Who will win most slams in the Fedalovic era? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who will win most slams in the Fedalovic era?

sexybeast
07-26-2012, 06:01 AM
The Fedalovic era beeing defined from the year when Djokovic appeared and entered the top 3 in 2007, that is 2007 AO to 2012 Wimbledon.

6 years in a row with the same top 3 every single year but with changing orders. So far the stats in slams look like this:

Nadal- 9 slams
Federer- 8 slams
Djokovic- 5 slams
Del Potro- 1 slam

Years ending nr1:

Nadal, Federer: 2
Djokovic: 1

Titles:

Nadal-33
Federer-30
Djokovic-28

I consider it very much an even battle here between the top 3, Djokovic far behind but seems to have the future on his side. However, this era pretty much ends if one of them would fall out of the top 3 never to come back and he would have to win alot of slams before the Fedalovic era ends.

An interesting follow up question that can be discussed is when the Fedalovic era will end? When will one of them fall for never to return to the top 3 (several times all 3 have fallen for a couple of weeks to nr4 because of Murray just to have a strong return back to the top 3).

TBkeeper
07-26-2012, 06:29 AM
Logically it won't be Federer

duong
07-26-2012, 06:37 AM
An interesting follow up question that can be discussed is when the Fedalovic era will end?

that's the whole point :lol:

and it depends on Murray as well

I don't know how long this "era" will last then I rely on the current situation and on the fact that Nadal is the "center" or "intermediate" between Fed and Djokovic, then it should be firstly "his era".

ssj100
07-26-2012, 06:57 AM
I am utterly convinced that Nadal will win at least 15 French Opens. Those who don't think so haven't seen Nadal play on red clay.

sexybeast
07-26-2012, 07:05 AM
that's the whole point :lol:

and it depends on Murray as well

It is problematic to depend on Murray alone, I am more optimistic than most about Murray but he is not going to be better at 27 than 25.

Motoflou
07-26-2012, 07:26 AM
Totally necessary thread.

Slade
07-26-2012, 07:28 AM
Most likely Nadal

sexybeast
07-26-2012, 07:30 AM
Totally necessary thread.

Yeah, your time wasnt wasted making this totally necessary sarcastic comment to a thread that means so much to you.

bounccer
07-26-2012, 07:32 AM
I am utterly convinced that Nadal will win at least 15 French Opens. Those who don't think so haven't seen Nadal play on red clay.


:facepalm:

Either you troll or you don't know anything about tennis (i guess you watch it since 2008 like the vast majority of the posters in this forum), the probability of such thing to happens is probably around 0,0000000001%.

It's always pointless to make such predictions, and it's basically impossible to know when we'll have a different top3 in the end of the year, so i will try de make some predictions (for the fun only) but i won't take any attention about this rule (doesn't matter if some players break the top 3)

Federer: 18 slams so 9 after 2007
Nadal: 14 slams (12)
Djokovic: 8 slams (8)

So... Nadal

And.....

Murray: 4
Del Potro: 3
Tsonga: 1

(Too early to say for Tomic/Dimitrov/Harrison/Raonic/Goffin)

duong
07-26-2012, 07:33 AM
If I had to start that era very precisely, I would start it a little bit later : in Indian Wells 2007.

For many reasons, the Australian open 2007 can be seen as the zenith of the "all Federer" era (by the way the Australian open has more often expressed the continuation/end of previous year rather than the beginning of the new one).

Then the start of Fed's decline is illustrated by his losses to Canas in Indian Wells and Miami.

And Djokovic really emerges in those Indian Wells and Miami, his first MS1000 finals, crushing Murray twice in semis, whereas until then Murray was seen by many ones as a bigger prospect than Djokovic.

Then he plays the semis at least of the next 5 slams, his first slam semis as well.

Also Nadal reveals in Wimbledon 2007 that he's now the same level on grass as Federer, whereas he was not seen like that before.

Time Violation
07-26-2012, 07:40 AM
If I had to start that era very precisely, I would start it a little bit later : in Indian Wells 2007.

For many reasons, the Australian open 2007 can be seen as the zenith of the "all Federer" era (by the way the Australian open has more often expressed the continuation/end of previous year rather than the beginning of the new one).

Then the start of Fed's decline is illustrated by his losses to Canas in Indian Wells and Miami.

And Djokovic really emerges in those Indian Wells and Miami, his first MS1000 finals, crushing Murray twice in semis, whereas until then Murray was seen by many ones as a bigger prospect than Djokovic.

