Over and Under Djokovic slam totals next year, or who are your slam winners next year

It is a good time of year as the season is winding down to do some predictions for next season. How many will Novak get? Or Murray? Can Nadal return to greatness, will there be a new kid on the block?

I personally see Djokovic winning at least two slams next year and I think they will be the first two slams Aussie and FO. For wimbeldon I am going with Murray and I see most likely Novak winning the USO next year, so I guess my actual prediction is three slams and one for Murray. We will be disappointed that no new boy wins a slam. If a new guy is going to win a slam I see it being Nishikori.

To me, the French is still going to be the tricky one for Djoko. But I expect him to win at least one slam next year. OK, the last time he had a three-slam year - 2011 - he only won one slam the following year. But he's arguably even further ahead of the field now than he was four years ago.
I think Rafa will be, at least, top four next season. Surely he'll have a better clay court season than in 2015. Fed, I reckon, will have to avoid Djoko if he wants to win another slam. Murray should remain top four.
As for the others you only have to look at the age of the top players - nine over-30s in the top 20 at the moment - to see there is little threat to the established names at the top.

There are two things that to my mind fall in the category of "surely it has to happen eventually":

- Murray win in Australia
- Novak win Roland Garros

So I may as well offer those as predictions (with as much confidence as one have can this far in advance!).

Beyond that, I really don't know. I think a Cilic-esque surprise run is more likely than than a big breakthrough though.

Socal, I see you are predicting a 'Djokovic Slam' then? If he wins AO and RG, he'll hold all 4 slams. Good achievement if it happens.

Yeah, I think he is riding a crest right now. His form is frightening. He just has different look in his eyes when he is out on the court. It is like he isn't straining and everything is coming so naturally. The decision making is sharp, the execution is lethally precise, I swear sometimes he looks really bored when he is beating up a top ten player. Its strange its like serenity on the court. Its like he is telling the opponent I know I am better than you, you know I am better than you and so does everyone else. I want to say it is a swagger but it is almost zen like and calm.

sirfredperry wrote:To me, the French is still going to be the tricky one for Djoko. But I expect him to win at least one slam next year. OK, the last time he had a three-slam year - 2011 - he only won one slam the following year. But he's arguably even further ahead of the field now than he was four years ago.
 I think Rafa will be, at least, top four next season. Surely he'll have a better clay court season than in 2015. Fed, I reckon, will have to avoid Djoko if he wants to win another slam. Murray should remain top four.
  As for the others you only have to look at the age of the top players - nine over-30s in the top 20 at the moment - to see there is little threat to the established names at the top.

You know SFP, I feel like this season is different or feels different to 2011. I think after 2011 at this point he was spent and hurt. This year he looks like he is kicking strong at the finish line. It reminds me a bit at the end of the 2010. He didn't have a great indoor campaign like now back then. But he built his results going Semis at wimby, USO final, and in the Davis Cup final he was just lights out. I mean he won his two singles matches and for the first time was serving like he used where people weren't even getting close to breaking him as opposed to how poorly he had served the last two seasons. To me I usually look at three shots that if he is hitting well he is playing peak level. If the backhand down the line is on, the serve is on, and the FH. He doesn't always have all three firing simultaneously, he did for most of 2011. He did in the Davis Cup final in 2010 and I feel right now he is hitting all those shots, those tell tale shots really well. Plus mentally as mentioned before he seems to be in a very strong and focused place.

I see still TOP 5 dominating and with Federer gradually fading away. So that next year could finish Novak, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Stan. It will hugely depend on their health.
If Novak body holds together, then he is a favorite for all GS. But again, health, draws and conditions (surfaces, balls, weather) play a big role in it.
IMO there is nobody who should be considered as a new GS winner seriously with healthy current TOP5. But if someone from youngsters should be highlighted, then I say Borna Coric.

socal1976 wrote:If the backhand down the line is on, the serve is on, and the FH. He doesn't always have all three firing simultaneously, he did for most of 2011.

It's the re-emergence of the BHDTL that I think is most encouraging.

He hasn't been hitting that shot much at all this year, but it re-appeared with a vengeance in China. His game really goes up a gear when that shot is firing.

Yes, he hasn't hit the BHDTL the same since his peak years, he still had the shot and would occasionally hit some sparkling ones for winners but the consistent confidence to hit it with conviction early and often simply hasn't been there till recently post 2011. I think also the forehand not so much the baseline forehand but the short low ball up in the court is a shot that he can lack confidence with when he is a bit off. When he is on he does the footwork and the whip up on that low ball lethally. But I often feel like he misses that short, low, nothing ball and sprays it when he isn't at peak.

