[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

Serbia has the same power and stature in the world today as Costa Rica.

hahahaha bitter Brazilian boy..........cry some more...........mods seriously time to ban this double account

and btw I am American.......you wanna know how much more stature and power do we have over Brazil?

[thrust]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Becker is miles above Djokovic in terms of game and entertainment value

Total crap from a PATHETIC HATER!

[Looner]

This thread is embarrassing.

[stewietennis]

Total majors says he's matched them.

Other accomplishments indicate that he's surpassed them.

Some would argue that the players he beat to win some of his majors are nobodies – single slam wonder Murray and Tsonga. However, Edberg did beat single slam wonder Pat Cash for one of his majors and Becker beat single slam wonder Michael Stich and Kevin Curren (who?) for two of his. However, you can't really control who's on the other side of the net. It's not Novak's fault that Federer and Nadal weren't there to meet him on those other finals. Also, it doesn't matter that Novak isn't as good at volleying as Edberg and Becker – it doesn't matter how you win as long as you win. Would anyone say Agassi's majors are less because he couldn't volley as well as Becker and Edberg, nor serve as well as Sampras?

The only thing that Edberg and Becker have going for them, at this point, is longevity – having reached at least one major SF for 10 years and 11/12 years respectively. Djokovic is currently on 7 years. However, I see Novak surpassing these as well.

[Corey Feldman]

hasnt won Wimbledon 2 or more times so no

remember, one of the holy grails of tennis greatness is back too back Wimbledon championships - Laver, Federer, Sampras, Perry, Borg, Mcenroe, Becker

you are only a scrub if you havnt achieved this.

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

Complete rubbish. Nole is only the third player with more than 2 slams in the last decade, and Fed and Nadal would be winning multiple slams in any era in history.

This is kind of the point. Due to surface homogenisation you are seeing the same players in the SFs and Fs of all slams, therefore the top guys are in with more of a chance to win more slams at the peak of their career.

You are going to see less people with 1/2/3 slams and more guys with 5+ slams, because homogenisation encourages dominance.

[stewietennis]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

hasnt won Wimbledon 2 or more times so no

remember, one of the holy grails of tennis greatness is back too back Wimbledon championships - Laver, Federer, Sampras, Perry, Borg, Mcenroe, Becker

you are only a scrub if you havnt achieved this.

Wimbledon back to back is the holy grail in tennis – so, only grass specialists can attain greatness? Is there a source for this? I've read the channel slam – French Open and Wimbledon – was the hardest achievement in tennis.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

This is kind of the point. Due to surface homogenisation you are seeing the same players in the SFs and Fs of all slams, therefore the top guys are in with more of a chance to win more slams at the peak of their career.

You are going to see less people with 1/2/3 slams and more guys with 5+ slams, because homogenisation encourages dominance.

stop posting you ignorant troll............Put Federer in 1995 and he will win even more

[Nole fan]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

NoleFan showing her utter lack of class:

Attachment 256489

This is not the thread for it, you're reported.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

This is kind of the point. Due to surface homogenisation you are seeing the same players in the SFs and Fs of all slams, therefore the top guys are in with more of a chance to win more slams at the peak of their career.

You are going to see less people with 1/2/3 slams and more guys with 5+ slams, because homogenisation encourages dominance.

So where are those new 5+ slam guys? You keep repeating that, but you don't have any proof

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Saberq

stop posting you ignorant troll............Put Federer in 1995 and he will win even more

Why?? I think he would have less Wimbledon (would split them with Sampras) and more Roland Garros probably (no Rafa to stop him). And the same at the HC slams.

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

So where are those new 5+ slam guys? You keep repeating that, but you don't have any proof

It's a prediction, dude. Djokovic is the first of many.

In 30 years we'll look back at the 21st century and think "shit, we really fucked up the game by making it so predictable".

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

It's a prediction, dude. Djokovic is the first of many.

In 30 years we'll look back at the 21st century and think "shit, we really fucked up the game by making it so predictable".

So it's just a prediction Why don't you stop treating it like it's a cold-hard fact then.

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

So it's just a prediction Why don't you stop treating it like it's a cold-hard fact then.

Anyone who knows anything about tennis, and has been watching longer than the last decade, can see its true. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer - their dominant periods have all resulted in more big trophies than any other period in history. Why? Because surfaces, balls, etc. ensure that the best player at any particular time will win 90% of the trophies on offer.

In previous eras you would only be a contender on a limited number of surfaces, and upsets were far more likely. Therefore you would have to be a top player for longer in order to accumulate large numbers of Slams.

Because of the stranglehold that top players have, winning a single slam is now tougher than it has ever been. But winning a whole stack of slams is a whole lot easier.

Therefore slam counts have been, and will continue to be, degraded as a way to be able to compare players across generations. The longer this goes on (and the more apparent it becomes) the more people will realise.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Why?? I think he would have less Wimbledon (would split them with Sampras) and more Roland Garros probably (no Rafa to stop him). And the same at the HC slams.

prime Fed would beat Sampras at Wimbledon I think..........Roger dealt with big servers like it was nothing in his day