More players play the "match of their life" against Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

More players play the "match of their life" against Federer

duong
03-24-2010, 06:32 PM
I mentioned that in another thread, but it was a little bit "off-topic" then created this thread.

I've had this impression several times for one year especially, that some players now played against Federer as if they were playing against an "old legend" and give more importance to winning this match than to far in this tournament.

When I speak about playing against "an old legend", there are two dimensions :

-"legend" which means that their match or victory against him would be one achievement which would be marked in their whole carreer and memories. Something even more important than going far in the tournament.

- "old" which means that they know that now they have a chance, it's the good moment to beat him. In his peak years it was quite different : some players had superior motivation but yet started the match thinking they would lose.

I also want to say that because I don't quite agree with the idea that Federer doesn't give a shit about MS1000 tournaments : I think that comparing to slams, he's often not perfectly prepared (but it can be said of several other top-players, I guess, although in a lesser extent), I think, in a lesser extent for me, that he's not as motivated as for slams - I say "in a lesser extent" because for instance I could read an interview in the beginning of the year, saying that he wanted to win more tournaments this year, including other than grand slams, both to do better than previous year and because he clearly aims at staying number 1.

Several matches which have made me think that :

- Murray Masters Cup 2008 : he said that beating Federer in that Masters Cup was a huge achievement, and he let people think that it was as important as wining the tournament ... and actually he lost next round looking exhausted. Also interesting about Murray is that he said later that "Fed's number 1 is up for grabs", meaning that now Federer is not the one he's used to be and you can beat him.

- Benneteau Bercy 2009 : frankly speaking I was amazed by him that day, he played fantastic imo, and he looked incredible, like doped or something, anyway incredibly motivated, I've hardly seen anything like that. In the end of the match he celebrated incredibly saying it was the "greatest win of his carreer" and cried like a baby ... and lost next round (well it was Monfils who reached the final ;) )

- Baghdatis Indian Wells 2010 : I had not been impressed by him for long and clearly underrated him, but in that match he was fantastic, the best match of the tournament imo, Fed played quite well imo, but Marcos was great. In the end of the match he said it was the biggest win of his carreer ... for a player who has been finalist in the Australian Open and semifinalist in Wimbledon :eek:

- Tsonga Montreal 2009 : well Fed gave him the match in the end, no doubt it was a crap, but in the first set, Tsonga played at a level I don't remember him playing in other matches in 2009 ... and please note that Tsonga is a player I often watch. All of his words ... he was hugely motivated (actually Fed was the only top-4-player he had not beaten yet), also said something like "my biggest win" (or nearly with his win over Nadal in Melbourne)

- more complicated case but in connection with that : Davydenko Masters Cup 2009, Doha and Melbourne 2010. From his interviews, also from his wife's words, beating Federer was a total obsession for him and if he did that, there was supposed to be no more obstacle to win big tournaments (wgich actually is not completely irrational if you consider his recent level of play and record against other players). Little bit too much obsession maybe if you consider the quarterfinal in Melbourne, but yet an obsession. And in London he gave everything he had to win.

Well, of course it's not totally anormal against a number 1 or even a top-player : for some players beating Nadal is also a real extraordinary achievement, and you could even see Tipsarevic's fighting and celebration after beating Murray in Dubai ...

But it seems to me that there has been something more in some recent matches against Federer.

Arkulari
03-24-2010, 06:40 PM
when people defeat Roger in MS or smaller tournaments, it's like they have won a Slam or something :lol:

they get super excited, happy, kiss the ground, cry and then promptly lose in the next round against anyone

newest trend in tennis

Certinfy
03-24-2010, 06:44 PM
Tsonga Montreal 09? :haha:

marcRD
03-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Söderling seems obsessed with beating Federer, dreaming of a final against him in master cup and also kind of has put in his mind that it is the most difficult thing in this sport (he didnt even think he could win USOPEN match if he had taken the 4th set).