I look at his game and can't find the area right now that is causing problems or issues. And for my prediction I think that the slow courts early in the year suit him a great deal. I actually believe that after a slow hardcourt that clay is his next best surface.

paulcz wrote:I see still TOP 5  dominating and with Federer gradually fading away. So that next year could finish Novak, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Stan. It will hugely depend on their health.
If Novak body holds together, then he is a favorite for all GS. But again, health, draws and conditions (surfaces, balls, weather)  play a big role in it.
IMO there is nobody who should be considered  as a new GS winner seriously with healthy current TOP5. But if someone from youngsters should be highlighted,  then I say Borna Coric.

Yeah Coric is a good prospect he does lack a little firepower though I think although a lot of people are comparing him and saying he has a similar style to Novak. I kind of see the season the same way you do. I don't see two many big trophies left on the table once Novak, Andy, Stan, Rafa, and Fed are done. I mean can't see anyone else winning Masters or slams but then who could have predicted the rise of STan and Cilic? That is why I still think if someone is going to win a slam outside this group it is probably Nishikori. He has a game that translates well to all the surfaces and is consistently getting himself in the mix. He has to avoid those trap matches early in slams where he plays tough five setters that drain him physically for the next match and he has to get a bit stronger physically.

socal1976 wrote: That is why I still think if someone is going to win a slam outside this group it is probably Nishikori. He has a game that translates well to all the surfaces and is consistently getting himself in the mix. He has to avoid those trap matches early in slams where he plays tough five setters that drain him physically for the next match and he has to get a bit stronger physically.

Not Murray tank-strong. Nishikori does not have the bone structure to support getting muscular. He needs to stay lithe and quick to go anywhere. His problem is injuries, not 5-setters. Early five-setters are easier, playing them in R16/QF/SF is what he should try and avoid.


Kei Nishikori's 5-set record at Slams 10-3 (Paire, Tsonga, Seppi)

2008 US Open R32: Kei Nishikori def. David Ferrer (6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 2-6, 7-5)
2010 French Open R128: Kei Nishikori def. Santiago Giraldo (2-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
2010 US Open R64: Kei Nishikori def. Marin Cilic (5-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 6-1)
2012 Australian Open R64: Kei Nishikori def. Matthew Ebden (3-6, 1-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-1)
2012 Australian Open R16: Kei Nishikori def. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (2-6, 6-2, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3)
2013 Wimbledon R32: Nishikori lost to Seppi (6-3, 2-6, 7-6(4), 1-6, 4-6)
2014 Australian Open R128: Kei Nishikori def. Matosevic (6-3 5-7 6-2 4-6 6-2)
2014 Wimbledon R32: Nishikori def. Bolleli (3-6 6-3 4-6 7-6(4) 6-4)
2014 US Open R16: Nishikori def Raonic (4-6 7-6(4) 6-7(6) 7-5 6-4)
2014 US Open QF: Nishikori def Wawrinka (3-6 7-5 7-6(7) 6-7(5) 6-4)
2015 French Open QF: Nishikori lost to Tsonga (1-6 4-6 6-4 6-3 3-6)
2015 Wimbledon R128: Nishikori def. Bolleli (6-3 6-7(4) 6-2 3-6 6-3)
2015 US Open R128: Nishikori lost to Paire (4-6 6-3 6-4 6-7(6) 4-6)

Great chance for the CYGS next year for Novak. Its unlikely any of the younger players are going to improve enough to be real challengers. Federer will be a year older and couldn't beat him this year. A lot depends on Nadal and Murray. I think Rafa will be back stronger than this year but I'm unconvinced he will beat Novak in a slam. RG is the big challenge - not because the competition is any stronger there but because it means so much to Novak.

Laver - surely the key question is how many of those 5 set wins did he follow with a win in the next round?

Born Slippy wrote:Laver - surely the key question is how many of those 5 set wins did he follow with a win in the next round?

Yes, quite agreed. The retirement after beating Bolleli in 5 @W 2015, was unfortunate. The five setters also indicate an improvement in fitness, instead of a loss in previous rounds.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote: That is why I still think if someone is going to win a slam outside this group it is probably Nishikori. He has a game that translates well to all the surfaces and is consistently getting himself in the mix. He has to avoid those trap matches early in slams where he plays tough five setters that drain him physically for the next match and he has to get a bit stronger physically.

Not Murray tank-strong. Nishikori does not have the bone structure to support getting muscular. He needs to stay lithe and quick to go anywhere. His problem is injuries, not 5-setters. Early five-setters are easier, playing them in R16/QF/SF is what he should try and avoid.