Then he plays the semis at least of the next 5 slams, his first slam semis as well.

Also Nadal reveals in Wimbledon 2007 that he's now the same level on grass as Federer, whereas he was not seen like that before.

Good points all :)

GSMnadal
07-26-2012, 07:47 AM
Nadal, because he is just better than the other two. They can't beat him on clay, but he can beat them on their best surfaces.

ssj100
07-26-2012, 08:03 AM
Nadal, because he is just better than the other two. They can't beat him on clay, but he can beat them on their best surfaces.

The thing is that the other two don't need to beat him - more than half the time he gets beaten by someone else at an earlier round.

Also I thought Federer's best surface was indoor hard - last time I checked, no Grand Slam was on indoor hard.

sexybeast
07-26-2012, 08:05 AM
Nadal, because he is just better than the other two. They can't beat him on clay, but he can beat them on their best surfaces.

Djokovic-Nadal on slow hardcourt 5-1

Federer-Nadal on indoor courts 4-0

ssj100
07-26-2012, 08:06 AM
:facepalm:

Either you troll or you don't know anything about tennis (i guess you watch it since 2008 like the vast majority of the posters in this forum), the probability of such thing to happens is probably around 0,0000000001%.

It's always pointless to make such predictions, and it's basically impossible to know when we'll have a different top3 in the end of the year, so i will try de make some predictions (for the fun only) but i won't take any attention about this rule (doesn't matter if some players break the top 3)

Federer: 18 slams so 9 after 2007
Nadal: 14 slams (12)
Djokovic: 8 slams (8)

So... Nadal

And.....

Murray: 4
Del Potro: 3
Tsonga: 1

(Too early to say for Tomic/Dimitrov/Harrison/Raonic/Goffin)

That's what others were saying too when I said Nadal will win at least 7 French Opens back in 2008. He's going to bounce back from his injury and win the next 8-9 French Opens (with another couple of "injuries" to boot).

Time Violation
07-26-2012, 08:11 AM
That's what others were saying too when I said Nadal will win at least 7 French Opens back in 2008. He's going to bounce back from his injury and win the next 8-9 French Opens (with another couple of "injuries" to boot).

The difference is Nadal in 2008 was 22, now he's 26, we'll see how many times more he can successfully 'bounce back', he's not getting younger.

Looner
07-26-2012, 08:15 AM
I don't think you can say the Fedalovic era began in 2007. At least not at the start of 2007 - I think the USO 2007 seems like a better starting point, as Djoko was not really close to winning a slam before that.

So that means Fed loses 2 slams and is down to 6 which probably means Djokovic will have to push himself to get to RN's total.

Motoflou
07-26-2012, 08:21 AM
Yeah, your time wasnt wasted making this totally necessary sarcastic comment to a thread that means so much to you.

bah, it's okay, I'm drunk and can't fall asleep :)

Litotes
07-26-2012, 08:22 AM
That's what others were saying too when I said Nadal will win at least 7 French Opens back in 2008. He's going to bounce back from his injury and win the next 8-9 French Opens (with another couple of "injuries" to boot).

I believe you are the only one in the entire forum who expects Nadal to still be on the tour in 2021. There are most probably others who believe he will win FO until he retires, but I don't think they expect to see him playing at 35.

By the way, as this discussion is about the Fedalovic era - do you expect Djokovic at 34 and Federer at 39 to still be top-3?

Johnbert
07-26-2012, 08:29 AM
That's what others were saying too when I said Nadal will win at least 7 French Opens back in 2008. He's going to bounce back from his injury and win the next 8-9 French Opens (with another couple of "injuries" to boot).

only 8-9? at the end of his career, he will be a 30-times rg-champ :cool:

duong
07-26-2012, 08:39 AM
It is problematic to depend on Murray alone, I am more optimistic than most about Murray but he is not going to be better at 27 than 25.

probably not on him alone but there can be a shift between him and one or some of the top-3 of the last 5 years. He can improve and one of the others (Fed or Nadal especially) get a little bit worse.

I don't think you can say the Fedalovic era began in 2007. At least not at the start of 2007 - I think the USO 2007 seems like a better starting point, as Djoko was not really close to winning a slam before that.

So that means Fed loses 2 slams and is down to 6 which probably means Djokovic will have to push himself to get to RN's total.

