The race for the slam count

Hello peeps



It's all a bit quiet here at the moment. Where are Amrit and Socal to lecture us on weak eras? Anyway, here's the article you've all been dreading

Now that the dust has settled on a glorious Australian Open I thought I would raise the foremost question on the minds of all tennis fans of the big three.

With Federer claiming his 18th title, do you think his lead is unassailable? Or do Rafa and Novak still have it in them to catch him or even surpass him?

Rafa is of course only 4 behind. He seems resurgent and surely must head into RG as the favourite. A win there and suddenly we'd have a rejuvenated Nadal, looking stronger than he has done in years, and freshly motivated to make a renewed assault on the King. He is still only 30.

Or what about Screech? The skinny one has gone off the boil a little bit but surely that can't last for much longer. He also has the remarkable ability to stay fit despite being a road runner and playing an incredibly physical game.

Personally I think the race is still very much on. Not least because the landscape still looks barren in terms of elite talent. The lost generations continue to flounder and the only potential elite youngster seems to be the limited Zverev and he's probably not good to go for at least another couple of years. And in any case I don't think he has the big three level of talent to dominate.

So the road is clear. All it take will is for Screech or Rafa to go on a dominant run and suddenly Federer's reign at the top starts to look precarious. Screech in particular has at least 6 years left to make up the gap. Federer in that time had to deal with peak versions of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray who combined thwarted him on many occasions. Djokoivc and Nadal will only have ageing versions of themselves to compete with and Raonic, Dimitrov and Nishikori (yes, that's right everybody, have a good laugh at that one).

Of course there is also Murray - perhaps the temporary number one can start to win the tournaments that matter more frequently. Unfortunately, one slam in four years doesn't bode too well. I suspect if the other three return to near top form, he'll be relegated to fourth place pretty sharpish.

So what are your thoughts? Is the race over, nearly over or just getting started? And bear in mind, Rafa and Novak are probably just starting their best years, or at least that's what we were told when Federer got to his thirties.



emancipator

If Screech finds his mojo again he could get to 18 and beyond, his current form however does not suggest he will get there. In 2-3 years he might have to start adapting a new style to make it easier on his body.

Nadal is only 30 but as has been mentioned many times before has a style that puts a lot of demand on his body so 5 grand slams more I suspect might be too far, having said that I never bet against Nadal.

I don't think for either they are in their best years.

Mr Murray will really have to start winning 3 in a year to stand a chance.

One of the big questions is whether the soon-to-be-30-somethings Djoko and Murray can keep the pace up into their fourth decades. Probably not a good idea to look at Federer for comparisons, in that his short-rally, take-it-early style is hard to emulate.
One prediction I'm prepared to make. All the Slams this year will be won by guys in their 30s.

sirfredperry wrote:One of the big questions is whether the soon-to-be-30-somethings Djoko and Murray can keep the pace up into their fourth decades. Probably not a good idea to look at Federer for comparisons, in that his short-rally, take-it-early style is hard to emulate.
  One prediction I'm prepared to make. All the Slams this year will be won by guys in their 30s.
   

Andy and Novak both turn 30 in May, just before the start of RG. Obviously Fed, Rafa and Stan are already past 30. I'd say the bold bit is a pretty good bet (caveat: predictions are hard, especially about the future).

D-half. You have to look at the under-30s and think - just who COULD win a Slam?
Raonic at Wimbledon is a possibility, but I worry about his fitness. May be Cilic or Nishi at the USO. Dimi? It's not a long list.

sirfredperry wrote:D-half. You have to look at the under-30s and think - just who COULD win a Slam?
Raonic at Wimbledon is a possibility, but I worry about his fitness. May be Cilic or Nishi at the USO. Dimi? It's not a long list.

Yes, it's incredible isn't it. Cilic at 28 (5 days younger than Del Potro) is the youngest slam champion on tour. After those two it's Djokovic.
I'd give Raonic zero chance of beating Federer, Murray or Djokovic if any of those are fit at Wimbledon.

But where are the slam champions of the future? It can be done. After all Wawrinka and Cilic have broken through. It really is perplexing. We're having to look at the under 21s for potential champs.

I'm still trying to work out what Novak's done, to deserve the names of 'screech'. Or for that matter the scorn about Nish's chances or how we have a temporary No.1 that has a lead of nearly 2000 points and is almost certain to have a minimum 6 month stint. If i didn't know I'd think Hawkeye was back


Anyway, my take on things;-


Roger will have won his last slam

Rafa will not win many more

Andy and Novak will win five out of the next seven, which means we will have one or two new winners, before the end of next year

Nish and Dimi are most likely to be the new winners

Stan could win five

banbrotam wrote:I'm still trying to work out what Novak's done, to deserve the names of 'screech'.