Kei Nishikori's 5-set record at Slams  10-3 (Paire, Tsonga, Seppi)

2008 US Open R32: Kei Nishikori def. David Ferrer (6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 2-6, 7-5)
2010 French Open R128: Kei Nishikori def. Santiago Giraldo (2-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
2010 US Open R64: Kei Nishikori def. Marin Cilic (5-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 6-1)
2012 Australian Open R64: Kei Nishikori def. Matthew Ebden (3-6, 1-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-1)
2012 Australian Open R16: Kei Nishikori def. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (2-6, 6-2, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3)
2013 Wimbledon R32: Nishikori lost to Seppi (6-3, 2-6, 7-6(4), 1-6, 4-6)
2014 Australian Open R128: Kei Nishikori def. Matosevic (6-3 5-7 6-2 4-6 6-2)
2014 Wimbledon R32: Nishikori def. Bolleli (3-6 6-3 4-6 7-6(4) 6-4)
2014 US Open R16: Nishikori def Raonic (4-6 7-6(4) 6-7(6) 7-5 6-4)
2014 US Open QF: Nishikori def Wawrinka (3-6 7-5 7-6(7) 6-7(5) 6-4)
2015 French Open QF: Nishikori lost to Tsonga (1-6 4-6 6-4 6-3 3-6)
2015 Wimbledon R128: Nishikori def. Bolleli (6-3 6-7(4) 6-2 3-6 6-3)
2015 US Open R128: Nishikori lost to Paire (4-6 6-3 6-4 6-7(6) 4-6)

I think BS made my point for me to my recollection he didn't win any of those tournaments after those five setters. He needs to avoid them to win slams, no player wants to pull Djokovic in AO 2012 and go multiple 5 setters to win slams, your chances diminish after those types of matches. As for saying he has to get stronger its not necessarily saying he has to get bigger. In fact, he needs to be lean and get strong in terms of resilience physically and recovery time, not so much in muscularity or added power to shots. I hope that clarifies my above post.

socal1976 wrote:

paulcz wrote:I see still TOP 5  dominating and with Federer gradually fading away. So that next year could finish Novak, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Stan. It will hugely depend on their health.
If Novak body holds together, then he is a favorite for all GS. But again, health, draws and conditions (surfaces, balls, weather)  play a big role in it.
IMO there is nobody who should be considered  as a new GS winner seriously with healthy current TOP5. But if someone from youngsters should be highlighted,  then I say Borna Coric.

Yeah Coric is a good prospect he does lack a little firepower though I think although a lot of people are comparing him and saying he has a similar style to Novak. I kind of see the season the same way you do. I don't see two many big trophies left on the table once Novak, Andy, Stan, Rafa, and Fed are done. I mean can't see anyone else winning Masters or slams but then who could have predicted the rise of STan and Cilic? That is why I still think if someone is going to win a slam outside this group it is probably Nishikori. He has a game that translates well to all the surfaces and is consistently getting himself in the mix. He has to avoid those trap matches early in slams where he plays tough five setters that drain him physically for the next match and he has to get a bit stronger physically.

Agree, with a bit of luck Nishi could do it.
When thinking about Stan's new winning mentality, then it just necessary to name firstly his coach Magnus Norman. He transferred Stan the Man into a new version Stan the Super Man. I really like his court mentality and fearless approach. It is similar as it was with Lendl & Murray and also Cilic & Goran.
There is a couple of players who could win a GS with possible best coaches and also with a bit of luck. I had thought that Berdych coached by Lendl would have had also a chance to win a GS, but Valverdo is not the best option and Bird seems to be becoming more a mode man than tennis player, who does everything to succeed at GS. I would wish a succes to Kevin A. as he has become mentally more stronger recently and can play really fast.
A good potential for another improvement has Benoit Paire.

From youngsters except Coric looks very good D. Thiem and then young Russian talent Rublev. These three are going to be potential future GS champions.
Very often mentioned Hyeon Chung looks very promising, but I think that he as a Korean will need to change his residence soon to a traditional tennis destination and get a respected coach. Therefore I see his another progress under threat.

When thinking about current TOP 5 generation, let's wish them all to be around for a couple of good years, because the current tennis era is just exceptional and I rather stop thinking about tennis future when they decide to retire.

Can you imagine that Coric, Rublev, Thiem, Chung, Kyrgios, Kokkin will replace Djoko, Fed, Murray, Nadal, Stan?
It is a quite scary outlook.

I will guess one slam for Nole in 2016, but I could see him possibly winning two.

I expect his level to drop somewhat relative to this year - partly because of age, partly because it is hard to maintain that sort of level.

