Mens Tennis Forums banner

Will some haters call Nole a transitional champ in the future?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 38.3%
  • No

    Votes: 29 61.7%
Status
Not open for further replies.

Could Nole possibly be seen as a transitional champ in years to come?

5K views 60 replies 45 participants last post by  Nole Rules 
#1 ·
People always pick on Hewitt, Fererro and Roddick etc saying they are transitional champs and number ones, only climbing to the summit and winning slams after sampras and co wore down and before Fedal rose.

Will they say the same about Djokovic?

EG only won multiple slams and got the no.1 after Fedal started winding down (clearly 2008 peak for Nadal and 2004-2009 roughly for Fed/sub peak Fed). Although Djoker did beat Federer in 2008 AO people will bring up the mono/fluke thing, I know they will. This is more if Nole doesnt have a great next couple years or if some young guns come along and beat him and dominate more than he did i.e become the next Fed/Nadal/Sampassi etc.

What do you think?

This is no attempt to belittle Noles achievement, more a question of what people will say.
 
#4 ·
Nadal was the transitional chump
 
  • Like
Reactions: janko05
#33 ·
these little thickskull comments need to be bashed. Not slipped in and ignored
 
#5 ·
Uh, no. He's already won 4. I think people will look at it from the perspective tennis being ruled by Federer, then Nadal, then Djokovic. Djokovic has to do it for a few more years, but I don't see why he can't.
 
#6 ·
if the record of 16-major winning player can be dismissed and questioned than there's no reason why Nole will not be subjected to the same logic some of his own fans are applying to Federer now...i.e in 6yrs time when he's struggling to beat a prime player @ his peak (24/25yr old) people will do the same and suggest he's losing because he's now only being tested ...
 
#9 ·
No, he's done so much more than that.



But yes, this. People are so fickle and quick to forget. If Federer's 2004-2007 domination can be thumbed down by some and chalking it down to a weak era or whatever excuses Sampras' fans have written on their pillows at night, it would be just as easy for people to minimize Djokovic's achievements once he starts to lose. People have selective memory like that.
 
#10 ·
Agassi didn't really fall off. He won a slam in 2003 and actually held the #1 ranking that year.
 
#13 ·
I think Nadal was the transitional champ between Federer and Djokovic. wrote a big post meant to be a thread but on second thoughts that might have been a trollfest....

In a nutshell: 2004-2008 was Federer era, from late 2008 to early 2011 was up there to grab. Nadal had 2 periods of #1 there with Federer reconquering it.

2011 Nole is untouchable to Nadal. Djokovic seems to do what Federer couldn't: beat Rafa regularly and be #1. Federer was #1 undisputed but lost to Rafa, Rafa managed to take the edge on Federer, then came Nole having the edge on Rafa. Rafa looks like someone who is unlikely to overtake the #1
 
#16 ·
Yep definitely. I said this before that Djokovic would be a transitional player. I think people are blind if they think Novak can keep this up, his game would break down in a year or two and he'll have a sudden decline. He doesn't have the advantage of Fedal of having big weapons. Currently he beats those guys by being more consistent and having more determination.
 
#19 ·
EG only won multiple slams and got the no.1 after Fedal started winding down (clearly 2008 peak for Nadal and 2004-2009 roughly for Fed/sub peak Fed). Although Djoker did beat Federer in 2008 AO people will bring up the mono/fluke thing, I know they will. This is more if Nole doesnt have a great next couple years or if some young guns come along and beat him and dominate more than he did i.e become the next Fed/Nadal/Sampassi etc.

What do you think?
Which young guns exactly? Tomic or Raonic (for now) look like they could surprise some of the top players occasionally, when at their best, but no way they are the next Fed/Sampras. And everybody else have major problem getting into top 50 at the moment.
 
#20 ·
What are we transitioning to now? Chimps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: janko05
#22 ·
People will say whatever they want (haters gonna hate), but Nole is the first champion FULLY optimized for the slow-court era. Federer was the last fledgling of the S&V philosophy, with his one-hander best suited for fast grass. Nadal is his uncle's construct, created to win matches by making his opponents impossible to cope - until Nole matured, that is, and showed that this one "virtue" covers a number of weaknesses.

And since Nole is very possibly the most complete player in history, he will never be a transitional champ, no matter what anyone says.
 
#26 ·
People always pick on Hewitt, Fererro and Roddick etc saying they are transitional champs and number ones, only climbing to the summit and winning slams after sampras and co wore down and before Fedal rose.

Will they say the same about Djokovic?

EG only won multiple slams and got the no.1 after Fedal started winding down (clearly 2008 peak for Nadal and 2004-2009 roughly for Fed/sub peak Fed). Although Djoker did beat Federer in 2008 AO people will bring up the mono/fluke thing, I know they will. This is more if Nole doesnt have a great next couple years or if some young guns come along and beat him and dominate more than he did i.e become the next Fed/Nadal/Sampassi etc.

What do you think?

This is no attempt to belittle Noles achievement, more a question of what people will say.
Transitional champion is not a useful concept but transitional number one is. It is clear that Nadal was the transitional number one. Most of his career behind Federer, then #1 for a transitional period until the real new number one emerged in Djokovic.

Djokovic will run the show now and Nadal will go back to being the nr2 and try to snatch his RG just like he did behind Federer.

Most people thought Nadal would replace Federer but it seems he was only the transition to Djokovic
 
#52 ·
Agreed, & to be honest, back in 2008 I was pretty sure Djokovic was going to be the next No. 1. Luckily for Nadal Djoker stalled badly as the year went on & Nadal was able to take advantage of Federer's decline to get his time in the sun - but even then, the effort of tracking down Federer all those years and finally overtaking him was too much & he broke down the very next year & let Federer back in. Hopeless muggery from Fed, Novak & Muzza allowed Nadal another year at Number One in 2010, but basically, if Hewitt is the benchmark, then 2 years at Number One = transitional. Obviously Nadal is far greater than Hewitt; his career more closely resembles another great transitional Number One, Agassi, who also played 2nd fiddle to a superior player until that player declined, enjoying a brief period of supremacy before the next generation took over. Whether Nole is also transitional depends on whether he spends more than 2 years at No. 1. The lack of any obvious upcoming challenge from the youngsters suggests he will, but you never know.
 
#34 ·
who could possibly be waiting to take over from him then?

Raonic? Injury prone and already too old. Delpotro? Ditto Raonic. Dolgopolov? A clown and already much too old. Tomic? Almost as bad as Murray and pretty much too old.

I reckon the Big Three will just mop up slams until ALL of them have retired.

I'm pretty much 100% sure that no new slam winner will emerge until 2016.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top