Next new slam winner?

With recent talk on here about how hard it will be for Rafa to keep winning slams after he turns 28 next year, I thought it would be interesting to see who people think will be taking over. We have had one new slam winner in the last four years - at that time 8 time masters winner and 4 time slam finalist, Andy Murray. Who will be the next new winner?

The choices seem to be:

(a) The Nearly Men - Berdych and Tsonga have been to slam finals and other SF and have also each won a Masters. Stan and Gasquet have made Masters finals and were SF in the last slam. On the downside, they are all older than the top 3 but could one of them step up?

(b) The Chosen Ones - Dimitrov, Tomic and Raonic all emerged on the big stage with decent immediate impact and hype. They have all had limited success but generally disappointed in slams. Perhaps the least hyped of this age of players - Janowicz - has the most notable axhievements with a slam SF and a Masters final. Can this bunch surge past the established order?

(c) The Next Gen - Yiunger still we have the likes of Vesely and Thiem who have made giant strides this year but not yet made any impact on the bigger stages. Nick Krygios has made waves at just 18 with a win over Stepanek at RG. Kimmer Coppejans has put together impressive Futures results. Do any of these guys really stand out?

So next winner and where and when? Let's see if anyone can get it spot on!

One of the nearly men, I suspect.

I think there is a greater chance of one side of a draw opening up to get someone like Stan or TByrd to the final while Rafa, Novak or Andy arrive there after a 5 set war in the later SF, than there is of someone like Raonic or Dimitrov going all the way.

I think Berdych has the best chance, TSonga with all his athletic ability I don't think takes the game seriously enough. To me he has never looked to be in top physical fitness and routinely gets injured as a result of the weight he carries. Plus his shot selection and cavalier attitude I think will be exploited by the best of the best. If someone has the ability it is berdy because he plays pretty well on faster surfaces and serves well. I could see him doing it if he avoids Novak, Novak seems to be the guy out of the top 3 that he has the most trouble beating. If Berdych for example got an upset in his half before the semis, and then had to only beat Murray in a final he could do it. I don't see any of them as that likely to do it, most likely the next new slam winner will come around when Djoko, Nadal, and Murray fade a bit.

I'd be surprised i Berdych won one. His record against Nadal is dreadful and I cant see him beating even Murray in a slam final. Stan for me is the only one of that group arguably still improving but realistically I cant see him winning a slam.

For me, its going to be one of the kids. Im going for Vesely (RG 2017). For a massive guy he seems to have a strong clay game. By then he will be 23 and Rafa/Novak 31/30. He'll be reaching his peak at exactly the right time.

This is one of those questions that is tough to answer. If you were to drop the big 4 and Delpo from the equation the question would be who would be the most likely to win a Slam and that for me at this moment in time would be Wawrinka. Physically and Mentally he is in the right place. He has been a few shots away from beatin both Djokovic and Nadal this year and for me just a few more tweaks and he could really do it. Other than him I would say Pospisil who has yet to show the scars from big defeats.

Ranking at the top will play a big part.

Say we have Rafa at 1, Andy at 2 and Novak at 3 with Rafa and Novak in the same half.

I can imagine Andy having a bad day and falling early to open up that side of the draw. Novak then has a 5 set war v Rafa in the semi final and turns up short of energy in the final.

In those circumstances I can imagine someone like Stan getting the win.

I think it is tricky for anyone with Rafa and Novak at 1 and 2 though, as it's highly likely they'll have to beat both of them.

HM Murdoch wrote:I think there is a greater chance of one side of a draw opening up to get someone like Stan or TByrd to the final while Rafa, Novak or Andy arrive there after a 5 set war in the later SF ...

That will be insufficient - after Rafa, Novak or Andy get to the Final after a 7 hour marathon in the SF, they will also have to be seriously injured (Murray hobbling, Rafa hopping, or Novak with his arm in plaster).

I always wanted Soldering to get a GS, now thats history I guess.

Tomic, Raonic, Dimi I would love to see them get some GS too, but I dont think it will happen before 2016, when current top 4-5-6 might be too old.