Australian - Djokovic
French - Nadal
Wimbledon - Murray
US Open - Djokovic

socal1976 wrote:I think BS made my point for me to my recollection he didn't win any of those tournaments after those five setters. He needs to avoid them to win slams, no player wants to pull Djokovic in AO 2012 and go multiple 5 setters to win slams, your chances diminish after those types of matches. As for saying he has to get stronger its not necessarily saying he has to get bigger. In fact, he needs to be lean and get strong in terms of resilience physically and recovery time, not so much in muscularity or added power to shots. I hope that clarifies my above post.

He has yet to win a slam. I think his chance to win one was lost at USO when Cilic took it away. It is unlikely that he will win a slam, IMVHO.
Baghdatis, Gonzalez got to finals, and missed their chances. I think Nishikori is in the same boat.

In 2014, despite playing 2 x 5-setters, and beating Djokovic, he got to the final. In contrast, he lost at FO 2015 in the only 5-setter he played.  2015 W he was injured after the first five-setter. This to me means a decline in fitness. Can he improve, certainly, he can. Chang has contributed much to his success, and hopefully he will stay.

2014 W/L - 54-14 - 4 Titles.
2015 W/L - 52-13 - 3 Titles.

I consider Thiem, Vesley and https://www.606v2.com/t60775-chung-hyeon-future-grand-slam-champion as better suited to greater achievements in the near future.

You may be a bit negative on Nishikori. The likes of Murray and Lendl missed various chances at a similar age and still went on to multiple slams.

With Nadal and Federer in decline, and Thiem, Vesley and others still a way off, Nishikori has a significant window of opportunity over the next couple of years.

Kei turns 26 this year, by which time Murray was about to collect his 2nd slam, had won 8 Masters and had been in 4 other slam finals. I'm not sure I see a real comparison.

He needs a further significant kick-on to be a genuine challenge to Novak and Andy over the next 2 years. His real chance may come a couple of years after - when Novak and Andy pass 30 and themselves start to slightly decline.

paulcz wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

paulcz wrote:I see still TOP 5  dominating and with Federer gradually fading away. So that next year could finish Novak, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Stan. It will hugely depend on their health.
If Novak body holds together, then he is a favorite for all GS. But again, health, draws and conditions (surfaces, balls, weather)  play a big role in it.
IMO there is nobody who should be considered  as a new GS winner seriously with healthy current TOP5. But if someone from youngsters should be highlighted,  then I say Borna Coric.

Yeah Coric is a good prospect he does lack a little firepower though I think although a lot of people are comparing him and saying he has a similar style to Novak. I kind of see the season the same way you do. I don't see two many big trophies left on the table once Novak, Andy, Stan, Rafa, and Fed are done. I mean can't see anyone else winning Masters or slams but then who could have predicted the rise of STan and Cilic? That is why I still think if someone is going to win a slam outside this group it is probably Nishikori. He has a game that translates well to all the surfaces and is consistently getting himself in the mix. He has to avoid those trap matches early in slams where he plays tough five setters that drain him physically for the next match and he has to get a bit stronger physically.

Agree, with a bit of luck Nishi could do it.  
When thinking about Stan's new winning mentality, then it just necessary to name firstly his coach Magnus Norman. He transferred  Stan the Man into a new version Stan the Super Man. I really like his court mentality and fearless approach. It is similar as it was with Lendl & Murray and also  Cilic & Goran.
There is a couple of players who could  win a GS with  possible best coaches and also with a bit of luck. I had thought that Berdych coached by Lendl would have had also a chance to win a GS, but Valverdo is not the best option and Bird seems to be becoming more a mode man than tennis player, who does everything to succeed at GS. I would wish a succes to Kevin A. as he has become mentally more stronger recently and can play really fast.
A good potential for another improvement has Benoit Paire.

From youngsters except Coric looks very good D. Thiem and then young Russian talent Rublev. These three are going to be potential future GS champions.
Very often mentioned Hyeon Chung looks very promising, but I think that he as a Korean will need to change his residence soon to a traditional tennis destination and get a respected coach. Therefore I see his another progress under threat.  

When thinking about current TOP 5 generation, let's wish them all to be around for a couple of good years, because the current tennis era is just exceptional and I rather stop thinking about tennis future when they decide to retire.

Can you imagine that Coric, Rublev, Thiem, Chung, Kyrgios, Kokkin  will replace  Djoko, Fed, Murray, Nadal,  Stan?
It is a quite scary outlook.

