Who Will Be The Next 10+ slams champion?

According to Federer the young players will struggle to reproduce what Nadal, Djokovic and himself managed to: To win 10 slams and more.

============================================
FEDERER: "It is definitely hard to see one player right now getting 10 slams," said Federer. "It is much easier to say that probably a lot of guys are going to win a slam or two but winning 10 slams is not something you can predict, people didn't predict that with me to be honest.

"Maybe with Rafa (Nadal) with the French Open you say yes he is going to grab a few there. Maybe he is going to win five (he has 10 to his name) as he was an amazing junior as well like Bjorn Borg, they were the best teenagers we ever had in the game."

Federer, who came to Monaco on the back of winning the Rotterdam title where he beat Dimitrov in the final, admitted fortunes can change with the slightest of tweaks.


"Once you get rolling like Novak and I did all of a sudden you don't look back, then a few years later you do look back and you have eight or 10 Grand Slam titles, it's crazy," said Federer, the oldest world number one in ATP history. "Confidence and momentum are a big thing.

"When you unlock your game through success or a coach explains the one ingredient that is missing then that can change things."
==========================================

I think Nadal and Djokovic have timed their career very well. Had they born 5 years later they would not have achieved half of what they have.

But unlike Federer I am pretty sure we will have multiple slams winners in the next few years. It's obvious. If Djoko and Nadal managed to win 30 slams between themselves while Federer won 20, there is room for a distinguished player to win 10+. Pete and Borg did just that and from some of the youngsters out now, there is a great opportunity cause it seems indeed that the 24-30yo players are not going to grab many slams. So with talent and then experience the 18-23 yo players will have a great opportunity to score heavily.

I'd be surprised if Shapo doesn't win over 10 slams for instance.

Well there’s four a year, every year, so if a young player can get to the top and hang around a good while I can’t see how he doesn’t get 10.

It doesn't happen that often I guess...In golf it seems even harder.

I have no idea who is going to do it.

Let’s see who we have:

A.Zverev, Thiem, Shapovalov, Tiafoe, Tsitsipas, Coric, Medvedev, Chung, Rublev, Kurgios, Katchanov...

Who in that group could “go on a tear” as Fed mentions?

Shapovalov is the most talented (and I’d love GP to elaborate why he is “still not convinced” )
and I can see him win a lot if things click for him.

And there are so many things that need to click!

Esp now with sponsors telling players how to breathe...

Homogeneity of surface obviously helps with the big numbers. Even Sampras was realistically only aiming for three a year.

In a strange way, I think homogenisation is making it more difficult to win all the time in this era as there is more competition, esp on hard courts.

bogbrush wrote:Homogeneity of surface obviously helps with the big numbers. Even Sampras was realistically only aiming for three a year.

Yes, if you are Nadal/Djoko.  If you swapped a slower RG for a faster USO Federer would probably have won even more slams than he has.

Even with homogenization, Federer, the greatest, has only won one FO.  So it isn't in a terrible state.... just not as good as it used to be, because winning non clay slams has become closer to FO.

As for next 10+ Slam champ?  It's impossible to say.  It could easily be a player that isn't even heard of yet.

Daniel wrote:Even with homogenization, Federer, the greatest, has only won one FO.  So it isn't in a terrible state.... just not as good as it used to be, because winning non clay slams has become closer to FO.

As for next 10+ Slam champ?  It's impossible to say.  It could easily be a player that isn't even heard of yet.

Come on Daniel...you can be braver than that!

Now is the time to put your neck on the line and “shine”

Federer? going for 30?

10+ is very rare. Look at all those greats from the past who never get to 10. And look for how long Emerson held his slam record: 33 years!

Federer is one of a kind, people talked about his potential to break Sampras'record before he even got 1. Nadal started winning RG at 18 and never stopped winning RG, he's the goat of clay but he's also helped by the fact true clay specialists became extinct since...well since he entered the tour. 
Djoko's case is curious. He won much more slams than i ever expected him to. I saw him as the next Hewitt, but he ended up as an agile version of Nadal with a better serve and return. However, he already won one when he was 20, and that says a lot. 

I think Federer is/was a catalyst for both Nadal and Djokovic. Federer's slam count was a target, a magnet. For Nadal it still is, but i guess for all the others Federer set the bar probably too high. This could mean greats in the future don't even care about the slam count: 8,10,12.. does it matter?

noleisthebest wrote:

Daniel wrote:Even with homogenization, Federer, the greatest, has only won one FO.  So it isn't in a terrible state.... just not as good as it used to be, because winning non clay slams has become closer to FO.

