[Hewitt =Legend]

You can pretty much link this thread question back to the "can't compare eras debate". There is absolutely no question that Djokovic is a modern day great but his achievements and accolades cannot really be compared to that of Edberg's and Becker's because they played in completely different conditions and with an insane difference in racquet technology.

Caesar is correct when he states that it is easier to accumulate one's slam count in today's contemporary conditions. No variety in surfaces = easier to dominate all 4 slams, thus increasing a players slam count significantly.

Like Federer said a while back, I think it is enough to be considered a "legend" of your own era that you played in. And that is what Nole will be when all is said and done. Trying to compare players achievements from differing era's is extremely debatable with no definitive answer.

[stewietennis]

Originally Posted by Saberq

Nadal is not probably but he is clay GOAT......it's not a debate even..........Federer is the best ever and GOAT in a sense that he holds 90% of stats and records in tennis history plus is A game is better than anyone's ever.......and Novak is a great multi slam champion.......the fact that you dont have mugs winning Slams today proves this is a very good modern tour.....no Chang's here man

Michael Chang: 1 Major, 3 Major Finals, 7 Masters, 1 Final YEC

Andy Murray: 1 Major, 5 Major Finals, 8 Masters
Juan Martin Del Potro: 1 Major, 1 Final YEC

Looks similar

[heya]

Butthurt loyalists would still argue that 25 year old Laver can't
win 5 slams today while at the same time, they'll say Federer only got unlucky against Nadal on clay.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by stewietennis

Michael Chang: 1 Major, 3 Major Finals, 7 Masters, 1 Final YEC

Andy Murray: 1 Major, 5 Major Finals, 8 Masters
Juan Martin Del Potro: 1 Major, 1 Final YEC

Looks similar

I am talking about his game not results.......he would struggle to win a 500 tournament today with his small frame,lack of weapons and no power

[Hewitt =Legend]

Originally Posted by Saberq

I am talking about his game not results.......he would struggle to win a 500 tournament today with his small frame,lack of weapons and no power

Which is why you shouldn't compare eras so extensively. It's not that to difficult a concept to understand mate.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Hewitt =Legend

Which is why you shouldn't compare eras so extensively. It's not that to difficult a concept to understand mate.

This.

Djokertards are really adverse to facts and logic.

[Topspindoctor]

Djoker would win 20 slams in the mug era of the 90's.

[Aloevera]

Another contradiction found.

If it's about Djok, he would win 20 slams in the mug era of the 90's. If it's about Fed, he would be lucky to win a slam in the Era of Lions of the 90's.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by stewietennis

Michael Chang: 1 Major, 3 Major Finals, 7 Masters, 1 Final YEC

Andy Murray: 1 Major, 5 Major Finals, 8 Masters
Juan Martin Del Potro: 1 Major, 1 Final YEC

Looks similar

I don't know Andy Murray and Juan Martin Del Potro retired from tennis already.

[Lee]

No significant difference in surface does not equate easier to dominate slams. There will be more good players to adopt their games to be better on the surface. Sampras had a hard time winning on clay because his game, which was perfect for Wimbledon, has many holes for RG. He tried to adjust his games to better on clay but it affected him on glass. Vice versa for clay specialists who did not even bother to show up in Wimbledon. You have a set of players who were great on Wimbledon, another set on Roland Garros. Even for the faster hard court for USO and the slower for AO, there are more overlap of players but still, some stand out more.

Now on the medium pace hard courts, all the top 4 players are actually very good on it. Even the rest of the top 10 can play very well. Thus, it's not that easy to dominate.

How many players in modern era managed to win all slams? And how many managed to win all slams more than once?

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Lee

No significant difference in surface does not equate easier to dominate slams. There will be more good players to adopt their games to be better on the surface. Sampras had a hard time winning on clay because his game, which was perfect for Wimbledon, has many holes for RG. He tried to adjust his games to better on clay but it affected him on glass. Vice versa for clay specialists who did not even bother to show up in Wimbledon. You have a set of players who were great on Wimbledon, another set on Roland Garros. Even for the faster hard court for USO and the slower for AO, there are more overlap of players but still, some stand out more.

Now on the medium pace hard courts, all the top 4 players are actually very good on it. Even the rest of the top 10 can play very well. Thus, it's not that easy to dominate.

How many players in modern era managed to win all slams? And how many managed to win all slams more than once?