I am not as negative as some on the young kids, I think we are seeing some good prospects like kyrgios,Thiem, coric as well. I am not sold on kokkanakis I feel he lacks mobility. At his age he doesn't move like Cilic or Berdych. I think it proves what I have been saying that the crop of guys who are 27-29 or 30 were really special and a golden generation. It is funny how vociferous the comments and jokes were at the time and even today when you consider the Djokovic/ Murray/ and Nadal group of guys and compare them to the crop that came before and after you see what a special group they really are. When has there been a thirteen month period that gave birth to players that have won 26 slams and counting?

socal1976 wrote:

I am not as negative as some on the young kids, I think we are seeing some good prospects like kyrgios,Thiem, coric as well. I am not sold on kokkanakis I feel he lacks mobility. At his age he doesn't move like Cilic or Berdych. I think it proves what I have been saying that the crop of guys who are 27-29 or 30 were really special and a golden generation. It is funny how vociferous the comments and jokes were at the time and even today when you consider the Djokovic/ Murray/ and Nadal group of guys and compare them to the crop that came before and after you see what a special group they really are. When has there been a thirteen month period that gave birth to players that have won 26 slams and counting?

I would call it the best tennis era ever and current TOP5 are SUPER players. They are already playing legends and their rivalries are legendary.

Maybe I am the  pesimist, but I do not expect that I will watch tennis so much after this generation will retire.
Coric, Thiem, Chung, Rublev and mad Aussies just dont seem to have such a spirit, an elegance, mad stubborness, dynamic power combined with coolnes  or even stupid superpowerful moonballs and they will never get it  IMO.
Only Kyrg brought something new on the court and it is a kind of wilderness on the court and also of his mouth.
Let's see, it might be different in a couple of years, but I rather enjoy what we have ATM.

Well the Fed/Hewitt/Safin combination gives us 21 slams, not bad. What about Sampras/Agassi or Borg/Connors/Vilas; and we have Wilander/Lendl/Becker/Edberg.

I dont know, I feel having more players winning slams and at the same time have one or two players winning many slams makes it a strong era for me. It Tsonga and Berdych also win a slam each, and say Delpo comes back and wins some, and the Trio of Nadal/Novak/Murray continue to win some more slams, I would then consider it a very strong era. At least we have by then 8 or 9 players winning slams and yet two or three managed to dominate over the others; that to me makes it a strong era.

paulcz wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

I am not as negative as some on the young kids, I think we are seeing some good prospects like kyrgios,Thiem, coric as well. I am not sold on kokkanakis I feel he lacks mobility. At his age he doesn't move like Cilic or Berdych. I think it proves what I have been saying that the crop of guys who are 27-29 or 30 were really special and a golden generation. It is funny how vociferous the comments and jokes were at the time and even today when you consider the Djokovic/ Murray/ and Nadal group of guys and compare them to the crop that came before and after you see what a special group they really are. When has there been a thirteen month period that gave birth to players that have won 26 slams and counting?

I would call it the best tennis era ever and current TOP5 are SUPER players. They are always playing legends and their rivalries are legendary.

Maybe I am the  pesimist, but I do not expect that I will watch tennis so much after this generation will retire.
Coric, Thiem, Chung, Rublev and mad Aussies just dont seem to have such a spirit, an elegance, mad stubborness, dynamic power combined with coolnes  or even stupid superpowerful moonballs and they will never get it  IMO.
Only Kyrg brought something new on the court and it is a kind of wilderness on the court and also of his mouth.
Let's see, it might be different in a couple of years, but I rather enjoy what we have ATM.

Yes Nick has some real talent but he will have to show his brains because generally in a sport like tennis if you don't have intelligence and discipline regardless of your talent you will never reach the very top. I can't think of a truly great tennis player who has been an idiot, so far Nick has not shown the intellect to dominate a cerebral and individual sport like tennis that requires it in terms of strategy and managing your career.

This group we are seeing now is quite special even when you look at guys like Tsonga, gasquet, Cilic, del po, Berdych, and Stan who were not huge break throughs like Novak/Nadal/ and Murray yet we're all huge talents who have huge weapons.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well the Fed/Hewitt/Safin combination gives us 21 slams, not bad. What about Sampras/Agassi or Borg/Connors/Vilas; and we have Wilander/Lendl/Becker/Edberg.

I dont know, I feel having more players winning slams and at the same time have one or two players winning many slams makes it a strong era for me.  It Tsonga and Berdych also win a slam each, and say Delpo comes back and wins some, and the Trio of Nadal/Novak/Murray continue to win some more slams, I would then consider it a very strong era.  At least we have by then 8 or 9 players winning slams and yet two or three managed to dominate over the others; that to me makes it a strong era.

The key part you seem to be missing is the "and counting" part of the equation that will most certainly push that number even higher.

So what if that number gets higher, it's still only the three of them. If there are more players who could win a slam or two, at least that proves that it's a strong era. I think Sampras and Agassi were playing in an era that there are many other players who were winning slam or slams too, so IMO that's a very strong era. They have Courier, Rafter, Kafenikov and the clay court specialists like Muster, Brugera, and then Kuerten nearing the end of the decade/era. There were also one slam winners like Krajcek, Ivanesevic, Stich.