I remember Gonzalez played incredible tennis to beat Federer in the master cup 2007 and then didnt win anything else. Roddick seems to have changed his whole gameplan to beat Federer and has been taking sets from him atleast, he defeated him 2008 miami and celebrated like if he had won a grand slam just to lose against Davydenko...

chowdahead25
03-24-2010, 07:26 PM
Tipsarevic at 08 Aussie Open. And he still lost.

duong
03-24-2010, 07:28 PM
Söderling seems obsessed with beating Federer, dreaming of a final against him in master cup and also kind of has put in his mind that it is the most difficult thing in this sport (he didnt even think he could win USOPEN match if he had taken the 4th set)....

yes I think he also has an obsession like Davydenko ;)

Beating him in Abu Dhabi was quite celebrated although it was only an exhibition :shrug:

You also mention Roddick, Gonzalez ... actually it's a category of players like Davydenko, who have lost a lot against him when he was in his prime and who have an obsession : they are hugely motivated against him but it's a little bit different from the other players I mentioned, as they have a disadvantage comparing to other players because this is precisely an obsession and also a complex.

Roddick seems to have changed his whole gameplan to beat Federer and has been taking sets from him atleast, he defeated him 2008 miami and celebrated like if he had won a grand slam just to lose against Davydenko...

I hadn't thought of him for celebrations, didn't remember that, but I also think he has more chance to beat him than in the past.

I think because Fed's level has declined, esp on serve return.

marcRD
03-24-2010, 07:35 PM
I hadn't thought of him for celebrations, didn't remember that, but I also think he has more chance to beat him than in the past.

I think because Fed's level has declined, esp on serve return.

He didnt actually celebrate as much as Benneteau, anyway these victories dont change the life of these players and are barely remembered therafter, so I dont know whats up with the myth around beating Federer in best of 3 matches.

2005 was different, the players who beat Federer played absolutely mindblowing tennis to defeat him (except Nadal on clay, which is mindblowing even when it is ordinary for his standards). You remember Gasquet in Monte Carlo 2005 (best match he has played, together with Roddick 2007?), Safin Australian Open and Nalbandian with the master cup, Federer was kind of unbeatable anywhere 2005-2006. He could have gone a whole year without losing a single match with a bit of luck.

duong
03-24-2010, 07:43 PM
Tipsarevic at 08 Aussie Open. And he still lost.

yes I had thought of it as well, what refreshed me especially is that against Murray in Dubai (I only saw final set), I saw a Tipsarevic as motivated and also playing far better than usual : then it was hader top mention it as Federer's specificity :lol:

On the contrary, Benneteau tightly competed with Murray in Cincinatti, but I read his post-match comments : it was nearly like an ordinary match for him.

Also what refreshed me a little bit about that Tipsy match is that Federer played quite badly that day.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-24-2010, 07:57 PM
With all due respect (because you are an excellent poster)

this thread is stupid in my opinion

Federer at masters events plays like he couldn't care less

Federer at the slams is like a beast possessed.

you can't compare the 2 sides of roger

Montego
03-24-2010, 08:09 PM
It is not only against Federer. I also saw some players ranked 80-120 playing their best match of life against Nadal - Phau, Marcos Daniel and some others.

I guess it is all about motivation - they spend all their life playing against similar mugs on outside courts or in challengers and when playing against Fed or Rafa - they are playing on center court, with all lights on them. And if they somehow make a surprise - whole world will be saying about them.

Only MTF and other addicts know about Phau. But if he somehow managed to get a win over Nadal in Grand Slam - he will be on BBC, NBC, CNN and others.

It is about motivation imo. There is always a bigger motivation to beat better player, better focus and approach. But if you are playing against Fed or Nadal - this is the extra big motivation. That's why they play the matches of their lives against them.

Arkulari
03-24-2010, 08:28 PM
they have nothing to lose, so they can give their all and hope for the best ;)

bjurra
03-24-2010, 08:36 PM
Good post, Montego!

I would like to add that players who face Nadal and Roger have nothing to loseand no pressure or expectations.

If Phau could play every week like he did against Rafa, he would be top 25.

JeffCandoi
03-24-2010, 08:39 PM
stupid blablabla about losing matches :retard:

Certinfy
03-24-2010, 08:45 PM
Phau against Nadal was unreal, the way he fought was amazing :worship:

Montego
03-24-2010, 08:49 PM
And remember how Koellerer was fighting against Del Pony in US Open. He was leaving all he had on the court and running down each ball, even those which he couldn't possibly reach.

duong
03-24-2010, 08:53 PM
With all due respect (because you are an excellent poster)

this thread is stupid in my opinion

Federer at masters events plays like he couldn't care less

Federer at the slams is like a beast possessed.

you can't compare the 2 sides of roger

with all due respect I think that this opinion is a legend :lol:

yes he's not as good as in slams, but not so much.

