No Slam Wonders: How much of it is true [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

No Slam Wonders: How much of it is true

SheepleBuster
06-06-2010, 12:56 AM
People talk about how Murray, Soderling, or Cilic will never win a slam. Why the heck not? If a player like Schiavone can get lucky, if Arnaud Clement can reach a final, if Thomas Johanson can win a slam, so can Murray and Soderling.

Can we truly say that these guys won't win a slam for sure? Roddick, Moya, Ferrero have. Soderling and Murray are better than all of them.

octatennis
06-06-2010, 12:58 AM
same as underachivier.

Har-Tru
06-06-2010, 01:10 AM
Can we truly say that these guys won't win a slam for sure? Roddick, Moya, Ferrero have. Soderling and Murray are better than all of them.

Your post was being a good one until this.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2010, 01:29 AM
Your post was being a good one until this.

hm.. I don't understand. Soderling and Murray are not better than Ferrero and other guys I mentioned?

Soderling or Murray > Ferrero, Johansonn

Roddick is not that clear but still. Murray beats him 7 out of 10 times. Soderling did lose to Roddick but he should have done much better.

BigJohn
06-06-2010, 01:32 AM
When Federer and Nadal retire / significantly slow down, a lot more underachievers and journeymen will win slams.

These are special times.

malisha
06-06-2010, 01:33 AM
Murray,Soderling and Cilic will be a Grand Slam winners at the end of their carrers IMO

or in a good position to win one

2003
06-06-2010, 01:39 AM
Well they should keep it that way, otherwise they will become a dreaded one slam wonder which puts them in position for even more criticism ;)

General Suburbia
06-06-2010, 01:47 AM
hm.. I don't understand. Soderling and Murray are not better than Ferrero and other guys I mentioned?

Soderling or Murray > Ferrero, Johansonn

Roddick is not that clear but still. Murray beats him 7 out of 10 times. Soderling did lose to Roddick but he should have done much better.
Ferrero used to be extremely good. Roddick losing to Murray is a matchup issue. I actually don't like Moya's game.

@Sweet Cleopatra
06-06-2010, 01:49 AM
Your post was being a good one until this.

+10000

gusavo
06-06-2010, 01:51 AM
they say that because htey dont like the players

Ferrero used to be extremely good. Roddick losing to Murray is a matchup issue. I actually don't like Moya's game.
its a him being worse than the other player issue.

Henry Kaspar
06-06-2010, 02:25 AM
Sorry but Murray and Soderling are faaaaaaar from Roddick's career status. Once they have reached 10 grand slam seminfals (compared to Roddick's 12) we may start talking, but not at 3 (Murray) or 2(Soderling).

This said, Murray and Soderling are arguably better than Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, Tomas Johannson, Andres Gomez, Brian Teacher or Mark Edmondsson, who all won a slam.

Ibracadabra
06-06-2010, 02:52 AM
Speaking of no slam wonders and nalbandian wasn't mentioned. Hero status on mtf.

Pirata.
06-06-2010, 03:24 AM
Nalbandian being slamless is one of the biggest crimes in tennis, imo.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2010, 03:26 AM
Speaking of no slam wonders and nalbandian wasn't mentioned. Hero status on mtf.

We were talking about real players not fat slobs.

OnyxRose
06-06-2010, 03:32 AM
Nalbandian not having a slam is his own damn fault. Of course you're going to get injured when you're always overweight and undisciplined. I don't get the love for him that posters have. He's a lazy bum who's going to regret p*ssing away his career. What a waste.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2010, 03:51 AM
Nalbandian not having a slam is his own damn fault. Of course you're going to get injured when you're always overweight and undisciplined. I don't get the love for him that posters have. He's a lazy bum who's going to regret p*ssing away his career. What a waste.

When he beat Federer in that epic 5 setter a few years back, I thought wow. He is getting serious about his career. When he beat Nadal and Federer twice in 2 weeks, I was gonna pull for him. But he just never puts it together. It's sad he lost that match to Roddick having a match point or he'd be US Open champ. But that's as close as he came.