We have now the trio plus Stan, and Stan makes only two slam finals and then Delpo and Cilic each reach one and winning one slam. We then have Ferrer (of the previous gen), Tsonga, Berdych and then Kei of the next gen getting to one slam final each. That's about all we get, I really don't see how strong this era is compared to say the 1990s and the 1980s.

Last I checked there are 4 a year being won, and any permutation of share out proves nothing.

12 shared amongst 12? Could be no great player, or 12 greats.

12 in a row for 1 guy? Could be a supergreat, or no competition.

There is no LOGICAL way of choosing. All is subjective.

bogbrush wrote:Last I checked there are 4 a year being won, and any permutation of share out proves nothing.

12 shared amongst 12? Could be no great player, or 12 greats.

12 in a row for 1 guy? Could be a supergreat, or no competition.

There is no LOGICAL way of choosing. All is subjective.

This about the 74th time you've had to make this point over the years. I applaud your persistence.

Fitting the facts to the prevailing wisdom would be easier, but way less fun.

It's so hard to predict as it can change so quickly, who thought at the end of 2007 Rafa looked like we would basically completely take over.

At the start of 2010 Federer looked like he was going to win many more slams and no one seemed good enough to stop him.

2011 I don't think anyone could have predicted Novak would improve so much

2013 Who saw Rafa coming back so strong and taking down Djokovic when it mattered?

We can go further back, at the end of 1984 who would have thought McEnroe would never win another slam after the year he had?

I hope 2016 Andy gets a slam, his stats are worthy of him being much higher on the slam tally. I'm a big fan of Wawrinka but Andy should have more slams than him for sure, would love him to hit about 6 but would take him finishing on 4 but at least one more!

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Last I checked there are 4 a year being won, and any permutation of share out proves nothing.

12 shared amongst 12? Could be no great player, or 12 greats.

12 in a row for 1 guy? Could be a supergreat, or no competition.

There is no LOGICAL way of choosing. All is subjective.

This about the 74th time you've had to make this point over the years. I applaud your persistence.

Lol - does make me chuckle every time I read this sort of argument.

The only way of judging the strength of an era is through a subjective assessment of the merits of the players. Anything based on statistics is a waste of time.

I'm not really familiar with the Over/Under thing, but it feels like 1 slam would be quite disappointing for Djokovic, unless it was the French. Anything more than that would be a good season I think, even though he seems to be so dominant right now - especially if he could win the French and add 1 slam to one of his other totals. I think if he offered him to end 2016 with slam titles of
AO 6, FO 1, W 3, USO 2 or
AO 5, FO 1, W 4, USO 2 or
AO 5, FO 1, W 3, USO 3
instead of taking his chances against the field, he'd probably take that. Without the French, he'd take his chances.

Does the Olympics figure in his priorities next year? It's right before Cincy and he'd love both, but I suspect he'd rather have Olympic Gold.

The hardest thing is trying to predict who could win the slams that Djokovic doesn't (assuming there are any).

I'd probably group the candidates:
Probably (Wawrinka, Murray .... Nadal, Nishikori, Federer)
Possibly (um Tsonga)
Maybe (Raonic, Cilic, Isner, Anderson, Dimitrov, Berdych, Gasquet, Paire, Sock, Monfils, Tomic, anyone else!)

It was a struggle to promote anyone from maybe to possibly to be honest!

I'm being hard on Federer too - at the moment, he seems 2nd favourite to Djokovic, but the AO and French are not his best chances and I'm allowing for a bit of decline from his current level before Wimbledon.

Yvonne, I think it is pretty clear that a one slam season for Djokovic would be seen as a bit of a failure have to agree with you on that call. The slams Novak doesn't win I think would most likely fall to Murray or Wawrinka and at RG I think Nadal will be in the mix. I think he is looking better recently and I think if he can have a good finish to the year and full training camp without another serious injury layoff I wouldn't be surprised if he could make a real push again in the clay court season where for the first time in ages he really doesn't have that many points to defend.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well the Fed/Hewitt/Safin combination gives us 21 slams, not bad. What about Sampras/Agassi or Borg/Connors/Vilas; and we have Wilander/Lendl/Becker/Edberg.

I dont know, I feel having more players winning slams and at the same time have one or two players winning many slams makes it a strong era for me.  It Tsonga and Berdych also win a slam each, and say Delpo comes back and wins some, and the Trio of Nadal/Novak/Murray continue to win some more slams, I would then consider it a very strong era.  At least we have by then 8 or 9 players winning slams and yet two or three managed to dominate over the others; that to me makes it a strong era.

