[Emma Jean]

I don't think he'll win more than 2. Nadal is bound to win 1 more. That is, if he comes back at all. Federer's luck will have to depend on the draws. He now has one too many enemies to deal with. A retirement will be on the cards but he'll be keen on a finish like Sampras'. Whether he will have a shot at that or not is up for speculations.

[laundry]

I fully believe it's special. Just the play on court, the sheer consistency, it really is just remarkable. As an amateur tennis player myself it just boggles the mind how these guys do what they do.

I guess we'll see when the next generations come up, but I don't see them playing to the same level that our top 4 have been doing. With every sport the standard of play nearly always increases from generation to generation, and daring to say that it will dip going into the next generation in tennis would be credit enough to what's being achieved right now.

[janetx]

Nole could get ten, easy. But I keep having this nagging thought: is this era really that special or is it a case of there being only four good players? It's chicken and egg.

I believe players like Tsonga, Berdych, and Delpotro would have won each a slam or two in another era. They are just as good if not better than some of the players Fed faced in slam finals (e.g., Baggy,  Gonzalez, Phillipoussus, etc).

Roddick, who Fed beat in slam finals how many times (?!), has only a 6-5 lead over Berdych, and Delpo is 4-1 over Roddick.

Berdych has beaten Fed on grass and hard.
Delpo has beaten Fed on hard
Tsonga has beaten Fed on grass and hard

They are all explosive, offensive players who have the qualities to win a slam.

The problem is they can't get through 2 or sometimes 3 of the top guys.

Take Berdych: he beat Nole and then Fed to reach the Wimbledon final in 2010 but then just couldn't take out Rafa too. Or at USO - he took out Fed and took Murray to 5 sets.

There are NOT only 4 good players imo. There are 4 all time greats. And then a lot of other very good players!

Another change has been the technology and physicality of the modern game which means it takes longer for younguns to break through (Tomic,Dimitrov, etc). Plus, I do tend to think some of these younguns are a bit spoiled, need to work harder and need to round out their games.

----------------------

I think the 90s-early 2000s had some strong players, but not with the all round games we see at the top now. Thus Fed, with his all-court game, was able to dominate before the rise of Rafa and then Nole and Muzza. Fed's obviously an amazing player, but I do tend to think the guys playing now are of a higher caliber than some in the late 90s-early-mid 2000s. And it seems a lot of greats agree.For example Roddick was a great competitor, but all serve and forehand: weak backhand, weak volley, not-so-great movement. Hewitt was tenacious, a great mover and return - not so great serve. Davy, great ground stokes, weak mentally and poor serve. Sampras was fading more or less when Fed was rising. Safin had an amazing game but was a total headcase. Baggy had potential but not a good work ethic. Agassi rose up and gave a nice effort to reach number 1 and play on into 2006. And so on.

[TheMadHatter]

Which makes you think more about the likes of Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer and Berdych who, had they been five years younger, would probably have a few slams to their name. Instead (although I guess there's still plenty of time for them yet), they'll probably be mostly forgotten and certainly not known to younger people getting into the sport. They won't even be up there as 'best player never to win a slam' because they've only ever made one final each (bar Ferrer), only have one Masters each and none have ever ranked higher than 4 in the world.

Del Potro for now is a one-slam wonder, although I think he will win more in the future. He's still only 24, and when he's at his peak in 3-4 years time, you'd have thought Federer and Nadal would no longer be on the scene (although I guess you never know).

Murray was always 'greatest player never to win a Slam', and now he's a 'one slam wonder' (if he retired with just the one slam). Hopefully he'll win at least a couple more slams to make his mark. If he could tally over eight he'll go down as one of the greats in one of, if not the greatest era ever. At the moment, whilst he's finally won a slam, he's still got that pressure of 'only' having the one. I think once he gets his 2nd things will get easier again, and maybe one day he'll get into a final where he goes in as favourite against someone less experienced than him. That's the situation Djokovic is in now, although Murray is now somewhat of a veteran in slam finals, even if he has only won one of them. I look forward to that day.

Lots of hypothesizing there and thinking way too far ahead, but it's quite interesting.

[blueberryhill]

Nah, Andy'll get more than one.
One of these soon days his beautiful game will click in a final, hopefully Wimbledon 2013, and no-one would be able to beat him.
Think Nole could end up ahead of Rafa though. I tip him for RG. His movement on clay is second only to Rafa and his "tennis age" is far, far younger.

[TheMadHatter]

What a strange statement 'Andy will go down as the greatest player to only win one slam.'  Not long ago he was' the greatest player to never win a slam.'  He was not himself yesterday.  Tired and injured whatever anyone says.   He will know this and so does Nole.  Federe himself not long ago said that it was much easier for him when he first went to the the top.

'Could'.

As it stands. Right now. No-one's saying anything about yesterday or doubting his ability to win more slams.

[blueberryhill]

Hope he does. That'll shut those awful Fedfans up