What does Novak have to do to be truly in the Fedal conversation?

[Federberg]

It seems to me that some of the stuff that Novak is doing now is almost Federesque. The fact that he's won almost half of the last 41 Master series tournaments. It's ridiculous really. I think there's already a case to say that he has surpassed Rafa in one regard, his ability to be a dominant number 1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's anywhere near Rafa's level of achievement yet, but he's posting some impressive stuff.

What are the things he has to do?

Win the French?

Post double figure slams?

Win more than 70 titles?

What else?

 

[nehmeth]

If he wins the calendar slam (this year or next), he's already up there. Short of that, he has to keep winning slams and masters until he passes Nadal.

 

[Federberg]

If he wins the calendar slam (this year or next), he's already up there. Short of that, he has to keep winning slams and masters until he passes Nadal.

I'm curious, if he matches Rafa's count do we consider them equal or do we give Novak the nod for being a more dominant number 1?

 

[atttomole]

We have had a flurry of new interesting threads in the last few days, especially on Djokovic. I think Djokovic has to get into double figures in the slam count. Djokovic is not far away from Fedal at all. A dominant 2015 with two more slams could be enough I think.

 

[atttomole]

If he wins the calendar slam (this year or next), he's already up there. Short of that, he has to keep winning slams and masters until he passes Nadal.

I'm curious, if he matches Rafa's count do we consider them equal or do we give Novak the nod for being a more dominant number 1?

But Rafa may not be done winning slams yet, so it will not be easy for Djokovic to catch Rafa as of now.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think he has to pass Nadal to get in the discussion, but I do think the gate-keeper is Sampras - so he has to equal or pass Pistol Pete, meaning 14+ Slams.

But I agree that a calendar Slam gets him in the discussion, even if he never wins another Slam. He'll hold the Masters record and could end with 35+, well above everyone else probably for decades to come. So 12+ Slams, 30+ Masters, 200+ weeks at #1....all that gets him in the ballpark.

 

[nehmeth]

If he wins the calendar slam (this year or next), he's already up there. Short of that, he has to keep winning slams and masters until he passes Nadal.

I'm curious, if he matches Rafa's count do we consider them equal or do we give Novak the nod for being a more dominant number 1?

You're just itching to start some controversy!

He has been dominant in Oz, but not in the way that Ralf has been at RG. Rafa is one Australian Open away from having a double career slam. Roger is of course a French Open championship short.

If Novak doesn't complete at least a career slam, but matches Ralf's count, then it would be a no (in my opinion).

 

[Federberg]

If he wins the calendar slam (this year or next), he's already up there. Short of that, he has to keep winning slams and masters until he passes Nadal.

I'm curious, if he matches Rafa's count do we consider them equal or do we give Novak the nod for being a more dominant number 1?

You're just itching to start some controversy!

He has been dominant in Oz, but not in the way that Ralf has been at RG. Rafa is one Australian Open away from having a double career slam. Roger is of course a French Open championship short.

If Novak doesn't complete at least a career slam, but matches Ralf's count, then it would be a no (in my opinion).

:snicker

I must say that for me I give dominance a high weight so matching Rafa could lead me to edge towards Novak.

 

[nehmeth]

Dominance over the big four in their prime?? Fed has half of them. Rafa has 3/4. Nole has Andy... and Andy?? I know you mean all players, but if Nole dominates these next three years with these young turds, I mean Turks... to me that is just not the same.

 

[tented]

He has to change his name to Federer or Nadal.

Kind of a bad name for a thread, if what you're trying to do is measure inclusiveness. Just sayin' ...

 

[Fiero425]

If he wins the calendar slam (this year or next), he's already up there. Short of that, he has to keep winning slams and masters until he passes Nadal.

I'm curious, if he matches Rafa's count do we consider them equal or do we give Novak the nod for being a more dominant number 1?

You're just itching to start some controversy!

He has been dominant in Oz, but not in the way that Ralf has been at RG. Rafa is one Australian Open away from having a double career slam. Roger is of course a French Open championship short.

If Novak doesn't complete at least a career slam, but matches Ralf's count, then it would be a no (in my opinion).

