Total slams predictions for the pros

Federer 16

Nadal 11

Djokovic 8

Murray 4

Del Potro 2

Tomic 2

When all is said and done the table will look like this:


Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)


Titles Players

16 Roger Federer

14 Pete Sampras

11 Björn Borg, Rafael Nadal

8 Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi, Novak Djokovic

7 John McEnroe, Mats Wilander

6 Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker

5 Rod Laver, John Newcombe

4 Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier, Andy Murray

3 Jan Kodeš, Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten

2 Stan Smith, Ilie Năstase, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Juan Martin Del Potro, Bernard Tomic

I'm really impressed with Tomic. I watched the boys final at Wimbledon when he was in it (the year Robson won the girls singles) and he looked impressive then from what I can remember. It might be a bit early to say he'll win slams though.

4? Murray will win 5!! Maybe...

TSC wrote:I'm really impressed with Tomic. I watched the boys final at Wimbledon when he was in it (the year Robson won the girls singles) and he looked impressive then from what I can remember. It might be a bit early to say he'll win slams though.

4? Murray will win 5!! Maybe...

5 slams for Murray would be even better.

I think 40 slams for the next 10 years 4 slams every year for Murray would be even better, won't it?

eraldeen, If you think Murray will win 4 slams, can you suggest any reasons for this other than "I am a big Murray fan and would love to see him win slams"?

Is Murray 20-22 years old that benefit of doubt with age and experience can be given to him? NO
Has Murray won any slam till now? NO
Has Murray in any of the 3 slams won a set? NO
Has Murray shown a major impact on any Slam this year in 2011? NO
If you look at age for players who are multiple slam winners, does Murray look to have any chance? NO

Has Murray changed his attitude? NO
Has Murray improved his game since 2008? NO. only fitness because that's what he always talks about improving.

Have his peers of similar age moved ahead of him? YES. Djo, Delpotro, Nadal


SO can you suggest why you think Murray will win 4 slams by the end of his career?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I think 40 slams for the next 10 years 4 slams every year for Murray would be even better, won't it?

eraldeen, If you think Murray will win 4 slams, can you suggest any reasons for this other than "I am a big Murray fan and would love to see him win slams"?

Is Murray 20-22 years old that benefit of doubt with age and experience can be given to him? NO
Has Murray won any slam till now? NO
Has Murray in any of the 3 slams won a set? NO
Has Murray shown a major impact on any Slam this year in 2011? NO
If you look at age for players who are multiple slam winners, does Murray look to have any chance? NO

Has Murray changed his attitude? NO
Has Murray improved his game since 2008? NO. only fitness because that's what he always talks about improving.

Have his peers of similar age moved ahead of him? YES. Djo, Delpotro, Nadal


SO can you suggest why you think Murray will win 4 slams by the end of his career?

Questions in order:
1) No, but he's still young and still has time on his side, hasn't IMO reached his peak yet (some players mature later than others).
2) Obv. not
3) you forgot the word final after slam I presume
4) 3 semis, twice taking a set of Rafa, and even on the clay pushed him in all three sets, and one final makes an impact in my book.
5) two words: Ivan Lendl
6) yes, he's much more aggressive on court now, in fact I would suggest he lost the last two slam semis because he was TOO aggressive (ie more winners than Nadal, but too many UEs). Seemed to have got the balance right since, hopefully can take that attitude through to next year.
7) YES! His forehand has improved to the extent that he can now dominate points off it (and indeed as yesterday win the match thanks to it despite his backhand misfiring). He's added a heavier top spin cross court as opposed to the loopy stuff he used to play. Also his clay court game has improved massively (his sliding and the forehand mostly). he also has more variety in the second serve.
8) NO. Djokovic and Nadal were already ahead of him, so "moved ahead" isn't the right way to put it (stayed ahead is more like it), and Del Po has never been ahead of him. Indeed he's arguably moved ahead of Fed this year.

So I agree with you on two points...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I think 40 slams for the next 10 years 4 slams every year for Murray would be even better, won't it?

eraldeen, If you think Murray will win 4 slams, can you suggest any reasons for this other than "I am a big Murray fan and would love to see him win slams"?