duong
03-24-2010, 08:57 PM
It is not only against Federer. I also saw some players ranked 80-120 playing their best match of life against Nadal - Phau, Marcos Daniel and some others.

yes I agree, after Federer, Nadal quite leads to the same supra-motivations (I shortly mentioned it in first post)

Other common point Nadal is not only the second legend after Federer, but also players have also started thinking that he's "beatable" : both of them together make supra-motivation

Djokovic or Murray, a little bit but far from these because they are not yet such legends.

tea
03-24-2010, 09:00 PM
With all due respect (because you are an excellent poster)

this thread is stupid in my opinion

Federer at masters events plays like he couldn't care less

Federer at the slams is like a beast possessed.

you can't compare the 2 sides of roger
The point I believe was that even knowing how strong Fed cares about those clown events like Masters, they still desperately desire to win to have something valuable they would be proudly saying to their kids later.

It is not only against Federer. I also saw some players ranked 80-120 playing their best match of life against Nadal - Phau, Marcos Daniel and some others.
Oh please.:zzz: That 6 slams wonder is available for beating 9 months a year. Only lazy didn't roasted the Piggy minimum once in a lifetime.

DrJules
03-24-2010, 09:02 PM
Easier to play against higher ranked players until reach verge of winning.

No expectations of winning at the start of match.

duong
03-24-2010, 09:03 PM
stupid blablabla about losing matches :retard:

you mean about winning ? :lol:

duong
03-24-2010, 09:06 PM
And remember how Koellerer was fighting against Del Pony in US Open. He was leaving all he had on the court and running down each ball, even those which he couldn't possibly reach.

Koellerer is often like that :lol:

but DelPo, yes, starts being in Djoko-Murray's category for that.

heya
03-25-2010, 01:41 AM
He cares when he stops winning against his delusional bitches. His friend Tiger Woods knows what that's all about.

marcRD
03-25-2010, 02:31 AM
He cares when he stops winning against his delusional bitches. His friend Tiger Woods knows what that's all about.

Did you draw that Heya? You are a naughty little schizo arent you?

MIMIC
03-25-2010, 02:34 AM
How you can tell if his opponent played the match of his life: if it was before the finals and Fed's opponent lost in the very next round.

Sunset of Age
03-25-2010, 02:36 AM
How you can tell if his opponent played the match of his life: if it was before the finals and Fed's opponent lost in the very next round.

Huh yeah, how about the possibility of Federer just not being as good as he used to be anymore? Credits to the opponent, ever heard about that possibility? ;)

.-Federers_Mate-.
03-25-2010, 03:06 AM
berdych and nadal

heya
03-25-2010, 03:39 AM
You know the opponent should quit tennis when he says "I agree with J. McEnroe & Agassi. Fed's so nice. I hope he wins every Slam. I'm selfish because I was a Slam winner too."

and "I'm sorry you lost. Good luck in the future". **hint: Nadal Nalbandian Roddick Blake

heya
03-25-2010, 04:08 AM
LMAO Roddick claims he's trying SO hard. He means he shakes with fear at the thought of beating the Best person. Yet he denies he obsesses & lies to himself about reality.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/03/andy-roddick-interview-part-1/
AR: It crosses your mind, but it isn’t something I obsess about. I get a lot of that from Joe-shmos: “Federer owns you.” But if you were compared to the best person that’s ever done what you do, you probably wouldn’t match up favorably. I have a lot of respect for Roger and the way he goes about his business. It would be a lot harder for me if I was losing to someone who didn’t respect the sport. What are you going to do? Next time I go out, I’m going to try as hard as I can again.

AR: Everything is great when you’re winning. It’s easy to be a winner when you never lose. You know for that four-year run, when I was kind of in the middle of it and he was losing three matches a year, I don’t think you then get a true test of someone’s will. He’s just saying, “I’m better than you.” [But]last year at the French, when Rafa went out he knew this was his shot. Yet he was down to [Tommy] Haas, he knew that was his opportunity and dug in. He was down to [Juan Martin] Del Potro, dug in. That was a show of his will. He wasn’t the better player in a lot of those matches, but won the tournament. That was probably one of his more impressive Slams.

IT: What was your take on the tears in Australia after he lost to Nadal?