As for next 10+ Slam champ?  It's impossible to say.  It could easily be a player that isn't even heard of yet.

Come on Daniel...you can be braver than that!

Now is the time to put your neck on the line and “shine”

I'm being totally honest.  I really don't see any of Generation Never making 10 slams.  It's a rare feat.  I think it will be someone not even currently around. Everyone thinks that because Djok Nadal and Fed did it, that everyone will.  Not the case.

This is the era of longevity, so criterium for 10 slams is in a way easier than before.

The element that is a must for anyone to do it again is outstanding talent and /or a game that can dominate.

For me, Shapo has the outstanding talent. Enough to win 10 slams.

Is he going to make the most of it like Federer, that’s the question I can’t answer.
A lot will depend on the people around him.

Equally, Zverev if in the hands of a good coach (rumour has it  Becker is taking him on soon) could maybe become less calculating and start winning big.

Kurgios is a lost cause because of his head.

gallery play wrote:10+ is very rare. Look at all those greats from the past who never get to 10. And look for how long Emerson held his slam record: 33 years!

It used to be rare.
And it may be rare after Fedal plus Djokovic retire.

What is very different now compared to Emerson’s time is that tennis has become a big business, and it’s in business’s nature to want to grow at all cost.

I believe Nadal is a classic example of a business product, and was he around in Emerson’s time I don’t think he would’ve been as successful as now.

gallery play wrote:
Federer is one of a kind, people talked about his potential to break Sampras'record before he even got 1.

He is one of a kind and should’ve won 30 slams.
The ease of his winning was always head and shoulders above the rest.

Which is why TDs slowed everything down, rigged draws and God knows what else to make it more “interesting”.

Will the business do the same to push their next potential record breaker?
Quite likely.
Even if Fed’s record is very safe.

gallery play wrote:
Djoko's case is curious. He won much more slams than i ever expected him to. I saw him as the next Hewitt, but he ended up as an agile version of Nadal with a better serve and return. However, he already won one when he was 20, and that says a lot. 

I knew “Djoko” had the potential as soon as I saw him.
He has an incredible hunger, drive and focus which supersede everything else.
They are his biggest weapons.

gallery play wrote:
think Federer is/was a catalyst for both Nadal and Djokovic. Federer's slam count was a target, a magnet. For Nadal it still is, but i guess for all the others Federer set the bar probably too high. This could mean greats in the future don't even care about the slam count: 8,10,12.. does it matter?

Good point.
Equally, he was driven to keep going to protect his legacy from Nadal, amd Nole helped him a great deal there.

As for greats not caring about the slam count in future, quite possible, but the Business will always be there to “help” even go for the “dream”.

Just look what hype they made of Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:This is the era of longevity, so criterium for 10 slams is in a way easier than before.

You have absolutely no data to support that.  You can't analyze 3 players from the same era and then extrapolate that over the following years.  

Daniel wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:This is the era of longevity, so criterium for 10 slams is in a way easier than before.

You have absolutely no data to support that.  You can't analyze 3 players from the same era and then extrapolate that over the following years.  

If you look at the ATP list you’ll see that 15 out of top 25 are over 28. And that does not include A. Murray who is 28.

There is no ondication the trend is about to change either.

World number ine and two are turning 37 and 32 in a few months’ time.

Andddd that's relevant to gaining 10 slams, becaaause?
You're talking bollocks.
Ivo Karlovic is how old? Been around how long? Has how many Slams?

Ferrer? The list goes on.

noleisthebest wrote:

Daniel wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:This is the era of longevity, so criterium for 10 slams is in a way easier than before.

You have absolutely no data to support that.  You can't analyze 3 players from the same era and then extrapolate that over the following years.  

If you look at the ATP list you’ll see that 15 out of top 25 are over 28. And that does not include A. Murray who is 28.

There is no ondication the trend is about to change either.

World number ine and two are turning 37 and 32 in a few months’ time.

Andy is not 28...he is 30...31 soon.

I meant ranked 28.

noleisthebest wrote:For me, Shapo has the outstanding talent. Enough to win 10 slams.

Is he going to make the most of it like Federer, that’s the question I can’t answer.
A lot will depend on the people around him.

Equally, Zverev if in the hands of a good coach (rumour has it  Becker is taking him on soon) could maybe become less calculating and start winning big.

Kurgios is a lost cause because of his head.