Is Murray 20-22 years old that benefit of doubt with age and experience can be given to him? NO
Has Murray won any slam till now? NO
Has Murray in any of the 3 slams won a set? NO
Has Murray shown a major impact on any Slam this year in 2011? NO
If you look at age for players who are multiple slam winners, does Murray look to have any chance? NO

Has Murray changed his attitude? NO
Has Murray improved his game since 2008? NO. only fitness because that's what he always talks about improving.

Have his peers of similar age moved ahead of him? YES. Djo, Delpotro, Nadal


SO can you suggest why you think Murray will win 4 slams by the end of his career?

So you don't want to comment on the 3 other players the OP has predicted for Slam success???

Murray hater written all over it

4 slams for Andy? I suspect (now) that will prove to be slightly optomistic. I think he's got a reasonably good chance of taking one or two in the next few years, as Fed inevitably fades away and perhaps the miles on Rafa's body take more toll. Obviously Djoko will remain a big contender, but as far as players in the 20-23 age bracket, they don't look to be that great - Del Potro will be a threat sometimes because with his enormous power, when his game is on song he can beat anyone, but I think he may prove to be quite inconsistent. Certainly wouldn't right him off picking upi one or two more slams, but also having some real flops in tournaments.

Tomic? Showed great promise at Wimbledon, but has a long way to go to prove he is a or even THE champion in waiting. He might make it, and could be a big multi-slam winner, or he could be another Nalbandian - great junior who got close to the top in the senior game but never quite broke through to the absolute elite group.

1) No, but he's still young and still has time on his side, hasn't IMO reached his peak yet (some players mature later than others).

They may mature for their own best game. They may play their best game only in the later part of their career. They may get to their top rankings when reaching late 20s or even 30s. But that best game may not be enough to win them a GS. Almagro, Melzer, Fish, Bolgomov jr. etc have found their best game, best ranking only in the later part of their playing careers but that doesn't mean its good enough to win them a GS. Forget winning they don't even look a threat in slams and the big guys just roll over them. So 2 things. Firstly just because some mature a little late doesn't mean everyone will. Secondly even if they heir at their peak level, it may not be enough.


4) 3 semis, twice taking a set of Rafa, and even on the clay pushed him in all three sets, and one final makes an impact in my book.

From a previous post of mine:

AO, 2011: the draw opened good for him and even then he had struggle to beat Dolgopolov and Ferrer to his 3rd final. In the finals he lost without a whimper.

FO, 2011: He could easily have been out in R16 against Troicki, only if Troicki had managed to hold his nerve which unfortunately he couldn't. Troicki has a history of losing matches from winning positions. In the semis again a very one sided tame loss to Nadal where he got beaten in every department of the game.

Wimbledon, 2011: After his queens victory, was high on confidence and form. But lost to Nadal easily in semis. Yes he won the 1st set, but by only marginally, then Nadal wiped the grass court with Murray in the next 3.

USopen , 2011: Again was on the brink of defeat in the 2nd round, but just scrapped to survive. But didn't impress anything much when faced with Nadal in the semis.


If you are going to be so optimistic and call even wining a couple of close sets and pushing on some service games as the basis for your "great impact", then well.. I can't say much. If you have to find positives, of course you will. I'm just being neutral here. If your impact is only based on "on-paper" results, then of course I don't doubt he made great impact. But If you look at how serious his contention was towards wining any of the 4, he never had any.

5) two words: Ivan Lendl

Why only 2 words? There are more Thomas Johansson(26) Goran Ivanisevic(30-31), Andrés Gimeno(34). But this thread is about Murray winning 4 slams. Only one player out of 1000s have won their first slam so late and went on to win multiple slams. Murray will have one more chance to be within 24 years and be able to win a slam like Lendl. But Lendl before winning FO 1984 had made 4 finals and looked a better prospect at winning slams than Murray. He lost a very close 5 setter to Borg in his first finals and then again 2 4 setters to Conners in 1982, 83. He got fortunate in the 1884 FO, where Jonny Mac let the 2-0 set advantage slip up. Before his first slam he already had one Year end championship win and a runner-up, both consecutive years in 82,83. Even when he was losing, he wasn't far behind the guys who were ahead of him. He had already reached #1 and was consistently within the top-2. Now do you still want to bring out the 2 words Ivan Lendl when comparing with Murray?