AR: My first reaction was, “Come on, Roger, you’ve won enough!” He did it because, obviously, he cared a lot, and he sensed Rafa legitimately had the upper hand. The other part of me was going, “Come on, you’ve done it 13 times. Let the guy have one.” I can honestly tell you in that moment, I had zero sympathy for Roger. And that’s not mean. We get along great. It was just nice to see he cared so much.

rolandgarros
03-25-2010, 04:20 AM
That just proves a MUG ERA

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 04:44 AM
Tipsarevic at 08 Aussie Open. And he still lost.

Fed had mono that tournament and wasn't moving well throughout.

Sunset of Age
03-25-2010, 05:41 AM
LMAO Roddick claims he's trying SO hard. He means he shakes with fear at the thought of beating the Best person. Yet he denies he obsesses & lies to himself about reality.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/03/andy-roddick-interview-part-1/
AR: It crosses your mind, but it isn’t something I obsess about. I get a lot of that from Joe-shmos: “Federer owns you.” But if you were compared to the best person that’s ever done what you do, you probably wouldn’t match up favorably. I have a lot of respect for Roger and the way he goes about his business. It would be a lot harder for me if I was losing to someone who didn’t respect the sport. What are you going to do? Next time I go out, I’m going to try as hard as I can again.

AR: Everything is great when you’re winning. It’s easy to be a winner when you never lose. You know for that four-year run, when I was kind of in the middle of it and he was losing three matches a year, I don’t think you then get a true test of someone’s will. He’s just saying, “I’m better than you.” [But]last year at the French, when Rafa went out he knew this was his shot. Yet he was down to [Tommy] Haas, he knew that was his opportunity and dug in. He was down to [Juan Martin] Del Potro, dug in. That was a show of his will. He wasn’t the better player in a lot of those matches, but won the tournament. That was probably one of his more impressive Slams.

IT: What was your take on the tears in Australia after he lost to Nadal?

AR: My first reaction was, “Come on, Roger, you’ve won enough!” He did it because, obviously, he cared a lot, and he sensed Rafa legitimately had the upper hand. The other part of me was going, “Come on, you’ve done it 13 times. Let the guy have one.” I can honestly tell you in that moment, I had zero sympathy for Roger. And that’s not mean. We get along great. It was just nice to see he cared so much.

Yes, and your point is? :confused:

jcempire
03-25-2010, 06:04 AM
Everything is about Fed and Nadal. Do you have anything else to say

Fiberlight1
03-25-2010, 06:33 AM
Tsonga AO 08 against Nadal.

DJ Soup
03-25-2010, 07:08 AM
Tsonga AO 08 against Nadal.

damn, Tsonga was untouchable on that match. Insane points at the net

Forehander
03-25-2010, 08:13 AM
All of the players Federer play try to go out there with nothing to lose. That's why it's amazing Federer can hold them off for so long. It's just incredibly hard because you're constantly playing players who are in the zone trying to dethrone you.

JMG
03-25-2010, 08:48 AM
Actually Federer has a big advantage compared to other top players. Most of the players don't believe in their chances when they play Federer. So Federer just has to play his standard tennis and wait for the mental collapse of his opponents. :shrug:

Arkulari
03-25-2010, 08:53 AM
yeah, they all collapse: Cañas, Simon, Baggy, Benneteau...

tea
03-25-2010, 09:07 AM
Actually Federer has a big advantage compared to other top players. Most of the players don't believe in their chances when they play Federer. So Federer just has to play his standard tennis and wait for the mental collapse of his opponents. :shrug:
He wouldn't have won even half of the matches if only they knew he's beatable. NID.:shrug: I'm sick thinking how much luck the guy has gotten.:mad:

tennisfaNo.1
03-25-2010, 09:24 AM
as for the title

Q. What about his level? Is this the best Marcos has played compared to the other times you’ve played him, or what was your thought on his game tonight?
ROGER FEDERER: Close match, you know. It wasn’t the greatest match of all time I think from his side, either. I think the Australian Open final was much higher quality. JUST BECAUSE HE BEAT ME DOESN'T MEAN HE'S PLAYED THE MATCH OF HIS LIFE. He’s a good player. He’s played many of the top guys. Tonight he just hung in there, and that was enough.

duong
03-25-2010, 10:05 AM
as for the title

Q. What about his level? Is this the best Marcos has played compared to the other times you’ve played him, or what was your thought on his game tonight?
ROGER FEDERER: Close match, you know. It wasn’t the greatest match of all time I think from his side, either. I think the Australian Open final was much higher quality. JUST BECAUSE HE BEAT ME DOESN'T MEAN HE'S PLAYED THE MATCH OF HIS LIFE. He’s a good player. He’s played many of the top guys. Tonight he just hung in there, and that was enough.

