round)
30. Finland Jarkko Nieminen (Third Round)
31. United States Vincent Spadea (First Round)
32. Argentina Juan Ignacio Chela (Second Round)
33. Russia Nikolay Davydenko (First Round)
34. Czech Republic Radek Štěpánek (Third Round)

So Federer had to beat M. Phillippousis, A. Roddick, S. Schalken, F. Lopez, M. Fish, S. Koubek and H T Lee to win his first Grand Slam and his first Wimbledon. And he was 22 at that time.

On the other hand, in 1990, Sampras had to beat A. Agassi, J. McEnroe, E. Lendl, T. Muster, J. Hlasek, P. Lundgren, D. Goldie to win his first Grand Slam. And he was 19 at that time.

And here's the top 16 seeds of 1990 USO:

1. Sweden Stefan Edberg (First round)
2. West Germany Boris Becker (Semifinalist)
3. Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (Quarterfinalist)
4. United States Andre Agassi (Finalist)
5. Ecuador Andrés Gómez (First round)
6. Austria Thomas Muster (Fourth round)
7. Spain Emilio Sánchez (Fourth round)
8. United States Brad Gilbert (Third round)
9. United States Aaron Krickstein (Quarterfinalist)
10. Soviet Union Andrei Chesnokov (Third round)
11. United States Michael Chang (Third round)
12. United States Pete Sampras (Champion)
13. United States Jay Berger (Fourth round)
14. United States Jim Courier (Second round)
15. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Goran Ivanišević (Third round)
16. Argentina Martín Jaite (Second round)

[mav140]

Nadal -12 or13.
Djoko 8-10
Fed 17-18
Not only has Nadal not won a slam outside the french for 18 months, but as far as i know he hasn’t won a tournament outside of clay for about 18 months.
I think  his meeting Djoko on hard court in slams would favour Djoko. So while Nadal can win more French (and i’m assuming injury may be an ensuing factor in this) Djoko has the advantage in two of the four slams, allowing his slam tally to rise at a ratio of 2 to 1 over the next few years-and Djoko in scintllating form would even threaten Nadal at
the French.
How a much a factor a resurgent Federer is going to be it’s hard to know, but I don’t think he’ll be a dominant figure, let alone the primary slam winner in the next year or so-i predicted he’d win Wimbledon and I predict Djoko
will win the US Open.
Interestingly Nadal could get close to, equal or surpass Sampras’ slam tally, leaving Sampras 3rd in the all time list, who’d have even imagined that when Sampras won his last slam.

Hi Jesse, long time no see.

Anyway, re: the bolded part - well, that's mostly because from 2003 to 2010, the era saw only two top players going for everything and pretty much grabbing everything in sight, so it's no surprise there. That's along with surface homogenization, new racquet technology and a lack of competition in general since 2003. 

Federer was clearly the best player in his time (2003-2007) but the players he was faced with in that time period were simply not good enough with the exception of Safin and Nalbandian, but specifically Safin. He came at a time when all the great players were either in decline (Hewitt due to injuries, Agassi due to old age,) or into self-indulgence (Safin, Nalbandian etc.) or too young (Nadal, Nole and Andy), so Federer was basically left with a bunch of mediocre players.

The 2nd phase (2008-2010) saw the rise of Nadal who pretty much dominated the tour including Federer. It was no surprise there either when Federer took two more titles home in absence of Nadal (ousted by Soderling at 2009 RG followed by withdrawal from Wimbledon). Things only got tougher for the top two players in 2011 when Djokovic took himself to another level and grabbed 3 of the 4 majors in 2011 along and another one in 2012. Now both Federer and Nadal know that nothing is guaranteed with the rise of Nole.

Sampras in his time didn’t have things this easy. The first half of the 90 was one of the toughest eras of all time and the 2nd half also saw a lot more competition in each field be it clay or hard or grass. Even in early 00s, Sampras had to fight against young guns like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Federer.

Here's a list of the top seeds at Wimbledon in 2003 – Federer first Wimbledon title and first Slam. You can see Mark Phillippousis, the finalist, wasn't even seeded there. And you'll also notice a lot of the leftovers from the 90s.

1. Australia Lleyton Hewitt (First Round)
2. United States Andre Agassi (Fourth Round)
3. Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero (Fourth Round)
4. Switzerland Roger Federer (Champion)
5. United States Andy Roddick (Semifinals)
6. Argentina David Nalbandian (Fourth Round)
7. Argentina Guillermo Coria (First Round)
8. Netherlands Sjeng Schalken (Quarterfinals)
9. Germany Rainer Schüttler (Fourth Round)
10. United Kingdom Tim Henman (Quarterfinals)
11. Czech Republic Jiří Novák (Third Round)
12. Thailand Paradorn Srichaphan (Fourth Round)
13. France Sébastien Grosjean (Semifinals)
14. Belgium Xavier Malisse (First Round)
15. France Arnaud Clément (Second Round)
16. Russia Mikhail Youzhny (Second Round)
17. Brazil Gustavo Kuerten (Second Round)
18. n/a
19. Chile Fernando González (First Round)
20. Russia Yevgeny Kafelnikov (First Round)
21. Netherlands Martin Verkerk (First Round)
22. Spain Félix Mantilla (First Round)
23. Argentina Agustín Calleri (Second Round)
24. n/a
25. Spain Tommy Robredo (Third Round)
26. United States James Blake (Second Round)
27. Morocco Younes El Aynaoui (Third Round)
28. South Africa Wayne Ferreira (First Round)
29. Argentina Gastón Gaudio (First Round)
30. Finland Jarkko Nieminen (Third Round)
31. United States Vincent Spadea (First Round)
32. Argentina Juan Ignacio Chela (Second Round)
33. Russia Nikolay Davydenko (First Round)
34. Czech Republic Radek Štěpánek (Third Round)

So Federer had to beat M. Phillippousis, A. Roddick, S. Schalken, F. Lopez, M. Fish, S. Koubek and H T Lee to win his first Grand Slam and his first Wimbledon. And he was 22 at that time.