He looks like Screech from Saved by the Bell.

SFP

I did write a longer post that expanded on those thoughts, but my computer ate it.

I feel at the moment Raonic and Nishi have sufficient weaknesses to always find someone better than them in the big events (Raonic against the great returners, Nishi because he doesn't get enough cheap points on his own serve). Dimitrov is probably the best equipped in that his best game can beat anyone - the issue there has been how often and how consistently he can play near his best.

Cilic and Del Potro have shown that they can get on a hot streak, but I suspect in particular for Cilic that was something of a one-off tournament.

Theim at RG? I don't see it yet

Goffin - Similar to Nish, but even more so. To some extent the Ferrer of the era.

Otherwise, you are looking for someone like Kyrgios (still...) or Zverev (very young) to make the breakthrough.

The problem with Dimi, can he beat not one but two or even three big four guys? Without Djoko and Murray the top two guys, there're still Nadal and Fed this AO. Unless all the big four guys fall by the way side, its really very tough for a guy like Dimii. Well, he may have to produce something like Stan, at AO2014 and FO2015 for examples, or play in the zone like Cilic at USO2014, not impossible but quite difficult; or just wait for another two or three years for the big four to really decline collectively.

banbrotam wrote:I'm still trying to work out what Novak's done, to deserve the names of 'screech'. Or for that matter the scorn about Nish's chances or how we have a temporary No.1 that has a lead of nearly 2000 points and is almost certain to have a minimum 6 month stint. If i didn't know I'd think Hawkeye was back


Anyway, my take on things;-


Roger will have won his last slam

Rafa will not win many more

Andy and Novak will win five out of the next seven, which means we will have one or two new winners, before the end of next year

Nish and Dimi are most likely to be the new winners

Stan could win five

Care to expand? Do you expect Andy to get most of those or Novak?

The temporary number 1 thing was just a silly joke - of course he is not the temporary number 1

Also very brave to rule out both Rafa and Roger, especially with RG and W being the next 2 slams. It's not like Federer fluked a slam - he probably would have had at least 3 over the last couple of years were it not for Novak's domination.

Nishikori's nearly 28 - and he's made it to one slam final - hence the scorn about his chances. He couldn't even beat a 35 year old over five sets and he, Nishikori, has one of the best five set records in the open era. That tells you something about taking your chances and having a winners mentality. Federer even at 35 and with 17 slams was hungrier and fought harder than Nishikori. Truly pathetic.

Eventually, well it has to happen at some point, when the elite youngsters arrive, the likes of Nishikori and Raonic will be swept aside.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:The problem with Dimi, can he beat not one but two or even three big four guys?  Without Djoko and Murray the top two guys, there're still Nadal and Fed this AO.  Unless all the big four guys fall by the way side, its really very tough for a guy like Dimii.  Well, he may have to produce something like Stan, at AO2014 and FO2015 for examples, or play in the zone like Cilic at USO2014, not impossible but quite difficult; or just wait for another two or three years for the big four to really decline collectively.

Sadly, I think this is the only way one of the lost generation will win a slam.

The problem with Dmitrov is that he still hasn't learnt to construct points properly and that BH is a too weak and he doesn't create enough angles with it.

emancipator wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I'm still trying to work out what Novak's done, to deserve the names of 'screech'. Or for that matter the scorn about Nish's chances or how we have a temporary No.1 that has a lead of nearly 2000 points and is almost certain to have a minimum 6 month stint. If i didn't know I'd think Hawkeye was back


Anyway, my take on things;-


Roger will have won his last slam

Rafa will not win many more

Andy and Novak will win five out of the next seven, which means we will have one or two new winners, before the end of next year

Nish and Dimi are most likely to be the new winners

Stan could win five

Care to expand? Do you expect Andy to get most of those or Novak?

The temporary number 1 thing was just a silly joke - of course he is not the temporary number 1

Also very brave to rule out both Rafa and Roger, especially with RG and W being the next 2 slams. It's not like Federer fluked a slam - he probably would have had at least 3 over the last couple of years were it not for Novak's domination.

Nishikori's nearly 28 - and he's made it to one slam final - hence the scorn about his chances. He couldn't even beat a 35 year old over five sets and he, Nishikori, has one of the best five set records in the open era. That tells you something about taking your chances and having a winners mentality. Federer even at 35 and with 17 slams was hungrier and fought harder than Nishikori. Truly pathetic.