Yeah what happened to soderling ? I'd say berdych would be the next one. Super consistency will surely pay off at some point and give him another shot

Ducking the question somewhat, I can't see anyone other than those who have already won one (including delpo in that) getting a slam anytime soon.
  Wonder if we should consider just WHEN a non-slam guy can step up to the plate. Some interesting names in that youngsters' list, including guys with whom I am unfamiliar.
  Also wonder if we should include in this thread any thoughts on delpo winning another. He really shouldn't be losing successive matches to Fed (no disrespect) if he wants to do well at the Slams.

PS. I do grasp that the OP was about who rather than when. Didn't mean to go off topic

Honestly I can't see Wawrinka doing it, I mean BS you state that Berdy has a terrible record against Nadal that is true but Wawrinka has an even worse record. Plus his record of 2-14 against Novak is just as bad. For me Stan would need to greatly strengthen his return game which remains the one area ball striking wise that I think is lacking.

No, I can't either. I just think he has a few less scars than the likes of Berdy. I'm surprised so many people still think the old guard can do it.

LK's post is interesting that it is a tough question. I agree it is but is that a sign of the times? It would have been a far easier question in the past.

I don't see Berdy as strong enough mentally to win a slam. When he got the Wimbledon final he froze big time against Rafa. When he got the the US open semi against Murray he blamed the conditions for his defeat. There may be some truth in that, but a lot of it was down to his poor play and I think it showed how unable he is to adapt. He never once said "I didn't play well enough".

So I don't fancy him mentally. At the moment if all the big guys were to fail to win a slam then Wawrinka or Ferrer (assuming someone else knocked out the big guys for him) would be most likely. But I think we have to look a couple of years away yet, so I will go with Janowicz.

Mobile for a big un, big serve, good variation, spiky mentality that tells me he would be up for it and not freeze... His performance against Murray at Wimbledon tells me that with a couple of years to find his game and cut out the crazy drop shots and improve his percentages, I would back him to be the next new slam winner.

I like your pick Danny, I have also been a big backer of JJ, I think he has a slam or two in him. He consolidated his place among the big boys this year after breaking onto the scene last year. Come to think of it I think he stands a very good chance of being the next new slam winner, I don't see hit happening next year but within two or three years I definitely could see it. Good call Danny.

I do not see any of the 'nearly men' winning a grand slam as they are all of similar age if not older than the current top guys and they largely have lopsided head to head records - their window of opportunity has passed. I believe the next new grand slam winner will come at the very earliest in 2017 as was suggested above and it will be one of either Dimitrov or Vesely. I actually think Janowicz is the best equipped to go the distance with his immense power and surprisingly deft touch, however, his play is so erratic and he is prone to mental walkabouts. I feel like if he could channel that power and improve his overall match craft instead of always trying to hit through his opponent (with the odd drop shot) then he could win 2-3 grand slams but he strikes me as a stubborn guy who won't ever adjust enough and learn from his mistakes.

I've no idea. I'm just not convinced it will be any of the usual suspects, for around three years

Bird brain and Jolly Jo are far too scarred by failure (look at the former at the O2) and all the others are becoming too used to not winning any 'big' events, i.e. a Masters.

We only have to see how mentaly flaky Cilic is, who actually has the game to do something, by looking at the drugs farce

Could easily be someone who is 18 now and hence wins their first slam when they're 21/22

I maintain that the Top 3 are so strong, it needs two of them to be not at a slam for anyone else to have a chance. That is other than the French, where you might get a surprise winner if say Rafa wasn't there. Here an out of sorts Novak, would then lead the field wide open

Berdych would be most likely but he would need to face Murray or Federer in the final. He matches up really well against Murray and has beaten him in slams, he has also beaten Federer at Wimbledon and US Open.

I feel Berdych was very unlucky at wimbledon in 2010, beating Federer and Novak back to back and then having to face Nadal in final.

Tsonga far too inconsistent. Wawrinka at his best is capable too but again not sure he can back it up for 2 - 3 matches in a row against top players. Again he has good record against Murray overall and in slams but terrible record against Nadal and Novak.