Yes except we have seen Cilic an also ran of that group of players who came by a year or so later win a slam in just dominant fashion. We have seen Stan who is a year older than Nadal win two slams again playing at a sparkling level. If you look at Tsonga he too is a great talent who just has been out of the mix. For example, he made a grand slam final at age 21 the same age Kyrgios is now and hasn't been close to a slam final. So therefore even the periphery players that you discuss have had accomplishments that make the accomplishments of the current crop of wunderkinds that everyone is talking about pale in comparison. So I don't if a group of players objectively outperforms the group that came before them and substantially outperforms the group that came after them it is pretty logical to conclude that they were probably better, especially since the conditions have been stable for quite sometime and the string technology has been around now for quite sometime. So which era is strong if an era that has seen 3 great players come up in 12 or 13 months isn't? Plus the periphery players like Cilic, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdy, etc. are actually pretty good for players of their tier. In tennis anyways it is almost always the top 3 at most four or five who define an era to begin with. Nobody talks about the 80s and says wow wasn't it great that Brad Gilbert was a top ten player, no they talk about Lendl, Mac, Connors, Becker, Edberg etc. depending on a discussion of early or late 80s. So if you can't say that the Murray/Nadal/Novak/Berdy/Tsonga/Del Po/Cillic/Stan group of players who came up in that three year window are a golden period than probably like BB you are of the opinion that no such thing exists. Because apparently winning isn't what you look at or objective results.

I'm also not sure anybody would include Berdych and Tsonga in that three year period if they don't win a slam or two during their career. That period was 'golden' only because of two or three multi slam players or all time greats were born, not unlike those periods when other all time greats were born.

Like I mentioned, other era, like the 1990s for eg, we had all time greats plus many other slam winners, to me that's telling me how tough it was winning slams back then. Right now, guys like Tsonga or Berdych managed only one slam final each and they're considered part of a golden generation.

Well then stop mentioning the quality of the other players of the period outside the top three. First, your gripe was that only the top three were winning, I brought up other players on the outer tiers and now you say that the players like Tsonga or Berdy should not be discussed. Of course no one said these guys define this generation just like no one said Brad Gilbert defines the players of the late 80s. This period is defined by Nadal and Djokovic and to a lesser extent Murray easily three great players, and as I showed with the mention of other quality players including other quality slam players beyond that group the cupboard is certainly not bare.

Well if the definition of a golden gen is such then by all means call it that way (though I tend to disagree and so what if BBecker called it so?) but its certainly not an era stronger than say 1990s imo.

PS. I brought up Berdych and Tsonga the way you brought up Brad Gilbert.

YvonneT wrote:The hardest thing is trying to predict who could win the slams that Djokovic doesn't (assuming there are any).

I'd probably group the candidates:
Probably (Wawrinka, Murray .... Nadal, Nishikori, Federer)
Possibly (um Tsonga)
Maybe (Raonic, Cilic, Isner, Anderson, Dimitrov, Berdych, Gasquet, Paire, Sock, Monfils, Tomic, anyone else!)

It was a struggle to promote anyone from maybe to possibly to be honest!

I'm being hard on Federer too - at the moment, he seems 2nd favourite to Djokovic, but the AO and French are not his best chances and I'm allowing for a bit of decline from his current level before Wimbledon.

I think I would group slightly differently:

Tier 1: Nadal, Murray
Tier 2: Federer, Stan
Tier 3: Cilic, Kei, Kyrgios
Tier 4: Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Raonic

That's slightly harsh on Fed and Stan. However, Fed I think will have Olympic gold as his priority and with an extra year in the legs I just can't see him winning another slam. Stan I think will also start to just decline slightly.

Federer won't be that fussed about OG, he's already got one anyway for what little it's worth (and we know how distressed he wasn't when he lost to Murray).

Recent evidence suggests Federer is the only player who gives Djokovic a match.

Fed was in tears when he won the SF in 2012 and, in my view, was slightly paralysed by nerves in the final. He then effectively built his ongoing career plan around Rio 2016. Feels like his view of OG may be slightly different?

Murray v Djoko in slams in 2015 - a 4 set defeat and a 5 set defeat. Fed v Djoko in slams - two 4 set defeats. Neither was actually particularly close to beating Novak though.

I agree as it stands Fed would be in Tier 1 but, for the reasons stated, I think his prospects are lower next year.

Born Slippy wrote:Fed was in tears when he won the SF in 2012 and, in my view, was slightly paralysed by nerves in the final. He then effectively built his ongoing career plan around Rio 2016. Feels like his view of OG may be slightly different?