On the other hand, in 1990, Sampras had to beat A. Agassi, J. McEnroe, E. Lendl, T. Muster, J. Hlasek, P. Lundgren, D. Goldie to win his first Grand Slam. And he was 19 at that time.

And here's the top 16 seeds of 1990 USO:

1. Sweden Stefan Edberg (First round)
2. West Germany Boris Becker (Semifinalist)
3. Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (Quarterfinalist)
4. United States Andre Agassi (Finalist)
5. Ecuador Andrés Gómez (First round)
6. Austria Thomas Muster (Fourth round)
7. Spain Emilio Sánchez (Fourth round)
8. United States Brad Gilbert (Third round)
9. United States Aaron Krickstein (Quarterfinalist)
10. Soviet Union Andrei Chesnokov (Third round)
11. United States Michael Chang (Third round)
12. United States Pete Sampras (Champion)
13. United States Jay Berger (Fourth round)
14. United States Jim Courier (Second round)
15. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Goran Ivanišević (Third round)
16. Argentina Martín Jaite (Second round)

LOOL... here we go again!!! 

[Emma]

^^Typical fanboy reaction, Mav. Also, was there any need quoting my post since it was just there right before?

Anyway, after Sampras won his first slam at the US Open, he had to wait more than two years to get his 2nd Slam and that’s purely because the field he was playing at that time was extremely tough with far too many legends playing around the same time. Below I put together the first three years of Slams winners of that era followed by the next era led by Federer

Start of Sampras' era:
 
1991
Australian Open: Ivan Lendl defeated Boris Becker
French Open: Jim Courier defeated Andre Agassi
Wimbledon: Michael Stich defeated Boris Becker
US Open: Stefan Edberg defeated Jim Courier
 
1992
Australian Open: Boris Becker defeated Jim Courier
French Open: Jim Courier defeated Petr Korda
Wimbledon: Andre Agassi defeated Goran Ivanisevic
US Open: Stefan Edberg defeated Pete Sampras
 
1993
Australian Open: Jim Courier defeated Stefan Edberg
French Open: Sergi Bruguera defeated Jim Courier
Wimbledon: Pete Sampras defeated Jim Courier
US Open: Pete Sampras defeated Cedric Pioline

 
Start of Federer era:
 
2003
Australian Open: Andre Agassi defeated Rainer Schüttler
French Open: Juan Carlos Ferrero defeated Martin Verkerk
Wimbledon: Roger Federer defeated Mark Phillippoussis
US Open: Andy Roddick defeated Juan Carlos Ferrerro
 
2004
Australian Open: Roger Federer defeated Marat Safin
French Open: Gaston Gaudio defeated Guillermo Coria
Wimbledon: Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick
US Open: Roger Federer defeated Lleyton Hewitt
 
2005
Australian Open: Marat Safin defeated Lleyton Hewitt
French Open: Rafael Nadal defeated Mariano Puerta
Wimbledon: Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick
US Open: Roger Federer defeated Andre Agassi
 
In that line up above, only Roddick was the supremely consistent player. Hewitt, while just as consistent as Roddick and Federer, was all done and out by end of 2002 mostly because of injuries, but still kudos to him for making two finals (2004 US Open and 2005AO Open). Safin, on the other hand, while had a lot of potential, was not at all consistent and was more into self-indulgence (this is actually the reason why I was never a fan of his or cared for him).

It’s also worth mentioning that, no one in tennis history took tennis as seriously as Federer. Even Paul recently admitted that there's a vast difference between Sampras and Federer. Federer still gets excited about small tournaments whereas Sampras was long done with those and was very mature about everything. Sampras hated traveling whereas Federer still loves it and has given Mirka everything, so that she wouldn't stand in the way of his true love.
 
Sampras gave up tennis and retired so that he could start a family. So when a person's life revolves so much around his work, in this case, his tennis and if he's good at it, then the results are bound to reflect that as well and Federer basically showed up at the right place at the right time and that most definitely helped his case to achieve the most. And that’s also together with his good health, something he was born with as opposed to Sampras, who was born with a blood disorder condition and Nadal, whose knee was always a factor ever since he turned pro.

However, it is entirely Federer's credit that he was that dedicated but in his time, the only super consistent players were Roddick and a baby Nadal and they were his main rivals and still, one of them got the upper hand as far as the rivalry went. Nadal now comfortably sitting with a 8-2 lead over Federer in Grand Slams, but all this does not take away the fact that, both players came at a time when each field was wide open for them and given that they were already extremely dedicated and motivated, it’s no surprise that, in a short period of time, they were able to break all sorts of previous records. It took 33 long years for Sampras to break Laver’s record and set some new ones, whereas it took only for the next generation to break Sampras’ and not by one player but by almost two players. Even Federer himself admitted that the homogenizations of the surface contributed a lot to their success. For one, they never need to adjust their games from surface to surface and the racquet technology is far superior to those of 90s and then you have these playing fields where the competitions mainly revolved around between two top players for a long time.

[oracle86]

Yeah, it is certainly a pity that the ATP and the ITF decided to homogenise the surfaces. S&V exponents have become an endangered species now.