Following on from my other post, one thing that confuses me is that Djokovic and Murray are considered to have a very similar style of play. I wonder why then Murray matches up so much worse against Berdych and Wawrinka when you consider how dominant Novak stats are against them.

Any thoughts?

slashermcguirk wrote:Following on from my other post, one thing that confuses me is that Djokovic and Murray are considered to have a very similar style of play. I wonder why then Murray matches up so much worse against Berdych and Wawrinka when you consider how dominant Novak stats are against them.

Any thoughts?

It's only the lazy who think these two have similar styles. Probably stems from their fairly close matches of the last years and the fact they are the two best retrievers. After that, there are numerous differences; Novak is a harder more consistent hitter, Andy the more varied with more disguise.

Djokovic has better movement (grass aside), consistency and belief than Murray and has a bit better on court intelligence (reads his opponent better from moment to moment and in the context of the overall match)  IMO.  Maybe others can add in the technical differences.

The difference between the two is more noticeable on the clay ... where Djokovic is now close to matching Nadal, while Murray is relatively no where in comparison.

Don't think it's a belief thing - otherwise Andy would have no slams. I also think movement wise, it's a draw

However, Novak has the ability to slide into the shot, whereas Andy's amazing shots are more instinctive 'on the run' ones. The latter's will tend to be more wearing on the body than the former

And Novak certainly is the more consistent shot maker

banbrotam wrote:Don't think it's a belief thing - otherwise Andy would have no slams. I also think movement wise, it's a draw

However, Novak has the ability to slide into the shot, whereas Andy's amazing shots are more instinctive 'on the run' ones. The latter's will tend to be more wearing on the body than the former ...

I am referring to belief relative to Djokovic. Djokovic tends to fight to the end whereas Murray tends to wilt in comparison - at least this used to be the case - but I still think Djokovic is able to sustain that belief longer in a match when the going gets tough [Murrays second serve is an indicator of this]. Murray does raise his game against some players - Djokovic being one of them - & they are fairly evenly matched when playing each other.

With movement I was including Novak's slides and body bending abilities. I always felt he was going to snap his ankles at some point (sliding on the hard courts) but so far he has got away with it.

slashermcguirk wrote:Following on from my other post, one thing that confuses me is that Djokovic and Murray are considered to have a very similar style of play. I wonder why then Murray matches up so much worse against Berdych and Wawrinka when you consider how dominant Novak stats are against them.

Any thoughts?

I'm not so sure that Djokovic and Murray's style is that similar. Djokovic's game at its best is based on taking the ball early and despite having a killar backhand he likes to control with his forehand moving his opponent from side to side. If Djokovic gets to play a match on his terms it can look like he's playing a sort of tennis drill. The player I think his game most resembles is Davydenko. Murray's game I think is a more responsive defensive one. He at his best gets everything back but how he does it is more dependent on what is hit at him. It wears me out just watching (Ha ha!) but it works because it tends to demoralize the opposition.

Why are Djokovic's and Murray's results different? Nothing to do with "belief" Djokovic is simply the better player. His record against all other players is consistently better than Murray's. I think I'll go out on a limb here and say that the top few players have all been around long enough and played each other and more importantly everyone else often enough that it's obvious what the pecking order is.

ie Nadal > Djokovic > Murray

The only two I'm not sure about are Nadal and Federer. Mmmm. Who is the best?

Interesting on the Murray v Djokovic style.

The template is the same - excellent return, powerful DHBH and great movement - but the detail is quite different.

- they move from defence to offence in different ways. Novak looks to change the momentum in an instant, Andy builds his way back into a point.

- their 'natural' attributes are very different. Andy has the softer hands and the better touch, Novak the greater consistency and depth.

- completely different serves. Andy has greater power, Novak the greater placement. Novak has a very decent kick serve on the second serve whilst Andy's second serve remains the big weakness in his game.