Eventually, well it has to happen at some point, when the elite youngsters arrive, the likes of Nishikori and Raonic will be swept aside.

I don't expect Roger to win any slow court events and I would back Murray before him at Wimbledon. Not convinced at all that Rafa can cut it when he's playing an 'on' rival of the fab 5

Hence why I think that Murray and Djoko will continue to  dominate 

I also don't think that anyone under 23 will win a slam and its wrong to think that the Dimi / Nish generation will be bypassed

Talking of young up-and-comers, Alexander Zverev has reached the final in Montpelier after a three-set win over J-W T.

I believe that Roger will have to be content with his 2009 French Open title; it is highly unlikely that he will add any more Roland Garros trophies to his collection.

As for Wimbledon, I for one will never count him out. He has been the most consistent at SW19 since 2003, with his early exit in 2013 being the only time he has failed to reach at least a quarterfinal there. I think Wimby remains his best bet of adding to his slam count.

The US Open remains a 50/50 chance for me.

I could see him ending with 19 majors with Wimbledon being his last one.

He didn't reach the SFs in 2010 and 2011 too, losing to Berdych and Tsonga respectively. With Fed these days you never know, as he too is having injuries too.

He lost in the QFs both times.

I mean with Fed these days being more injury prone than in the past, you never know how he would fare. He had MTO twice during the AO, not a good sign.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:He didn't reach the SFs in 2010 and 2011 too, losing to Berdych and Tsonga respectively.  With Fed these days you never know, as he too is having injuries too.

I meant to type 'at least a quarterfinal.' I corrected my original post. Thanks.

I think that Federer's seat on the top is pretty safe now, whether it stays at #18 or he manages to nick another: 4 slams for Nadal (who will shortly play his 1,000'th match and turns 31 in May) or 6 Slams for Djokovic (who has played more than 900 matches and turns 30 in May) is a very tall order. I can't see either of them lasting as long as Federer has at the very top, so they have probably got to pick up the bulk of those extra slams in the next two years or so.

If that is right, we are not merely asking whether they can carry on winning slams over the next few years, they surely can (as can Federer), but whether they can accumulate slams at rates which they have only managed at their respective career peaks thus far whilst time is running out.

News this morning that Federer has signed a deal that commits him to playing in the Basle tournament until 2019. So suggestions that his retirement is imminent seem somewhat premature.

That's good news. Hopefully this'll settle the endless stream of idiotic questions from the media.

reckoner wrote:That's good news. Hopefully this'll settle the endless stream of idiotic questions from the media.

It's been said before, but it's funny how at the end of 2013 many were saying that Fed's continued presence on the tour was embarrassing, that he should quit to avoid tarnishing his legacy &c &c &c. Here we are, 3 years and 12 titles later (including 3 Masters and a Slam), not to mention 3 Slam final appearances, and he has spent a mere 11 weeks outside the top 10 during that period due to a 5-month injury lay-off. The vast majority of players on tour would accept that as their peak career period. Staying on for another 2 years seems far from absurd now.

barrystar wrote:

reckoner wrote:That's good news. Hopefully this'll settle the endless stream of idiotic questions from the media.

It's been said before, but it's funny how at the end of 2013 many were saying that Fed's continued presence on the tour was embarrassing, that he should quit to avoid tarnishing his legacy &c &c &c.  Here we are, 3 years and 12 titles later (including 3 Masters and a Slam), not to mention 3 Slam final appearances, and he has spent a mere 11 weeks outside the top 10 during that period due to a 5-month injury lay-off.  The vast majority of players on tour would accept that as their peak career period.  Staying on for another 2 years seems far from absurd now.

Indeed... not least a certain Mr Djokovic

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2016-03-13/22197.php

The good thing is that Federer has just said that he feels he still has 'so much left in the tank'

The guy is insatiable. Must be incredible to do something you love so much for a living. I used to love my job, now I hate it

emancipator wrote:
Indeed... not least a certain Mr Djokovic

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2016-03-13/22197.php

The good thing is that Federer has just said that he feels he still has 'so much left in the tank'

The guy is insatiable. Must be incredible to do something you love so much for a living. I used to love my job, now I hate it

WTF is going on with Djoker Sr? He doesn't even make sense and still sounds like a complete classless numbnuts...

Sorry you no longer like your job emance, been there, it isn't a nice feeling.

Make a change, you won't regret it!

That article was from last year I think. Poor Novak.

Too late for me. Too much time and energy invested. But it's not all bad

Just being overly doomy and gloomy.

Glad it ain't all bad! Never too late for a change though!!