Murray v Djoko in slams in 2015 - a 4 set defeat and a 5 set defeat. Fed v Djoko in slams - two 4 set defeats. Neither was actually particularly close to beating Novak though.

I agree as it stands Fed would be in Tier 1 but, for the reasons stated, I think his prospects are lower next year.

Please, I really need to read the back up for the comment in bold. I heard him say he hoped to still be playing by Rio but I hardly think that constitutes the basis of his whole ongoing career.

By the way, he explained his emotion; he said that the massive thing was that it guaranteed him a medal and he was desperate not to let the country down. He seemed wreathed in smiles while receiving his silver, not exactly his reaction when he gets to wave a runners up trophy at a Slam.

I think Federer's days of beating Novak in best-of-five have probably now passed. The skills are willing but the body isn't able.

The more I think about it, the more I think the USO14 was Federer's great missed opportunity for slam 18.

I'd still rate his chances against any player apart from Djokovic though, especially at Wimbledon and USO.

BB - my recollection is that his aim was to keep playing until Rio. Obviously, as matters have gone on, it seems likely he will now play past that (although Borg stated recently I think he expected Roger to possibly retire after the Olympics).

As for the second part, you seem to be saying that an Olympic medal of any colour was so important that Fed broke down upon securing the silver but that he wasn't bothered by the colour. That's totally nonsensical and at odds with the fact he is a proven winner. I think his quote about the reaction after the final was that he had the option of being sad he hadn't won or to accept he had lost to the better player and be happy he had won the silver and chose the latter. All credit to him for such a mature reaction.

I think an Olympic medal means a great deal to these players. Firstly, they give out Atp points. Secondly, while you or I might not be patriotic or nationalistic I think the vast majority of players want to do well for their country. Plus a lot of people who aren't tennis fans will watch it and may be won over or increase in marketing to casual fans. Hell people will watch rhythmic gymnastics during the Olympics, I don't but I know many who do. This all means increased adulation and earning power more than what anything short of a slam means. Yes masters have prize money and are worth more points but in the larger world most people don't even know what a Masters is but everyone knows what an Olympic medal symbolizes.

Born Slippy wrote:BB - my recollection is that his aim was to keep playing until Rio. Obviously, as matters have gone on, it seems likely he will now play past that (although Borg stated recently I think he expected Roger to possibly retire after the Olympics).

As for the second part, you seem to be saying that an Olympic medal of any colour was so important that Fed broke down upon securing the silver but that he wasn't bothered by the colour. That's totally nonsensical and at odds with the fact he is a proven winner. I think his quote about the reaction after the final was that he had the option of being sad he hadn't won or to accept he had lost to the better player and be happy he had won the silver and chose the latter. All credit to him for such a mature reaction.

From the actual mouth of the man this week at Basel: Tranlated.

'Olympic gold is not my highest goal. I have not even decided if I play at the Olympics in singles, doubles or mixed double ,but that will come. I would like to take part in the three disciplines, as those are additional medals for Switzerland I could provide. That idea really motivates me even more than just a fixation on gold. That is not a priority in my head. I would like once again with Stan Wawrinka to play for a medal, but a mixed doubles with Martina Hingis is also possible. "

"The Olympic Games have given me much. As an athlete because I can represent my country and gold won in doubles and silver in singles, but also in life because I met my wife Mirka there you at the Games of 2000 in Sydney."

In a second interview when asked about his schedule next year:

'' I must also still determine which parts I'm released next year at the Games in Rio de Janeiro. Perhaps I'll go next singles, doubles with Wawrinka, but compete in the mixed doubles with Martina Hingis is also an option. The decision I take soon but main goal is two win as many medals as I can for Switzerland"

So he's saying that he wants to win medals, but the number of medals is more important than the colour - so a bronze in both singles and mixed doubles would be better than a gold in singles. Have I read that right? It's not for me to decide what should matter to Fed, but that does seem surprising.

Federer's attitude to the Olympics strikes me as the same as his attitude to winning Davis Cup, or hiring Edberg: he's doing it for fun.

If it brings success, great, but it's all about experiencing these things while he still can.

Yeah, I don't think it will change his life if he wins Bronze, Silver, or Gold but I do think he will value it and if he didn't enjoy playing tennis at the highest levels or participating in a particular event he won't do it. But he has always given the Olympics very high standing and that is because in today's sports world and in today's tour it is important.

It sounds like he is seriously flirting with the idea of playing all three events at the Olympics. Might be possible since doubles is just standing still and hitting a few volleys, serves, and shots that come straight at you

Still, maybe a fitness stretch for a 34/35 year old. Two might make more sense but he doesn't want to miss on either of the three.