This is almost exactly how I see it.  I am maybe more skeptical of Zverev than you are here, but these three are the only ones worth even thinking about.  Shapo and Kyrgios the only two with enough talent, but Kyrgios is an idiot.  So, it will either be Shapo or someone still younger.

We know talent is the least factor required to win large numbers of slams. Unless of course you have so much of it that it makes you a unique player and that unique player is Federer. But even Federer had to work very hard.

Out of all 10+ slam winners, only Federer won them with pure talent.

What separates the 10+ slams from the others is their work ethic, focus and professionalism. They worked hard to succeed and none of them were the most talented of their generation but by working harder, efficiently they won more than their more talented peers.

So as good as Shapo is, he will need that dose of professionalism and discipline to achieve 10+.

The 3 RRunners in a way developed that school to success. All 3 bet everything on fitness and that made them amazingly consistent and able to contain almost all shotmakers and talented players out there, especially in slams and TMS1000. They left nothing for the less fit players.

On the other side, the next generation has now developed weapons to hit through that defence and I am convinced the future will bring something new but fitness will always be of paramount to win multiple slams. With those new strings it will take a greater genius than Federer to win slams serving and volleying.

noleisthebest wrote:
Shapovalov is the most talented (and I’d love GP to elaborate why he is “still not convinced”  )
and I can see him win a lot if things click for him.

You could have asked me at the Champagne bar

I haven't seen him play much. But that's because he loses so often early rounds, he's out before i can focus on him..And that should change quickly. Nole was winning 250's and getting to slam 4th rounds or quarters at the same age. 
For now i'm not sure we'll be looking at the new Djokovic or Dimitrov, careerwise. But like i said, that could be because i haven't seen enough of him.

I must say, of all the youngsters, it's Chung's athleticism that impresses me most. I'm curious how he'll fare on clay, where his weak serve would hurt him less

gallery play wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Shapovalov is the most talented (and I’d love GP to elaborate why he is “still not convinced”  )
and I can see him win a lot if things click for him.

You could have asked me at the Champagne bar

I must’ve been on cloud nine with Fed becoming number one again.  

gallery play wrote:
I haven't seen him play much. But that's because he loses so often early rounds, he's out before i can focus on him..And that should change quickly. Nole was winning 250's and getting to slam 4th rounds or quarters at the same age. 

Well, when you get a chance next, please focus!
You do have a very sharp eye.

gallery play wrote:
For now i'm not sure we'll be looking at the new Djokovic or Dimitrov, careerwise. But like i said, that could be because i haven't seen enough of him.

I reckon he has stg more than Dimi, more talent, ease of shots.
If he had Nole’s drive he’ll really go far.
That’s the bit I can’t see in him yet, and probably won’t see anyway. Hard to match Nole’s hunger.
But then again with players like him who play instincitive tennis, they are free spirits.
Fed was helped a lot by his German gene in that department.

gallery play wrote:
I must say, of all the youngsters, it's Chung's athleticism that impresses me most. I'm curious how he'll fare on clay, where his weak serve would hurt him less

Chung is quite amazing when he is on, but there is a limit to him.

He’ll burn out fast young. Though he is actually tall and strong for an Asian. Just that his relatively big head makes him look shorter than he actually is. Maybe not as fragile as Nishi, then.

I think road running tennis is as a dominating force is finished.

Coric tried to copy it but where is he now.

gallery play wrote:Nole was winning 250's and getting to slam 4th rounds or quarters at the same age.

Yes, Shapo is just about the age when Nole broke through.  Here is a comparison of Shapo's achievements up to now vs Nole's on April 9th, 2006 (same age as Shapo is today) - Shapo's numbers first, Nole's second:

Rank: #45/#64 (Shapo wins)
Titles: 0/0 (tie)
Best results:
GS: 4R/3R (Shapo wins)
Masters: SF/3R (Shapo wins)
500: 2R/QF (Nole wins)
250: SF/SF (tie)
Top 10 wins: 1 (#2 Nadal)/1 (#9 Puerta) (advantage Shapo)

Quite similar, with Shapovalov looking maybe touch better.

2006 was the year when Nole started breaking through.  He reached QF at RG and then in summer/fall won Amersfoort and Metz, and reached final in Umag.  He also added two more top 10 wins (#9 Gonzo and #8 Robredo), and finished the year at #16.  Nothing super spectacular yet, but definite progress.  If Shapovalov can do something similar, I will be happy.