6) yes, he's much more aggressive on court now, in fact I would suggest he lost the last two slam semis because he was TOO aggressive (ie more winners than Nadal, but too many UEs). Seemed to have got the balance right since, hopefully can take that attitude through to next year.

Too aggressive?? Now lets see. Yes this is how it is for him, right? Compare it with years 2008,2009,2010,2011. He always had a few "aggressive " matches and wins over Nadal once every year. Then its back to continuous losses to him. Its not a uncommon thing for the opponents to have more winners than Nadal, in fact its more often the case. Just one odd 3-setter win in an ATP500 final doesn't prove anything or shifts the balance in Murray's favour. Just one odd aggresive game doesn't mean he has changed. He always had played a few odd games where his aggressive shots worked. So nothing new here.


8) NO. Djokovic and Nadal were already ahead of him, so "moved ahead" isn't the right way to put it (stayed ahead is more like it), and Del Po has never been ahead of him. Indeed he's arguably moved ahead of Fed this year.


Ok Nadal, Djo stayed ahead, fine. They are about the same age so unlike compared to Fed, age is not on Murray's side against them. And it doesn't look likely that Murray will be catching up with either Nadal or Djo> They have widen the gap to miles. Del potro has beaten Nadal and Federer to win a SLAM at aged 21. SLams are the most prestigious most prized among all tournaments and del potro has already won where as Murray hasn't. So del potro is ahead in "my book"

He may move ahead of Federer "on-paper" this year only based on blind ranking points. Just like he was able to reach #2 ranking. And I think ( my opinion) its only brief as his #2 was in 2009. Level of play, achievements, Murray can't get ahead of lot of other players in this whole lifetime, forget Federer.

I think Murray is a tricky one, because if he wins a slam in the next 18 months or so I think he'll really pick up a few more; if not then I think he'll either be a one-slam-wonder or have none.

(covered my bases there then, haven't I?)

Ultimately I think he'll end up with 2 or 3.

@raidersotla

I don't agree with your assessment of the Wimbledon 2011 SF. To me it was closer than you say and turned to quite an extent on the point when Murray made that awful error in the 2nd set. Until then a Murray playing out of his skin was beating Nadal - problem was that Murray could not keep his level up after that point. OK - ifs and buts, but the match was tighter than you say.

Fed: 17

Nadal: 13

Djokovic: 6

Murray: 1 or 2

legendkillar wrote:
So you don't want to comment on the 3 other players the OP has predicted for Slam success???

Murray hater written all over it

I want to comment about all of them. But Murray winning 4 slams looked the most odd to me considering everything. Some posters look agitated the moment something in contention to Murray's greatness and his bright prospects of being a multi-slammer is brought up. Murray lover written all over it.

Murray 1 or 2? I think even that is starting to look elusive. I know I would love to see him win one, but given the coaching situation, I know Andy is committed to looking in areas to improve but if he gets a coach in then I might be more optimistic of a Slam victory.

barrystar wrote:
I don't agree with your assessment of the Wimbledon 2011 SF. To me it was closer than you say and turned to quite an extent on the point when Murray made that awful error in the 2nd set. Until then a Murray playing out of his skin was beating Nadal - problem was that Murray could not keep his level up after that point. OK - ifs and buts, but the match was tighter than you say.

Yes you covered your points all fine .

wimbledon 2011 semis was close till the 2-2 in the 2nd set. After that it was Nadal dominating the most of the remaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nOmrf12xzs&feature=related .You are right, Murray couldn't keep up that level. Why?? Because that level is not Murray's normal level, he was playing way above his normal level. Such 'above his normal level" can't stay for long. Thats why this above the level games can work on ocassions, when a player carries on to an odd win of a set or a even one match with momentum, but can't sustain it for long. One can only play consistently at one's normal level. If he does it consistently then that new level becomes his normal level.

We see upsets almost at every tournament, an underdog playing a fantastic match to pull out a great win against a much more formidable opponent. But what usually happens? They lose tamely the next match. Why? Why couldn't they keep that level of play even in the very next match? Because they played way over their own level to win in the previous game, even overwhelmed with that win and now can't keep it going. Unless they make this new level their normal level, its impossible to keep it going consistently.

eraldeen wrote:When all is said and done the table will look like this:

Surely 'when all is said and done' is a long way from now so including Tomic is a bit odd. When is the projected end-date for your predictions? Fair enough including the current top guys but it's hard with fledgling careers. For me, Federer will have one last hurrah, Nadal will pick up a few more and Murray will win both hardcourt slams at some point but not Wimbledeon, so I'm in agreement with bogbrush's numbers for that trio. I think Djokovic may end up with 8 or 9 though.

