Does Nadal get to 17 majors?

Not a chance. He won't win another 7 French Opens.

Not a chance. At best, I see him finishing with 13 or 14 slams.

He hasn't won a single tournament in almost a year now. His last one was the FO

Nah.

quote:

---

Djokovic is soooooooo far in Nadal's head. I see it every time they play. Nadal just looks lost and confused.

---

It's more so that he's just better. Of course, there's a mental aspect to it. But Djokovic is just a bad matchup for Nadal. Obviously, he's a bad matchup for almost everyone.

Djokovic is one of the most mentally tough players out there. He can clear and go better than anyone, which is amazing considering he was almost the complete opposite two or three years ago.

quote:

---

Djoker, imho, is playing tennis at a higher level right now than it has ever been played.

---

Federer 2004-2007 disagrees.

Wake me when Djokavic wins 11 Grand Slams in 4 years. Or when he goes to 19 GS finals in 20 tries, or whatever it was Federer did.

Not saying he can't or won't, just saying he's not on THAT kind of level until he actually does it.

Djoka's won 4 of 5 GS with a SF in between. Fed did that for 4 straight years.

quote:

---

Djoka's won 4 of 5 GS with a SF in between. Fed did that for 4 straight years.

---

No he didn't. I mean, Jesus titty-fricking Christ, did you even bother to look that up? He won 8 out of 10 starting from 2005 Wimbledon. This was impressive enough. No need to make up stories.

quote:

---

Wake me when Djokavic wins 11 Grand Slams in 4 years. Or when he goes to 19 GS finals in 20 tries, or whatever it was Federer did.

---

You're missing my point. I said that Djoker is playing tennis at a higher level right now than it has ever before been played. Federer's slams 11 slams in 4 years has no bearing on the question of whether Djokovic is playing the best of all time right now.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is really impressive how Federer was able to prevail in the slams against Mark Philippoussis and Marat Safin and Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt and then Andy Roddick again and then a 35 year old Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis and then of course Andy Roddick again and then the super-elite Fernando Gonzales. That was a really nice run he had.

But then when Nadal ceased being a teenager and came into his own, that run stopped. Nadal became the best player in the world.

And then Djokovic raised his game up above and beyond both guys.

And here is the point that matters. Both Nadal and Djokovic have established themselves as the best players in the game amongst historically great players. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal is beating Andy Roddick or Lleyton Hewitt or Marcos Baghdatis or shitty Mark Phillipoussis or no-name Fernando Gonzales to win their majors. They are beating one of Roger Federer, Rafaeal Nadal, or Novak Djokovic.

Bottom line: Federer is great. I'm not saying he isn't, but his major total is inflated due to the fact that he started his run in that post-Agassi/Sampras tennis dead period. Djokovic's most recent four out of five is more impressive than Fed's 8 out of 10.

quote:

---

Meh, Federer has clearly declined and still gives Djokovic fits. I don't think you can really draw much from this other than Djokovic being a terrible matchup for Nadal just like Nadal was for Fed. I think if all three were in their peaks at the same time you'd see Fed beat Djokovic more often than not, Nadal beat Fed, and Djokovic beat Nadal.

---

Federer hasn't declined. His competition just got better. But don't take my word for it. Here is what Mats Wilander had to say.

LINK

quote:

---

"There's no question [Federer] is better now than he's ever been," Wilander said. "He's just not winning."

Wilander said Federer's biggest problem was that his two greatest rivals, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, were now playing at a much high level than the rivals he was beating when he was scooping up Grand Slams at will.

"There's no question that Novak Djokovic is way better than the opposition he had four, five years ago," said the Swede.

"You have to take Novak Djokovic now and compare him to Andy Roddick at his best. Not even close. Lleyton Hewitt at his best? Not even close. And those are the guys he was beating in the finals and semifinals."

Federer won the last of his titles at the 2010 Australian Open. This year was the first time he had gone through a season without winning at least one Grand Slam title since he broke through to capture his first in 2003.

But Wilander, who won seven majors between 1982 and 1988, said the 30-year-old Swiss had shown he was anything but a spent force, reaching the final at the French Open this year and coming with one point of beating eventual champion Djokovic at the US Open, which ended Monday.

The pair slugged it out over five gripping sets in an enthralling match that could have gone either way. Federer had two match points in the fifth set but Djokovic survived them both and won the decider 7-5.

"The first two sets again Novak were the best I have ever seen from him," Wilander said. "Djokovic is better this year than Nadal was last year and Nadal last year was better than anyone who ever played the game probably. They just get better, they really do."

The Swede, who won the Australian Open and French Open three times each and the US Open once but never Wimbledon, said there was no comparison between the standard of play between his era and now but Federer was still the best ever.

"I think they're much better (now)," he said. "I think the state of the game is incredible, amazing.

---