I also thought of that, especially as the first half of 2008 is the first moment when people start talking of Djokovic on the same level as Nadal and Federer (remember Australian open-Hamburg 2008, Djokovic threatening Nadal's number 2 and many speaking of him as soon number 1, also Borg and a few others saying that Federer only was the third favorite of Wimbledon 2008 after Nadal and Djokovic :lol: ),

also because imo Murray is very important in that era as well (in that "era", Djokovic and Murray together have the highest number of Masters 1000 won on hardcourts -8- and Murray is a constant top-4) and Murray rather starts emerging at the highest level in summer 2008, and 2008 is also an emerging year for a few other players like Del Potro and Tsonga,

but after thinking a little bit of that, I rather think that as far as the top-3 only are concerned, the shift happened earlier than the US Open 2007 for these top-3 : I felt Fed's decline first in spring 2007, Nadal was great in 2007, imo as great on grass as in 2008, and Djokovic also was quite the same level as in 2008 (with a better serve than in recent years although this year he improved his serve back).

Chirag
07-26-2012, 08:41 AM
I am utterly convinced that Nadal will win at least 15 French Opens. Those who don't think so haven't seen Nadal play on red clay.

I have seen Nadal play on clay and he definately wont win 15 :wavey:

Time Violation
07-26-2012, 08:58 AM
I don't think you can say the Fedalovic era began in 2007. At least not at the start of 2007 - I think the USO 2007 seems like a better starting point, as Djoko was not really close to winning a slam before that.

Think the point is Nole at USO didn't come out of nowhere, playing finals at IW and winning Miami was big enough I think :)

duong
07-26-2012, 09:04 AM
Think the point is Nole at USO didn't come out of nowhere, playing finals at IW and winning Miami was big enough I think :)

and winning Montreal defeating Federer in the final ;)

(also winning two tie-breaks against Fed and breaking in that occasion a streak of 13 tie-breaks in a row won by Fed ; by the way, Djokovic had also broken Fed's other tie-break streak : 15 tie-breaks in a row stopped by Djokovic in Dubai 2007)

Looner
07-26-2012, 09:08 AM
Think the point is Nole at USO didn't come out of nowhere, playing finals at IW and winning Miami was big enough I think :)

Yeah, fair point. I still think RG 2007 would be better then. In the 2007 AO, Djoko played Fed very early on (4R), so he never really stood a realistic chance of a slam because of the lower seed. I mean I don't mind if you start it from then but I still think the slam where he made his first semi is a better indicator.

duong
07-26-2012, 09:18 AM
Yeah, fair point. I still think RG 2007 would be better then. In the 2007 AO, Djoko played Fed very early on (4R), so he never really stood a realistic chance of a slam because of the lower seed. I mean I don't mind if you start it from then but I still think the slam where he made his first semi is a better indicator.

Taejin seemed to agree with starting in Indian Wells 2007 as my first or second post expressed ;)

sexybeast
07-26-2012, 09:19 AM
In 2007 AO Djokovic was already playing great, he destroyed his opponents in the first two rounds and got really hyped up in forums, then lost to Federer in 3rd round. Played him again in a competitive match in Dubai and then exploded into the top 5 in Indian Wells/Miami and even challenged Nadal in Hamburg later on.

He lost twice to Federer and twice to Nadal in slams 2007, ofcourse you could take away Australian Open but from the moment he reached finals in both Miami and Indian Wells there was never in doubt that we had a new challenger to the top 2 duo and a new era had started.

bounccer
07-26-2012, 09:32 AM
Federer was never the same after this AO 2007, Indian Wells was the end of the "invulnerable" Fed. The end of the first half of his career.

Djokovic was very good already by the summer 2005 and in 2006, he was very promising and i was sure he would become top 5 at least one day, but i thig he would be a real threat to win the slams in the AO 2007, he was very very good in the firsts rounds and he seemed to take his game to another level, he lose to a superpeak Fed in straights but each sets was pretty close and it was obvious by that time he would be a champion. (i was nervous before the Fedole match in Australia)

After Indian Wells and Miami, he was already established as the third best player in the eyes of most specialists, in the French he had zero chances anyways despite a good first set but he was already consistent, if my memorie is good, i think he beat Verdasco and some good players here, he made a very solid tournament, at Wimbledon he beat some very good grass courters in epic matchs like Baghdatis or Hewitt, everybody thought that his defeat against Nadal was due only to his exhaustion.