- Nowadays they seem to have very different strategies. Andy tends to sit back and absorb and until he sees the opening, Novak looks to make his move early and Novak comes to the net more frequently (which is ironic given that Andy is the more naturally gifted in this area).

hawkeye wrote:I'm not so sure that Djokovic and Murray's style is that similar. Djokovic's game at its best is based on taking the ball early and despite having a killar backhand he likes to control with his forehand moving his opponent from side to side. If Djokovic gets to play a match on his terms it can look like he's playing a sort of tennis drill. The player I think his game most resembles is Davydenko. Murray's game I think is a more responsive defensive one. He at his best gets everything back but how he does it is more dependent on what is hit at him.

Dear Diary,

Today I agreed with Hawkeye! It was a strange experience but I actually quite enjoyed it.

HM Murdoch wrote:

The template is the same - excellent return, powerful DHBH and great movement - but the detail is quite different.

Djokovic has an excellent backhand but his signature shot is his rip roaring BHDTL. Murray tends to rarely go DTL although admittedly his BHDTL is less rare than his almost never seen FHDTL. IMO quite a big detail.

HM. You are not the first to "reluctantly" admit agreeing with me. Maybe it's because I'm not scared of saying things as I see them even if they may not be popular?

hawkeye wrote:HM. You are not the first to "reluctantly" admit agreeing with me. Maybe it's because I'm not scared of saying things as I see them even if they may not be popular?

Actually, HE, it tends to be your more 'popular' opinions that I disagree with! Pre-eminence of the Fedal rivalry being the main one. The inert charisma of Federer and Nadal being another.

But let's not dwell on that. I want to savour being in agreement a little longer!

^ Are you watching Davis Cup? Have just watched first set. Stepanic v the whole of Belgrade. Stepanik is putting up a surprisingly good fight so far. Wish I had time to watch the rest.

^Sadly not, as I'm at work.

It must be an unusual experience for Novak to be getting most of the crowd support!

slashermcguirk wrote:Following on from my other post, one thing that confuses me is that Djokovic and Murray are considered to have a very similar style of play. I wonder why then Murray matches up so much worse against Berdych and Wawrinka when you consider how dominant Novak stats are against them.

Any thoughts?

You have to bear in mind that Murray may be a tremendous player on hard and grass, but he is average (at best) on clay. That screws a lot if his H2H stats. Berdych for example has won all their clay matches, but it's actually pretty close on a hard court if I remember rightly.

But as well as that, he doesn't bring his best every match or every week. That seperators him from Nadal and Djokovic in my opinion. He can be beaten early by a flashy or power player. He doesn't deal with raw power as much as Djokovic.

His best can match the best, but he doesn't always bring his best.

It's no great mystery

Andy's greatest strenght is his unpredictability and his disguised variety. Problem it is negated by anyone with a decent backhand, particularly one-hander

Hence Stan, Gasquet, Nalbandian and of course Roger have all given him problems. Novak and Rafa have such good double handers coupled with their awesome forehands also to be in this category

Berdych is a bit of an odd one. I'm convinced that Murray dislikes him intensely and often plays in a far too emotional state. It's as though he has no respect for his talent and then can't understand why he's not wiping the floor with him. If you notice Murray always makes umpteen mistakes in their games - i.e. plays badly

I'd expect Dimi to be far more of a problem to Murray than say Raonic in the future

Interesting post Danny. Psychologically, the fact the other guys have experience of beating Andy on clay must help them close out matches on other surfaces. Andy's record since turning 21 on clay/non clay against the top guys is starkly different:

Rafa: 5-7 non clay; 0-3 clay
Novak: 8-6 non clay; 0-1 clay
Ferrer: 6-1 non clay; 0-3 clay
Del Potro 4-1 non clay; 0-1 clay
Roger 9-8 non clay; 0-0 clay
Berdych 3-2 non clay; 0-3 clay
Stan 6-2 non clay; 0-1 clay
Gasquet 3-0 non clay; 2-1 clay
Tsonga 7-0 non clay; 0-0 clay

So only Rafa has a narrow lead off clay. Andy totals 51-27 off clay and 2-13 on clay.

Interesting both Tomas' wins on hard court were the next time he faced Andy after a clay win, as was one of Stan's two wins.