Yes, but things went quick for Nole in 2007. So Shapo must improve his win/lose ratio from now on before we can really consider him as a super talent. We are talking about 10+ slams here after all

Yes, he would have to improve quickly of course, but as of now he is looking quite good.  Nole's 2007 is roughly Shapo's 2019, and Nole only won a slam in 2008, so Shapo does have a bit of time.  Also, Federer was not progressing quite as fast, so it is not like Shapo absolutely has to match Nole early on.

I think Shapo looks as good as anyone I have seen the last 10+ years.  Delpo, early Cilic, young Kyrgios are three others that I thought could be great when they were first coming out.  It looks like none of them will get to 10+ slams, and there is no guarantee Shapo will either.  But he has potential to do it.

From what I’ve seen with Shapo, he will take longer than Nole, he is not as driven and his game is freer.

I reckon Fed should invite Shapo to his training camp and give him advice how to dodge all the bullets at this stage.

Tennis wise, he has the instinctive flow and talent to pull it off even now.

It’s the little things that let him down...not keeping clear focus 100%.

Definitely the most likable and complete of all young players by far,

We cannot compare 2007 with 2018....It has got much harder for all youngesters. Nadal and Djoko would not have been able to be successful that young in today's era.

As mentioned many times, Nadal and Djoko got amazing timing too as they came on tour having learnt to play with new strings and were facing a generation of players who learnt to play with nat strings who were used to fast conds.

Do you really think Nadal and Djoko would have been that successful early had they had to have an aggressive game with flat shots on skiddy surfaces?

Shapo is way better than Djoko at the same age. He may not have teh same determination and will but I find him ridiculously good for his age already.

Tenez wrote:We cannot compare 2007 with 2018....It has got much harder for all youngesters. Nadal and Djoko would not have been able to be successful that young in today's era.

I agree...

But remember how formidable Federer was in 2006,7...
And when cocky young Nole came on the scene he challenged Fed straight away saying he wanted to be number one.

Young Nole knew how to win, and that’s something most young players now are nit good at. They play by the book.

I don’t want to turn this thread into Nole justification, but I caught Tignor’s write-up on him last week and I thought this paragraph summed him quite well:

“Djokovic did it with a game that, while not as artistic as Federer’s or as physical as Nadal’s, was perfectly suited to 21st-century trends in the sport. A lean but muscular 6’2”, he blended offense and defense until there was little difference between the two; he was strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with anyone, but fast enough to retrieve nearly anything. Djokovic’s two-handed backhand was every bit the weapon, to both corners, that his forehand was. And while there were better servers among his peers, there were no better returners. Djokovic at his best was often described as “clinical.” With no exploitable weaknesses, he took his opponents apart, shot by methodical shot.

Devastating without having to be spectacular, Djokovic’s game worked on every surface, against every type of opponent. While he wouldn’t entirely vanquish Federer and Nadal, Djokovic would take the lead in his head-to-heads against both men, and he would fulfill his early self-prognostications by putting a stranglehold on the No. 1 ranking from 2011 to 2016. By the time that long, remarkably consistent run of dominance was over, Djokovic had won 12 majors and a record 30 Masters 1000s, and spent 223 weeks at No. 1. In 2015, he experienced a second annus mirabilis, winning three majors and a record six Masters 1000s, and finishing 82-6.”

Tenez wrote:
As mentioned many times, Nadal and Djoko got amazing timing too as they came on tour having learnt to play with new strings and were facing a generation of players who learnt to play with nat strings who were used to fast conds.

Do you really think Nadal and Djoko would have been that successful early had they had to have an aggressive game with flat shots on skiddy surfaces?

Shapo is way better than Djoko at the same age. He may not have teh same determination and will but I find him ridiculously good for his age already.

I agree.
Let’s see if he can raise the bar and how deep his well of talent is.

Tenez wrote:We cannot compare 2007 with 2018....It has got much harder for all youngesters. Nadal and Djoko would not have been able to be successful that young in today's era.

No one denies that but it can't be an excuse, this is his time.

The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

mcekovic wrote:The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

It can’t be that bad!

Someone’s got to win all those trophies!

We will never see a 10 GS winner any more, all youngsters play same, defense crap, baseline play, courts are all same, speed same, so any top 10 player can win a GS (ignoring the old guard).

Jahu wrote:We will never see a 10 GS winner any more, all youngsters play same, defense crap, baseline play, courts are all same, speed same, so any top 10 player can win a GS (ignoring the old guard).