After Montréal, he was the clear 2nd favorite for the USO just behind Roger, and he managed to be in the final, beating an in fire Stepanek despite the pressure growing on his shoulders, proving he was already a very consistent top player, i think most people made him the favorite for the AO 2008 after the USO, but some of them changed their mind after his poor end of season.
Djokovic was already a big threat in 2007

Nadal was very good on grass and on hards court in 2007, as good as he ever was bar 2008 IMO. In the AO 2007; he beat an excellent and offensive Murray but he played against a fucking unplayable Gonzalez who probably still beat the Nadal's 2010 or 2011 versions in this form. In the USO 2007, he was injured and in the AO 2008, Tsonga played the match of his life. Nadal's prime outside clay started definitively in 2007.

TigerTim
07-26-2012, 09:36 AM
David Ferrer or Any Murray. Baring that Rafa Nadal

duong
07-26-2012, 09:54 AM
and even challenged Nadal in Hamburg later on.

their famous match in Hamburg was in 2008, in 2007 he only played Nadal in Roma before Roland-Garros and he didn't really challenge Nadal

at Wimbledon he beat some very good grass courters in epic matchs like Baghdatis or Hewitt, everybody thought that his defeat against Nadal was due only to his exhaustion.

yes many people insisted that year on the disadvantage for Nadal because of that very rainy Wimbledon and that he had to play later than Federer, but actually Djokovic played even later and tougher matches than Nadal : I remember it started on tuesday evening of the second week with the end of a tough third round against Kiefer (76 67 62 76) then wednesday against Hewitt (76 76 46 76) then an unbelievable match against Baghdatis on thursday(76 76 67 46 75) ... to win the first set against Nadal and retire after being led 4-1 in third set.

That Wimbledon 2007 from Djokovic has struck my mind for long.

Federer in 2
07-26-2012, 09:55 AM
Nadal, because he is just better than the other two. They can't beat him on clay, but he can beat them on their best surfaces.

Not saying it won't be Nadal.
But is he really better than the other two right now? :lol:

Johnbert
07-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Nadal, because he is just better than the other two. They can't beat him on clay, but he can beat them on their best surfaces.

clay h2h

djokovic - nadal 2-12
federer - nadal 2-12

i thought they can't beat him :confused: :confused: :confused:

ssj100
07-26-2012, 10:14 AM
clay h2h

djokovic - nadal 2-12
federer - nadal 2-12

i thought they can't beat him :confused: :confused: :confused:

We're talking about slams here. So yes, they can't beat him.

Johnbert
07-26-2012, 10:22 AM
We're talking about slams here. So yes, they can't beat him.

then nadal also can't beat fed on his best surface at slams, cause there's no indoor-slam. also he couldn't beat djokovic at the ao...

Time Violation
07-26-2012, 10:51 AM
then nadal also can't beat fed on his best surface at slams, cause there's no indoor-slam. also he couldn't beat djokovic at the ao...

Never beat Fed at USO too :)

Roy Emerson
07-26-2012, 01:35 PM
Nadal: 2 more RG so that would be 11 slams in the Fedalovic era. Total of 13 slams.

Djokovic: 5 more slams so that would be 10 slams in the Fedalovic era. Total of 10 slams.

Federer: 1 more USO or Wimbledon so that would be 9 slams in the Fedalovic era. Total of 18 slams.

jcempire
07-26-2012, 01:45 PM
who knows

Federer could still as long as 35 years old

Rafa is the GOAT
07-26-2012, 01:47 PM
Shit I voted on Fed
I wanted to vote on Rafa

duarte_a
07-26-2012, 01:49 PM
Nadal, because he is just better than the other two. They can't beat him on clay, but he can beat them on their best surfaces.

Hamburg 2007, Madrid 2009, Rome and Madrid 2011. :wavey:

duarte_a
07-26-2012, 01:50 PM
Shit I voted on Fed
I wanted to vote on Rafa

Freudian slip...

GSMnadal
07-26-2012, 01:54 PM
Not saying it won't be Nadal.
But is he really better than the other two right now? :lol:

I'm talking about the entire era, not just now.

clay h2h

djokovic - nadal 2-12
federer - nadal 2-12

i thought they can't beat him :confused: :confused: :confused:


Hamburg 2007, Madrid 2009, Rome and Madrid 2011. :wavey:

Shit. I forgot about those slams.

Looner
07-26-2012, 01:55 PM
GSMNadal trying to rewrite tennis and sports logic once more. Hilarious, yet at the same time pathetic and pitiful stuff :).

duarte_a
07-26-2012, 01:57 PM
Shit. I forgot about those slams.

17 > 11. :wavey: