Mens Tennis Forums banner

If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

80K views 741 replies 172 participants last post by  Johnbert 
#1 ·
at total weeks at No. 1!

1. Federer 302
2. Sampras 286
3. Lendl 270
4. Connors 268
5. McEnroe 170
6. Borg 109
7. Nadal 102
8. Agassi 101
9. Hewitt 80
10. Edberg 72
11. Courier 58
12. Djokovic 56
 
#145 ·
Plus Djokovic wasn't dealing with a cringeworthy, pathetic, choking, sweat-drenched Roddick twice in finals. LMAO
 
#147 ·
We're talking about a decade. Roddick gained allmost 20 pounds in 2004. The media wouldn't accept the truth.
He crashed and burned earlier than quarterfinals many times. In both finals, when he didn't have injury excuses, he was an overweight and scared rat. If he hadn't been this pitiful, fat coward, he could've won 3 of 5 sets in both finals.
 
#153 ·
Sure, good story.
Let me imagine. Djoker seriously did this, the way Federer and Roddick embarrassed themselves repeatedly in public.
 
#160 ·
Laver is considered greater player than Sampras despite Sampras having more slams. Why? Because apart from slams there are other criteria.
Laver won more majors. :shrug: 19. He also won TWO CYGS. Of course he is better than Sampras.



Do you read my posts? I did not say that slams are not #1 criteria. I have been saying that apart from slams there are other factors which means that Djokovic does not have to reach Nadal's slam count in order to have better career.

Yep. I'm just making a comparison with Borg vs. Lendl and that despite Lendl spent a considerable longer time as #1, Borg is considered the player with the better career because he won more slams than Lendl.
 
#180 ·
Laver won more majors. :shrug: 19.
You said Borg is considered greater player than Lendl beacuse he won more slams. Sampras won 14 while Laver won 11 slams. Here is the list of Grand Slam men's singles champions list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions

1. Federer 17
2. Sampras 14
3. Emerson 12
4. Laver 11

Yep. I'm just making a comparison with Borg vs. Lendl and that despite Lendl spent a considerable longer time as #1, Borg is considered the player with the better career because he won more slams than Lendl.
Laver is considered greater player than Sampras despite the fact that Sampras won more slams than Laver.

Djokovic will not reach double digits at the slams.
Your opinion is irrelevant because you are not a tennis expert. Sampras said Djokovic will probably reach double digits at the slams http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor.../us-open-golden-era-in-mens-tennis/57339052/1
 
#300 · (Edited)
I wasn't trying to show your 'argument' was incorrect; I was merely commenting on the way in which you have conducted yourself in this thread.

Your 'argument' is that you yourself do not have the knowledge to make a judgement on this issue, so have to rely on experts. And really no one can disagree with that, because no one has any special insight into your knowledge or mental state.


This was your original argument: "Pete Sampras has high level practical understanding of tennis. Tennis expert is a person who is very knowledgeable about tennis. Therefore, Sampras is an tennis expert".

Now we have established that being a "tennis expert" does not make you "tennis predictor" and thus does not qualify you to "make accurate predictions about future tennis events". This means that in order to rely on Sampras to "make accurate predictions about future tennis events", proving that he has a high level practical understanding of tennis, is not sufficient.

You must also prove that he has "a good understanding of past statistical trends, and the ability to take into account unknown variables". You have not done this.
I did not say that Sampras makes accurate predictions about future tennis events.

As you have yet to give us any facts in this discussion, you should not demand of others what you are unable to deliver yourself.
Not true. For example, my argument that Sampras is a tennis expert was based on fact that he was an top professional tennis player. I ask you again:

Can you provide fact-based argument to support your claim that I blindly follow Sampras?
 
#171 · (Edited)
saviopr said:
6 year-end number 1 is so unrealistic, even with a poor field next years. Many things can happen. 2 more years is more likely imo (with no injuries).
2 years is more careful but not more likely than 4 imo, "2 years or more" is indeed more likely by definition :lol:

One thing I had forgotten to say : Djokovic has another common point with Connors and Agassi : he has a light body which helps against injuries and tiredness.


To go back to the comparison with Lendl, considering the difference in age with Djokovic :
- Murray would have to be Wilander (well, Wilander was younger than Lendl, not Murray, but I mean it's the most similar, esp. if you consider the year when they emerged : 80-81 for Lendl, 82 for Wilander ; 2007 for Djokovic, 2008-2009 for Murray)
- Edberg could be Raonic (much less talented imo, and Edberg was younger comparing to Lendl)
- Becker could be Tomic (much less talented imo and also older comparing to Djokovic than Becker was to Lendl ... and he would already have won Wimbledon :lol: )
- Agassi and Sampras could be Wiersholm and Kozlov (in age and nationality it's the best correspondence)

(I've already made the comparison of Nadal with McEnroe, and Federer with Connors)

of course comparisons don't say everything but they can say something imo rather than just keeping one's eyes on the present and thinking that it will always be Djoko against Nadal, Federer and Murray, which is another natural tendency.

I think we may be in Djokovic's era for a long time as there was Lendl's era.
 
#172 ·
We can not say how long Djokovic will be #1 and other players would not improve at all they will stay the same. Who can say that Polish guy would get to the final at Bercy -Paris. Did someone knew about him? I do not think so. This boy has such a nice game.Djokovic plays quite a physical game and to say he will not get injured i am not sure.Even this year he was not dominant Yes he is YE #1 but won just six titles. He was able to defend just three titles from
last year and won three new ones he did not play last year. If we can compare him to Federer who was #1 long long time it is quite different.Federer never lost his #1 for 237 weeks and three years in row he had ten titles each year, I do not know but Novak has not got this easy game as Federer does. You could see how difficult he can defeat Federer at this age and Federer did not play his best all week.
 
#173 ·
Djokovic will not reach double digits at the slams. He is not following the same career trajectory of Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal. These 4 players at one stage of their careers were 10-2 in slam finals.

Djokovic is 5-4 in slam finals so his career trajectory is more similar to Agassi's who ended up with an 8-7 record in slam finals.

With just 5 slams, Djokovic has already lost 4 slam finals. That's too much. Djokovic is winning almost as many slam finals as he is losing. Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal only went on to lose their 4th slam final when they all had already won 10+ slams.

Borg had already won 11 slams, Sampras had already won 13 slams, Federer had already won 12 slams and Nadal had already won 10 slams when they lost their 4th slam final.

When all is said and done, Djokovic could very well have a 9-8 record in slam finals.
 
#174 ·
this is a guessing game. who the hell knows? Novak's said a year ago that there is life outside of tennis and that he doesn't plan to play forever indicating he'll retire before he is 30yo. I don't think he is chasing any records btw and he certainly doesn't care if he stays #1 longer than Rafa. all it matters is win some more slams, enjoy life, have fun. :)
 
#176 ·
he said in the end of this year that he would like to get Sampras's record of 6 year-end number 1s.

Yes, I think he's someone who would like other things in life than tennis, but someone who has been brought-up with such ambition and determination to fulfill it as him will not retire early if he has a lot of success imo.
 
#177 ·
Frauderer will fluke the no. 1 spot at 1 point in the year, you can bet your housewife on that.
 
#186 ·
It's not beating Federer that is impressive.
It's beating the top 3 players in 1 tourney
and beating them in all Slams (with no injured players).
Fed never did these things.

Federer is mediocre in 5 setters.
Djoker is outstanding in 5 setters and finals vs. multiple
champions who've won Masters Series & at least a Slam.
In the last 4 years, many top 10 opponents are better because they've beaten the
Slam champs.
 
#187 ·
It's not beating Federer that is impressive.
It's beating the top 3 players in 1 tourney
and beating them in all Slams (with no injured players).
Fed never did these things.

Federer is mediocre in 5 setters.
Djoker is outstanding in 5 setters and finals vs. multiple
champions who've won Masters Series & at least a Slam.
In the last 4 years, many top 10 opponents are better because they've beaten the
Slam champs.
Err, what? Pretty sure this is impossible of you are in the top four yourself and you consider the "top 3 players" to be seeded appropriately.


Joyce returns.
 
#194 ·
Never as delusional as smirky Federina.
 
#199 ·
doable. he'll have to take two GSs and defend his masters titles.
Will be interesting how Nadal fares until Wimbledon.
He can potentially have an even worse slump and drop down to No 6., if he doesn't kick in immediately at AO and the US spring tour. And needs a perfect clay record once again. A tall order coming out of injury, even for Rafa.
 
#233 ·
The fact that Agassi & McEnroe declared Federer the best ever just proved that these former players will never be experts.
 
#244 ·
Speaking of off topics & purposeful lies. :devil:
 
#246 ·
still got a long way to go but certainly possible. however it is surprising how dramatic things could change and so very soon. if he got knocked out of Australia early (unlikely I know, with how great his game suits that tournament) I think Federer would already have a possibility at the #1 ranking if he won the tournament
 
#247 ·
Yes, to be precise - a QF exit for Djokovic leaves Federer the possibility of regaining #1 by winning the tournament. Djokovic would still be in a good position to regain #1 not long afterwards, though, as Federer is defending titles in Dubai, Rotterdam and Indian Wells.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top