I'm sorry to say I dont see Fed winning another slam. Nadal may win 2-3 more max. Its than all about what Djokovic does and how fit he can stay.

Fed: 16
Nad: 13
Djok: 10 (I think he will go down as a legend of the game)
Murr: 0-1

"We see upsets almost at every tournament, an underdog playing a fantastic match to pull out a great win against a much more formidable opponent. But what usually happens? They lose tamely the next match. Why? Why couldn't they keep that level of play even in the very next match? Because they played way over their own level to win in the previous game, even overwhelmed with that win and now can't keep it going."

- - -
How true. Witness Mayer today. Played wonderfully well to bt Rafa yesterday but looked - from bits I saw - to be fairly average today to lose in straights to Lopez

I'm sure you're not sorry at all Lydian

emancipator, actually I dont mind Roger winning more slams...I never liked the guy as a person but have always appreciated his tennis. You can only see his game going backwards as the motivation slips further...his near miss against Nole this year may have been his last chance now that the Nole, Nadal and Murray are a formidable trio and I expect a few others to come through next year better than this (Delpo, Berdych, Soderling, Tomic, Raonic...)...just dont see Federer having that huge weapon anymore to coast him through to the semis, etc, he's going to have to rely on a good draw and danger players falling to others....after all he's not won a slam for what will be getting on for 2 years come AO12. Sampras went 26mths without winning one from Wimb00 to USO02 then retired. If Fed doesnt win AO12...it'll be then 28-29mths to FO which I cant see him winning, so then we're up to 30 mths by Wimb12...its a long time to have the belief and weapons to do it again. If he can do it, I can see him retiring like Pete did - and why not, he wouldnt want to wait another 30 mths....

Federer is at a dangerous time in his playing career, both to himself and others.

When he finds his length, his confidence and his fitness level is good, he can still win majors.

But it needs two weeks for him to build up to what he was famous for years ago, pacing himself perfectly to play his best tennis in a final.

He's still got it in him, but others have ovetaken him on almost all parts of his game, but that doesn't take away his skill in putting the ball where the other guy cant get it.

I wouldn't write him off for another two years, his dominance may have ended, but his abilities haven't wavered.

All Fed needs is the right draw and a bit of luck. He made one of his best FO campaigns ever in 2011 and was very close at the USO.

I'd back him any time against Murray, against Nadal at the USO, and against Djokovic he is obviously there or thereabouts; 1 win and 2 mps in 2 others of the last 4 Slam meetings tells us that.

My view is that he needs to be in Nadals half at the USO and for a few surprises to happen in any of the others. Not exactly the longest of shots are they?

lydian wrote:emancipator, actually I dont mind Roger winning more slams...I never liked the guy as a person but have always appreciated his tennis. You can only see his game going backwards as the motivation slips further...his near miss against Nole this year may have been his last chance now that the Nole, Nadal and Murray are a formidable trio and I expect a few others to come through next year better than this (Delpo, Berdych, Soderling, Tomic, Raonic...)...just dont see Federer having that huge weapon anymore to coast him through to the semis, etc, he's going to have to rely on a good draw and danger players falling to others....after all he's not won a slam for what will be getting on for 2 years come AO12. Sampras went 26mths without winning one from Wimb00 to USO02 then retired. If Fed doesnt win AO12...it'll be then 28-29mths to FO which I cant see him winning, so then we're up to 30 mths by Wimb12...its a long time to have the belief and weapons to do it again. If he can do it, I can see him retiring like Pete did - and why not, he wouldnt want to wait another 30 mths....

We can have another thread to discuss why some tennis fans don't like Federer as a person. How can Nole, Nadal and especially Murray form such a formidable trio that Federer can't get past them? Just because he may fall to #4 by year end? Djo has an immaculate run but Federer did beat him in one of the highest quality of clay court match ever at this FO. Djo didn't have a bad day, infact played great. Only Federer was sublime. He came so close to beating Djo again at US open. In the FO finals, it was tough luck for Federer. A missed drop-shot at the set point to take the first set 6-2 and hence an upper hand in the match was lost. For winning one needs a bit of luck as well. The margins are small. But this is how close tennis often is. One shot can change the whole course of the match. A good draw always helps. A opening of the draw helps even more. All players enjoy this draw factor at some time of their career. I need not give examples.