An interesting and illuminating set of stats from Born Slippy  Maybe if Murray focusses more on the clay it will improve his non-clay game. They say for clay you have to be more patient, to be more tactical in point construction, be more accurate in ball placement and to have great stamina.

Born Slippy - bit harsh knocking off some Novak wins just because Andy hadn't turned 21. Novak is a week younger than Andy!

Great stats though. I hadn't realised quite how comparatively weak Andy's clay head to heads were.

Nore Staat wrote:An interesting and illuminating set of stats from Born Slippy  Maybe if Murray focusses more on the clay it will improve his non-clay game.  They say for clay you have to be more patient, to be more tactical in point construction, be more accurate in ball placement and to have great stamina.

There is no hiding on clay. It exposes weaknesses. On hard court you can "get lucky" and rely on low percentage risky stuff were there is not so much of that sort of "luck" on the most demanding surface. To be able to be patient, tactical, accurate and have stamina is the definition of a good tennis player.

For example if I wanted to try my "luck" against a top player in the hope of winning a single point (Ha ha!) I would choose the slickest, fastest surface possible to give myself the best chance. It would be far more tricky on clay...

Nore Staat wrote:An interesting and illuminating set of stats from Born Slippy  Maybe if Murray focusses more on the clay it will improve his non-clay game.  They say for clay you have to be more patient, to be more tactical in point construction, be more accurate in ball placement and to have great stamina.

I'd have thought that's unlikely. The main problem for Andy on clay is his movement and my impression is that he also finds the more inconsistent bounce on that surface a severe irritation. His actual game style is actually perfectly suited for clay. The irony of course is that if you were to name the top 10 player who combined patience, tactical nous, accuracy and stamina, Andy wouldn't be far from most people's thought. Playing more on clay might improve his clay game but wouldn't really make him any better elsewhere.

Great stats BS. I didn't think the numbers would back my point up quite so emphatically. Although as HE says we can put all those numbers down to luck!  

I agree with the movement bit as well. He struggles to get traction on clay, strange really when he moves so superbly on grass. I personally don't think he'll ever top his 2011 clay season. He really punched above his weight that year, and if I'm honest had a few fortunate draws.

I've said it a few times, but I believe Andy will end his career without a clay title. And possibly without even a clay final appearance. I also think that whilst he will win more slams, he'll never reach number 1 purely because he'll never get enough clay points relative to his rivals.

Whilst he had fortune with the draws in 2011, his performances against Rafa and Novak that year suggested that he could actually master the surface. Even the RG SF was fairly tight. Will be interesting to see if the op is successful enough to let him get back to that type of level.

Whether he gets to number 1 is dependent on whether he can have a season where he consistently masters the other guys at the non clay events not on his clay form. If he were to, say, win two slams, the WTF and three of the six hard court Masters then doing ok elsewhere would get him very close to YE1. He's not come close to that yet but it isn't completely implausible with improved consistency.

Do you fancy him to do that BS? Even with as good a clay season as 2011 he'd need to gain a lot more points than Rafa or Novak over the rest of the season. Which is a tough ask.

Not impossible, but a tough ask. I think he can have a good enough season on hard and grass to match Novak and Rafa, if he really pushes it... But i think his 2011 on clay won't be repeated personally.

Danny. If Andy's back was playing him up for 18 months or so, then that would have meant that he was not only compromised not only for this year, but also 2012 - on the dirt

This would surely explain his apparent lack of progress as, for me, it's the only one where he has to be physically and mentally perfect, i.e. 2009/11

It's too early to write him off. In three years Rafa could have decided to quit, Novak could have an injury, i.e. easily the two best clay courters of the past 3 years could be gone

I don't see him ever winning RG, but could see him winning one of the 'faster' clay events

He also has the ability to dominate other surfaces (i.e. get 8000 points) and it could be that if he manages to pull the top two back, 10000 is enough to get to No.1

I can't rule it out, but I agree I can never see it happening for longer than a few months

But I'd rather he gets 6 slams instead, anyway  

I'd rather that too banbro, and as you say him hitting a hot streak and getting the amount of points needed is not impossible and can't be ruled out. I think it's unlikely though.