I_Dasco
06-06-2010, 04:41 AM
Can't compare women and men tennis.
Top players r too strong...

canbera
06-06-2010, 12:58 PM
Let's not forget that Semifinal from the AO 2006 where he lead with two sets to love and a break against Baghdatis...

good_gambler
06-06-2010, 03:17 PM
Murray better than Roddick. You are a douche. :retard:

Jomp1
06-06-2010, 03:23 PM
People are so obsessed with wonders. A loss is a choke, a win is a fluke. Listening to some here it would be better not winning a slam so you wouldn't be talked about as something silly as a one slam wonder.. Bottomline, there are not enough Slams for every good tennis player to win.

swebright
06-06-2010, 03:34 PM
Don't wish too hard. Your wish might come true once Fed and Nadal retire. One slam winner at each event very possible. I don't see anybody dominating like these 2 did.

And since there's no teenager lurking around and older guys keeping fit/healthy, they will keep on playing. It could become a semi-senior tour.

Are there any less than 20 top 100 players on ATP????

lalaland
06-06-2010, 03:40 PM
they will become a dreaded one slam wonder which puts them in position for even more criticism ;)

This is the first time I ever agree with what you said, but this is so very true :yeah:.

On MTF, the more successful you are, the more criticism you got.

rexman
06-06-2010, 03:53 PM
Nalbandian being slamless is one of the biggest crimes in tennis, imo.

An overweight mental midget having a slam would be the crime against tennis.

Persimmon
06-06-2010, 05:12 PM
Sorry but Murray and Soderling are faaaaaaar from Roddick's career status. Once they have reached 10 grand slam seminfals (compared to Roddick's 12) we may start talking, but not at 3 (Murray) or 2(Soderling).

This said, Murray and Soderling are arguably better than Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, Tomas Johannson, Andres Gomez, Brian Teacher or Mark Edmondsson, who all won a slam.

This.

Priam
06-06-2010, 05:15 PM
It's just a really tough era to win slams in. I was heavily rooting for Nalby vs duck in 2003!! Damn.

Sillyrabbit
06-06-2010, 05:23 PM
Murray- Yes to win a slam sometime in the future
Soderling- No, probably not, might be proved wrong
Cilic- Can't see it right now as he's a little too erratic, but with Del Boy out of the USO this year, it should be interesing what he does.

venusfan
06-06-2010, 05:48 PM
Murray, have no idea what happened to him. He showed such great promise the start of last season but plays like crap in big matches..

Dusk Soldier
06-06-2010, 05:50 PM
hm.. I don't understand.That's because you started watching tennis in 2007.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-05-2011, 07:27 AM
Murray won't win a slam. With these weak cross-court forehands and defending style, he's not capable of.

JediFed
06-05-2011, 08:44 AM
Who would have thought that Lendl would go on to win 8 back in '84? I'm holding out for Andy Murray. There is still time. He's just 24.

The trouble for Murray is that there is just 5 years between him and Federer. There were 8 years between Connors/Lendl, and Borg retired young, which opened the gate for Wilander and Lendl to break through at least on clay. When Mac went down, with a slowing Connors, that left Wilander and Lendl to battle it out between them and Becker/Edberg.

Murray still has to compete with Del Potro (who's younger), and Djokovic (same age), and Nadal who's within a year. Just too many good players.

syc23
06-05-2011, 09:40 AM
I think there's more chance for Murray to win a slam than Soderling and Berdych ever will. Rafa' knees will explode within the next 2 years leaving Djokovic as his main rival. Cillic has flattered to deceive and Del Potro may have an injury hampered career so once Fedal starts to decline, it will be like it was back in the early 2000s with slam wins spread evenly.

MaxPower
06-05-2011, 12:09 PM
Yeah but thing is "Life is not fair". Even if Murray has let say 6% chance to win a slam before every slam and Soderling has 5% nothing says that even if they take part in 20 slams they would win 1 slam each. Doesn't work that way. A player with less chance to win a slam, let's say 2-3% can still win 2 slams in 20 tries while a guy like Murray can go 40 slams without winning one.