Fed did beat Nadal last year in WTF finals, the same year where Nadal enjoyed his greatest success and was bidding to take his first WTF win. He lost a close 3 setter in Madrid clay this year leading the match. Murray I never count him much against Federer despite the h2h. Murray relies on players misfiring, missing shots. When that doesn't happen, the result are the 3 finals he has played. Its strange that you don't see any huge weapons in him while he is still the greatest shot-maker in the game even right now. He needs to work on his fitness, which is not going to be easy I agree but not impossible either. With the change in courts and balls and strings he need to alter his game a bit as well, and I think he has the skill to do it as well, but will be tougher than the earlier transformation he made from a predominant S&V player to an all-court.

Your counting of months for Pete and Federer without having a slam won isn't right. Both are different players and with different style of plays with different passions and mindset. So if Pete retired after not winning slams for some months, doesn't necessarily mean Fed too will. Fed said on many occasions that he wants to play long and wants his children to see him play. Are you waiting for Fed to retire?

Fed hasn't won a slam for nearly 2 years right. But Murray hasn't won a slam for 24 years but he still doesn't give up on the hope of winning some day, does he?

Raiders,

I agree that Lydian's remark about Federer not having any weapons anymore is a bit of a strange one.

Even today, who has a better, attacking FH than Federer? Rememeber this is the FH that was whizzing winners past Novak at the USO, whilst the Nadal FH was struggling to do the same. If federer's FH is not a weapon then I no-one on the tour has a FH weapon.

How many players have a better serve than Federer?

For whoever knows and remembers Lydian from 606, it's very clear that all his effort in appearing a fair and reasonable poster is regularly betrayed by a deeper agenda of devaluating Federer's success.

it ranges from things as absurd as slow courts benefited Federer more than his opposition, to Federer is fitter than Nadal, as well as topspinning is harder than flat hitting, 2001 Wimbledon was slow and many more stranges ideas. It's all there here and 606.

As I am one of the few who proves him wrong every time...he doesn't like me!

TBF Nadal has lacked variety but the game to won the clay courts. I am not the first one to say that but majority of his wins have come on clay and super slow Wimby. 8 of his slams have been won at FO and Wimby. He has only won a piece of Aussie and American open.

Contrary to that Fed has won 5 US, 6 Wimby, 4 Oz and 1 FO. And he has a pretty decent record at FO although he won it only one time but same cannot be said for Nadal.

I have always seen him struggling during the end season, he has not won a single WTF and his record is not great there too. In my memory only one good end of the season for Nadal was 2010.

Nadal might be able to add one more FO if Djoko misses the final but to me it is very unlikey that he will add another slam to his kitty. His kitty is impressive even now owing to 6 FO.

Murray will catch up with Djoko but hee needs to schedule intelligently and lose few matches intentionally to be fresh for bigger tournaments.

IMO Djoko and MUrray will be at par in 2012 and Fed might surprise all of us.

My heart predicts that TMF will have a glorious swan song and end on 17.

Nadal will win at least 2 more RG and maybe one more W

Djokovic - I think he will 2 next year if he remains fit, but not so sure long term because this year seems to have exacted a high price physically and it seemed to be sheer will that propelled him through the USO. I think he will end on 7

Murray to break his slam duck next year - fingers crossed and all that!!

Fed - 18
Nadal - 10
Djoker - 7
JMDP - 5
Muzz -1

Federer is done winning slams. Period.

time please wrote:My heart predicts that TMF will have a glorious swan song and end on 17.

Nadal will win at least 2 more RG and maybe one more W

Djokovic - I think he will 2 next year if he remains fit, but not so sure long term because this year seems to have exacted a high price physically and it seemed to be sheer will that propelled him through the USO. I think he will end on 7

Murray to break his slam duck next year - fingers crossed and all that!!

Sounds spot on to me!

My head says 17 for Fed.

But my heart says 18...

That latter one would be a pretty safe record for a few decades if not more!