The clay is the one area where I personally doubt he'll have much success in the future. He's 26 years old and has never reached a final or beaten a top 5 player on that surface. In fact, has he even beaten a top 10 player on clay? I know he had a good result against Davydenko on clay but I can't remember where he was ranked at that time.

If his back issues are behind him maybe he can repeat 2011 clay form, but I personally doubt it. If he can complete the set of none clay slams and notch up 5 or 6 in total then frankly I don't care that he'll never excel on the dirt.

There is no clear favourite at all. I think Raonic might be slightly ahead of some of the others, but it's very open.

If JJ has variety, he has mental demons. If Raonic has the power, he lacks variety. Tomic is in the same state as these two and is prone to walkabouts. Harrison was promising, but seems to have fallen off. Dimitrov, perhaps, has a good chance to get to SF of the slams.

Watched Krygios/Thiem/Broady/Golding/Vesely et al. Lack of maturity and some physical areas require work.

Del Po (like Nalbandian in 2002) may not get another window like USO 2009. Berdych missed his window at W. As did JwT at AO.

Starting with a digression:
 
In the next couple of years I think it could only happen at a slam where the "big 3" foozle it collectively - the draw is going to have to fall wide open similarly to the Australian Open 2002 when Thomas Johansson won (which nobody could possibly have predicted).
 
I can't see any of the big 3 losing a Best-of-5 final to any of the non-slam winners currently on tour short of having to contend with serious physical problems because their experience counts for so much.  I'd put Federer in a similar position of having a similar advantage, but he ain't going to make another slam final in my view.
 
It's also worth noting that when a draw falls open the second-rank of players (i.e. the equivalent of the Berdych's, Gasquet's and Tsonga's of today) often freeze and fail to take advantage (too many scars from being dominated?) - the Australian Open 2002 was a very good example of that right down to a 'tired' Safin in the final, Federer nearly threw away RG 2009 vs. Haas, and Coria at RG 2004 is worthy of a mention too.  So, if there is a serious wobble from Nadal/Djoko/Murray I'd make Del Potro the most likely to capitalise for the next two years.
 
To return to the question - since I think it is unlikely to happen for a couple of years or two, I think it's most likely going to be a younger player, one of the "Chosen Ones", Dimitrov  or Tomic maybe.

I would quite like the next new slam winner to be Ferrer. It might quieten some of the less respectful comments that the number three player in the world appears to attract.

Bogdonavic may sneak in under the radar (and if The Day of the Triffids actually happened and he was burying is head in the sand at the time trying to disguise himself as a potted plant)

I think we may have a British player vying for the slams in the shape of Broady (R539)or Edmunds (R376)...19 and 18 yrs young, if they can go through the phases in the next two/three years and get inside the top 50, then when they are around the 24yr old mark I would hope that they'd be getting into the 2nd weeks of slams.

Dan Evans ????? could he Quantum Leap inside the top 100 next year and 2015 be his top flight tennis assault on the slams ?????? age 23, he has to apply the regimes of hard work now, he's def got the game, but needs to steel his mind as well, playing the top guys.

hawkeye wrote:I would quite like the next new slam winner to be Ferrer. It might quieten some of the less respectful comments that the number three player in the world appears to attract.

I'm not sure about that, I can think of a certain former #2 and #3 who has won two slams but seems to engender nothing but disrespect and dislike bordering on obsessional hatred from some quarters.

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I would quite like the next new slam winner to be Ferrer. It might quieten some of the less respectful comments that the number three player in the world appears to attract.

I'm not sure about that, I can think of a certain former #2 and #3 who has won two slams but seems to engender nothing but disrespect and dislike bordering on obsessional hatred from some quarters.

LOL! I love how hawkeye has her irony meter turned completely off. Some might consider a certain poster's obsession with one Sir Andy Murray to maybe be a bit disrespectful.

^ As far as getting credit for actual achievement Murray and Ferrer are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Both players are of course very good but Murray gets given more credit than his achievements warrant and Ferrer gets less (ie we are constantly told Murray has under achieved and that Ferrer has over achieved)

Ferrer has over achieved imo. Murray, meh.