If that was the case, you would have more chance of seeing a 10+ slam champion.

noleisthebest wrote:

mcekovic wrote:The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

It can’t be that bad!

Someone’s got to win all those trophies!

You need a new period of weakness (4 different GS winners a season), that usually follows the period of high dominance, in order to create space for a 10+ GS winner!

mcekovic wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

mcekovic wrote:The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

It can’t be that bad!

Someone’s got to win all those trophies!

You need a new period of weakness (4 different GS winners a season), that usually follows the period of high dominance, in order to create space for a 10+ GS winner!

Didn’t Federer go back to back with Sampras with the 10+ slam trend?

I think we have weathered that period of weakness with Dimi/Rao/Nishi generation.

Tenez wrote:

Jahu wrote:We will never see a 10 GS winner any more, all youngsters play same, defense crap, baseline play, courts are all same, speed same, so any top 10 player can win a GS (ignoring the old guard).

If that was the case, you would have more chance of seeing a 10+ slam champion.

How? When no one is special?

noleisthebest wrote:Didn’t  Federer go back to back with Sampras with the  10+ slam trend?

I think we have weathered that period of weakness with Dimi/Rao/Nishi generation.

Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori generation will not be mentioned in 10 years , they are 'no-generation'. Ferrer, Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga will be more mentioned then them as being the second tier of the Big 4!


Here is the list of 10+ GS winners in Open Era with the age of winning first GS as well as age of reaching No 1:
Federed 20 GS, 1st GS 21 years, No 1 22 years
Nadal 16 GS, 1st GS 18 years, No 1 22 years
Sampras 14 GS, 1st GS 19 years, No 1 21 years 
Djokovic 12 GS, 1st GS 20 years, No 1 24 years
Borg 11 GS, 1st GS 18 years, No 1 21 years

So you need to be at most 21 years old winning first GS and at most 24 years old to reach No 1 for 10+ GS!
Zverev, the most promising young player (Kyrgios, Thiem are not young any more!), will be 21 years at next GS, but he was never over round of 16 in a GS! (actually just one R16 run!)

So, the man to next reach 10+ GS now has probably less then 18 years!

Also, players like McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi have less them 10 GS.
Are you saying you now see a player of even their caliber? I don't

What I see is next Murray, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Moya...

mcekovic wrote:Also, players like McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi have less them 10 GS.
Are you saying you now see a player of even their caliber? I don't

What I see is next Murray, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Moya...

I see Shapovalov, he is 18 (19 in April), who has amazing shots, all of them - FH, BH, volleys, serve...didn’t pay atention to slices.

He plays fearless, instinctive, fluid tennis, probably the only one apart from Federer.

That brand of tennis is tough and I think he needs another year on tour to hone that game and pick up experience. And stay fearless, not succumb to pressure and hype/expectations like many.
He sometimes gets easily down on himself.

So the team around him is crucial at this stage.

That’s why I said Fed should try and take him under his wing.

Everyone else is ok, there are very talented players but not as good as Shapo.

If Shapo keeps working, he has every chance to win 10 slams.

mcekovic wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

mcekovic wrote:The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

It can’t be that bad!

Someone’s got to win all those trophies!

You need a new period of weakness (4 different GS winners a season), that usually follows the period of high dominance, in order to create space for a 10+ GS winner!

There is no logic to such statements. If you had 20 Federers playing at the same time, they'd share the slams between themsleves and that would be a high competitive period with no 10+ slam champion.

mcekovic wrote:Also, players like McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi have less them 10 GS.
Are you saying you now see a player of even their caliber? I don't

What I see is next Murray, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Moya...

All those guys would struggle to get through the first rounds of slams in today's era. So speculating on how good they would have been had they trained and played in today's era is not going to make a tangible comparison.

Tenez wrote:

mcekovic wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

mcekovic wrote:The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

It can’t be that bad!

Someone’s got to win all those trophies!

You need a new period of weakness (4 different GS winners a season), that usually follows the period of high dominance, in order to create space for a 10+ GS winner!

There is no logic to such statements. If you had 20 Federers playing at the same time, they'd share the slams between themsleves and that would be a high competitive period with no 10+ slam champion.