No law of averages and just because Murray and Soderling both have reached Finals and been close makes them no more likely to win the next slam. One of them likely will before the career is over and hopefully both but wouldn't be a good bet to place money on. I'm honestly more worried for Murray because he has been in the top so long without getting one. Soderling broke through much later in his career and has developed since 2009 and built up more experience in big matches. Murray already has all that experience, SF spots in all slams etc and still hasn't taken that extra step.

It's a tricky situation and I hope both get one but I got a feeling that before we know it another player will become the new Federer/Nadal type so you never know. Maybe Federer retires at 31-32 or so and Nadal is already getting worsse. Then Murray and Soderling will definitely have the opportunity but maybe just for a season or two

GSMnadal
06-05-2011, 12:38 PM
The day Cilic wins a slam, I'll be the first one to call it a mug era.

Saberq
06-05-2011, 12:50 PM
Soderling will never win a slam because his game is not good enough and his mental approach to tennis is very bad....Murray on the other hand is a different beast...He is very,very talented more than many of you think but his game is to slow to beat top guys on constant level...What I mean is that if he becomes a more aggressive player he will win one for sure....Also like Robin his mental status durring a game is weak...If you yell after every lost point you will lose the match...Look at Roger how calm he reacts when he loses a point even though he is pissed deep down even Nole is calmer now than he was before so Andy needs to learn to control his emotions all the time and he can win a slam if he believes in himself and remembers how good he can be..

sexybeast
06-05-2011, 01:03 PM
This era is pretty sick having all the time Federer in SFs, almost always Nadal and Djokovic aswell.

In other eras someone like Kafelnikov could win Roland Garros playing Krajicek-Sampras-Stich in the QF, SF and F....

Then win Australian Open playing Todd Martin, Haas and Enqvist.

Even Davydenko would have won slams in the late 90s and early 2000s with these kind of draws.

Someone like Johansson was not as good as Soderling and definetly not even comparable to Murray.

You just couldnt win Wimbledons in the Sampras era, all other slams was just wide open comparing with today.

Murray probably will have to beat 2 of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic to win any slam. His greatest draw came in this year's Australian Open but Djokovic has been impossible to beat on hardcourt.

Dmitry Verdasco
06-05-2011, 01:04 PM
Nalbandian being slamless is one of the biggest crimes in tennis, imo.

This. Stupid fat bastard. :rolleyes:

MaxPower
06-05-2011, 01:11 PM
Soderling will never win a slam because his game is not good enough and his mental approach to tennis is very bad....Murray on the other hand is a different beast...He is very,very talented more than many of you think but his game is to slow to beat top guys on constant level...What I mean is that if he becomes a more aggressive player he will win one for sure....Also like Robin his mental status durring a game is weak...If you yell after every lost point you will lose the match...Look at Roger how calm he reacts when he loses a point even though he is pissed deep down even Nole is calmer now than he was before so Andy needs to learn to control his emotions all the time and he can win a slam if he believes in himself and remembers how good he can be..

Not true anymore. Was true for the pre 2009 version. Then Soderling became a different beast mentally as well (with the help of Norman and now the help of Normans old coach, Rosengren)
He is so clutch nowadays you have to check your eyes at times. One of the highest deciding sets win ratios on the tour over the past 52 weeks. 9-1 this year in 3rd and 5th sets.

He does however play a high risk game so when it clicks he hits many errors. He does however have the X-factor that allows you to take out Federer/Nadal in a slam. Like Murray and the other top players he has been rolling through early rounds in slams winning easily and with the exception of AO (where the heat kills him) either gone out to Federer or Nadal in the slams since 2009.

Paylu2007
06-05-2011, 02:42 PM
Never ever compare ATP with WTA. WTA is full of chokers. Schiavone's victory at RG was the cherry on top. There's no place for luck when u have players like Nadal and Djokovic around. I would mention Federer, but he is old fashion, he is indeed one of the need-of-luck guys nowadays.