It does make it easier to dominate slams because everyone will play the exact same game on each surface meaning the top players will always win them. The differences are minor but they are mostly movement orientated for example Davydenko's horrendous movement on grass.

What it makes harder is for a surface specialist who excels on one particular surface i.e. a grass court expert or clay court dirtballer, to snatch his specialist slam title, or in general for a Thomas Johansson-style shock to happen. One of the key reasons for the ATP/Slams homogenising courts was cause they didn't want Johansson-type situations again. Not glamorous enough for them to make $$$$$$.

[Mr. Oracle]

Funny to watch MTF impatiently jump the gun and try to compare apples to oranges every single day. In just a couple years, we'll be comparing Novak's records to Roger's and Pete's and not to these second tier players. The amount of flatulence in this thread has become boring, I 'm done with you. Time for a hiatus until RG.

[howyesno]

Originally Posted by Looner

This thread is embarrassing.

this. nothing more to add, some people in this thread ... I just hope they are not serious, otherwise I fear for their sanity.

[Hewitt =Legend]

Originally Posted by Lee

No significant difference in surface does not equate easier to dominate slams. There will be more good players to adopt their games to be better on the surface. Sampras had a hard time winning on clay because his game, which was perfect for Wimbledon, has many holes for RG. He tried to adjust his games to better on clay but it affected him on glass. Vice versa for clay specialists who did not even bother to show up in Wimbledon. You have a set of players who were great on Wimbledon, another set on Roland Garros. Even for the faster hard court for USO and the slower for AO, there are more overlap of players but still, some stand out more.

Now on the medium pace hard courts, all the top 4 players are actually very good on it. Even the rest of the top 10 can play very well. Thus, it's not that easy to dominate.

How many players in modern era managed to win all slams? And how many managed to win all slams more than once?

I don't believe this at all. If every surface is the same then all it means is that the top players will all succeed in every grand slam, which has been the case since surface homogenisation came into effect from the ATP. There are far less upsets today in early rounds of slams because of this. Changing from 16 seeds to 32 seeds is also relevant here.

Let's look at the Sampras example. He dominated Wimbledon because his natural serve volley game was extremely beneficial to the grass courts of the 90's. Grass was significantly faster during this time, and as a result, enhanced this type of game style for those with the skill and variety to execute it efficiently. Think about Sampras playing on today's grass courts at Wimbledon and how racquet technology has evolved since the time he retired. Serve volley simply doesn't work and this is why that particular game style has pretty much vanished from the modern era and baseline grinding has taken over. It all comes back to the fact that people can't and shouldn't compare eras and players from separate ones. Wayyyyy to many variables to take into account accurately.

Nadal and to a lesser extent Ferrer, are also some more prime examples. During the days of surface variation, Nadal would be extremely hard pressed to prevail at Wimbledon. As it stands he has won it twice and been runner up on 3 occasions. Ferrer also made the QF last year and tested Murray immensely. It all comes back to:

- No variety in surfaces = easier to dominate all 4 slams, thus increasing a players slam count significantly.

As for the last question, Federer and Nadal have done it and Djokovic will most likely do it as well. This is only since the beginning of surface homogenisation. If it stays like the present day for a large period of time then I am sure the number will increase dramatically.

I am not undermining Djokovic's achievements either. These are the conditions that have been built around his rise to the pinnacle of the sport and he has adapted to them fantastically. He is without doubt one of the best players of the modern era. I just don't see any logical or rational explanations to compare them to players from previous eras when there are so many variables to take into account.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

It does make it easier to dominate slams because everyone will play the exact same game on each surface meaning the top players will always win them. The differences are minor but they are mostly movement orientated for example Davydenko's horrendous movement on grass.

What it makes harder is for a surface specialist who excels on one particular surface i.e. a grass court expert or clay court dirtballer, to snatch his specialist slam title, or in general for a Thomas Johansson-style shock to happen. One of the key reasons for the ATP/Slams homogenising courts was cause they didn't want Johansson-type situations again. Not glamorous enough for them to make $$$$$$.

This. Unexpected champions don't make $$$. Last time we had a really unexpected Slam champion was Gaudio back in 2004 and we don't look like having another one any time soon - the closest thing that could happen would be Tsonga or Berdych taking a Slam.

Tsonga would actually have a very good shot at taking Wimbledon if the old grass was brought back, but with current conditions it's a very long shot.