I think you are missing the point.
You see what happens with unique situation with Big 3 playing at the more or less same time (2004-2017 = 14 seasons):
6 seasons with 3 slam wins (3 Federer, 2 Djokovic, 1 Nadal)
7 seasons with 2 slam wins (3 Federer, 3 Nadal, 1 Djokovic)
2 seasons (2012, 2014) with 4 different slam winners
So even Big 3 played more or less at the same time, they each managed to have their periods of utter dominance. This is very unique. I do not see anything similar in the newest NextGen.

noleisthebest wrote:
I see Shapovalov, he is 18 (19 in April), who has amazing shots, all of them - FH, BH, volleys, serve...didn’t pay atention to slices.
...
If Shapo keeps working, he has every chance to win 10 slams.

At the 20-th birthday:
Federer had:
1 Title
3 Finals
6 SFs
Nadal had:
2 GS
6 Masters, 1 Masters final
9 More titles
Djokovic had:
1 Masters, 1 Masters final
4 more titles

At 19-th birthday, Shapovalov has:
1 Masters SF
1 other SF

This year will be crucial for Shapo, he needs results to prove himself. But I think although he has huge natural talent for tennis technique, he is a partially a head-case and does not have that mental strength needed for 10+ GS. He has guts, but not composure.

Shapo is not 19, he’ll be 19 between april 18-19.

So 4 more slams for him to make a mark as a 19 yo.

At 18, (like Shapo is now), all I remember from Nole was that famous statement at RG 2006 - Nadal is beatable.

Shapo has already beaten Nadal, last year in Canada.

I am not saying he will x number of slams, but I can see him do it, and frankly, I’d love him to with the brand of tennis he is playing,

noleisthebest wrote:At 18, (like Shapo is now), all I remember from Nole was that famous statement at RG 2006 - Nadal is beatable.

And even that statement came after Nole's 19th birthday.

mcekovic wrote:he is a partially a head-case

Is he?  That is not my impression.  He strikes me as quite mature for an 18-19 year-old.  Even his game, while flashy, is not reckless.  He does not just go for big shots at random.  He is mindful of when he can pull the trigger and when he needs to be more patient.  The main thing he needs to improve is his movement - he ends up hitting way too many shots from out of position.  But that should come, it is not like he is not athletic enough to move well.

mcekovic wrote:
This year will be crucial for Shapo, he needs results to prove himself. But I think although he has huge natural talent for tennis technique, he is a partially a head-case and does not have that mental strength needed for 10+ GS. He has guts, but not composure.

What makes you say that?

And why do you think he is a head case?

mcekovic wrote:

Tenez wrote:

mcekovic wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

mcekovic wrote:The one that is not yet on the ATP ranking charts...

It can’t be that bad!

Someone’s got to win all those trophies!

You need a new period of weakness (4 different GS winners a season), that usually follows the period of high dominance, in order to create space for a 10+ GS winner!

There is no logic to such statements. If you had 20 Federers playing at the same time, they'd share the slams between themsleves and that would be a high competitive period with no 10+ slam champion.

I think you are missing the point.
You see what happens with unique situation with Big 3 playing at the more or less same time (2004-2017 = 14 seasons):
6 seasons with 3 slam wins (3 Federer, 2 Djokovic, 1 Nadal)
7 seasons with 2 slam wins (3 Federer, 3 Nadal, 1 Djokovic)
2 seasons (2012, 2014) with 4 different slam winners
So even Big 3 played more or less at the same time, they each managed to have their periods of utter dominance. This is very unique. I do not see anything similar in the newest NextGen.

 I'm afraid a few here on thsi forum don't understand math or trends.  They base their views around the last year - like their views have their very own ATP ranking system.

noleisthebest wrote:

mcekovic wrote:
This year will be crucial for Shapo, he needs results to prove himself. But I think although he has huge natural talent for tennis technique, he is a partially a head-case and does not have that mental strength needed for 10+ GS. He has guts, but not composure.

What makes you say that?

And why do you think he is a head case?

He lost quite a few close matches he should have won:

Delray Beach 2018 SF to  Francis Tiafoe: 7-5 6-4
AO 2018 R64 to Jo Wilfried Tsonga: 3-6 6-3 1-6 7-6(4) 7-5 (Shapovalov won 51.1% points)
Brisbane 2018 R32 to Kyle Edmund: 6-7(5) 7-6(4) 6-4
Antwerp 2017 R32 to Ernesto Escobedo: 7-6(5) 6-4
USO 2017 R16 to Pablo Careno Busta: 7-6(2) 7-6(4) 7-6(3)

He is not a classical head-case, that is chocking at important points, he just seems does not have that killer instinct to win close matches, even when he does not play the best. One need this to be true champion.