Some, esp. McEnroe put Rafa in the GOAT position, not only for his wins in Majors, but his dominance of Roger! That's one thing that will help Nole; close to surpassing Roger and Rafa H2H as well as in Masters! Only time will tell if he can get closer in Majors, but IMO, he's already there because he has so much more in him! If he takes that FO title, he'll definitely have arrived! Federer's '09 FO settled some of the argument about being Rafa's pigeon! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

I'm sure you must know I tend to reject weak era type stuff. If Novak dominates the field in front of him that's good enough to meet my criteria

 

[Federberg]

I'm curious, if he matches Rafa's count do we consider them equal or do we give Novak the nod for being a more dominant number 1?

You're just itching to start some controversy!

He has been dominant in Oz, but not in the way that Ralf has been at RG. Rafa is one Australian Open away from having a double career slam. Roger is of course a French Open championship short.

If Novak doesn't complete at least a career slam, but matches Ralf's count, then it would be a no (in my opinion).

Some, esp. McEnroe put Rafa in the GOAT position, not only for his wins in Majors, but his dominance of Roger! That's one thing that will help Nole; close to surpassing Roger and Rafa H2H as well as in Masters! Only time will tell if he can get closer in Majors, but IMO, he's already there because he has so much more in him! If he takes that FO title, he'll definitely have arrived! Federer's '09 FO settled a lot of the argument about being Rafa's pigeon! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

A lot of these old guys make remarks to keep themselves relevant in the press. McEnroe himself would admit that when he was learning his trade he wasn't thinking about H2H's, he was thinking about winning titles. It's nonsense in my opinion

 

[Federberg]

He has to change his name to Federer or Nadal.

Kind of a bad name for a thread, if what you're trying to do is measure inclusiveness. Just sayin' ...

:clap
You nitpicker you. I think you know the point I was making!

 

[Fiero425]

You're just itching to start some controversy!

He has been dominant in Oz, but not in the way that Ralf has been at RG. Rafa is one Australian Open away from having a double career slam. Roger is of course a French Open championship short.

If Novak doesn't complete at least a career slam, but matches Ralf's count, then it would be a no (in my opinion).

Some, esp. McEnroe put Rafa in the GOAT position, not only for his wins in Majors, but his dominance of Roger! That's one thing that will help Nole; close to surpassing Roger and Rafa H2H as well as in Masters! Only time will tell if he can get closer in Majors, but IMO, he's already there because he has so much more in him! If he takes that FO title, he'll definitely have arrived! Federer's '09 FO settled a lot of the argument about being Rafa's pigeon! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

A lot of these old guys make remarks to keep themselves relevant in the press. McEnroe himself would admit that when he was learning his trade he wasn't thinking about H2H's, he was thinking about winning titles. It's nonsense in my opinion

Way back when, the big rivalry major final match didn't happen as much as today! The Big 4 have played each other in semi's and finals more than any other rivals in Open history; well over 30 times! McEnroe-Borg only played 14 times, Connors-Borg about 24 times, and others weren't even that busy like Sampras-Agassi! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[brokenshoelace]

A calendar slam this year would obviously put him up there with anyone. Otherwise, he has to come close in slam count to Nadal and at least get a career slam, which I think he will, if not more.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm sure you must know I tend to reject weak era type stuff. If Novak dominates the field in front of him that's good enough to meet my criteria

It's interesting. If things stay as they are for the next couple of years, field quality wise, and Nadal and Federer fade into obscurity, then there would be no denying that Novak is dealing with a sub-par field, no matter which way you slice it.

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

 

[Riotbeard]

I don't think he has to pass Nadal to get in the discussion, but I do think the gate-keeper is Sampras - so he has to equal or pass Pistol Pete, meaning 14+ Slams.

But I agree that a calendar Slam gets him in the discussion, even if he never wins another Slam. He'll hold the Masters record and could end with 35+, well above everyone else probably for decades to come. So 12+ Slams, 30+ Masters, 200+ weeks at #1....all that gets him in the ballpark.

I would say El Dude formulation is plausible and would put him in the same conversation (although as having undeniably close but inferior career to the other two).

 

[lacatch]

Slams Clams. In order to really enter the conversation, he definitely needs a new barber, no?

 

[Haelfix]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.