Baghdatis is a very very good player who has already played great matches, however this match was among them.

I saw him against Djokovic in Dubai : he played far better against Federer. Actually I hadn't seen Baghdatis play as well for 3 years, I guess.

And if he always played like that this year, he would have had better results :shrug:

duong
03-25-2010, 10:06 AM
How you can tell if his opponent played the match of his life: if it was before the finals and Fed's opponent lost in the very next round.

it's a well-know phenomenon in tennis : since I watched tennis, I've always seen that, after a very big and unusual performance, players have difficulties to play nearly as well in next round.

duong
03-25-2010, 10:09 AM
Actually Federer has a big advantage compared to other top players. Most of the players don't believe in their chances when they play Federer. So Federer just has to play his standard tennis and wait for the mental collapse of his opponents. :shrug:

both dimensions can exist, depending on the players :shrug:

but most importantly, what I said in the beginning is that one important part which has changed is that these players believe that now, Federer, and also Nadal, are "beatable" : that's a part of the evolution and of the reason of what happens.

I think that this dimension which you mention can still exist for Federer in slams : see Davydenko in Melbourne for instance, maybe he had more thoughts because it was a slam and would not have thought so much if it hadn't been a slam. Of course you also have more time to think in a 5-setter match :lol:

But overall, outside of slams, I think the balance goes in favour of Djokovic and Murray, or at least it would go in their favour if they were more confident currently and hadn't played some crap matches as they did, especially for Djokovic :
I remember Chardy after his match against Djokovic in Melbourne 2009, he said how impressed he had been by Djokovic's physical and rhythm superiority.

If Djokovic just played usually as he did that day, he would have that aura of the "unbeatable" player ... without the supra-motivation of "playing a legend" as Federer and Nadal have to face (by the way, someone mentioned Tsonga's match against Nadal in Melbourne 2008 : yes I remember Tsonga's words in that moment, he had supra-motivation, a little bit like against Federer in Montreal 2009 - remember how Tsonga won the first set poiint against Federer and the reactions of his team, they were hysterical :eek: ... after that, maybe it went to Fed's advantage because Tsonga played like crap for a while, maybe because he felt too much the pressure, I don't know)

The problem is that -also for Murray recently, maybe in a lesser extent- he's failed to maintain that aura because he's been utterly irregular against lesser players.

The balance was clearly in favour of Federer a few years ago : players thinking he was unbeatable.

Now I think it's the opposite for him, and also for Nadal, and Djokovic and Murray might have a clear advantage of the aura of the "unbeatable" player without the supra-motivation of the "legend" ... but although they had that advantage for a while (Djoko in 2008, Murray in 2009, I guess), they've failed to maintain that aura ... although they still don't face the same motivation as Fed and Nadal do imo.

stebs
03-25-2010, 12:55 PM
I agree on the whole although I think it does still work both ways, not just the motivation without the aura. I also agree with the Djokovic and Murray situations. In fact, right now, it is very noticeable that in tournaments outside of slams every player in the draw is VERY beatable. In fact, I don't remember the last time on tour there was such unpredictability in tournaments as big as 1000's/AMS (whatever you want to call them).

Since USO 2009 it has been that way, a bit more unpredictable in these events, possibly just continuing decline of Federer in smaller events, Nadal not on top form, Murray and Djokovic struggling for consistency, JMDP fighting for fitness, other top guys are fallible (Davydenko, Roddick, Tsonga etc...). Last time things were this way? I think it was a long time ago.

bokehlicious
03-25-2010, 12:59 PM
Actually Federer has a big advantage compared to other top players. Most of the players don't believe in their chances when they play Federer. So Federer just has to play his standard tennis and wait for the mental collapse of his opponents. :shrug:

Again the "bending over" argument :yeah: it's either that or the players try but still choke in the end... Lucky bastard this Federer, really :mad:

moon language
03-25-2010, 03:24 PM
The only difference between Federer at slams compared to smaller tournaments is that in slams he knows he has the luxury of five sets, and that keeps him from becoming overly edgy. He was obviously pissed off at himself for losing to Baghdatis in Indian Wells.

out_here_grindin
03-25-2010, 03:27 PM
Roddick brings out the best in a lot of players. Kohlscrieber in Australia comes to mind, Andreev in RG.

Har-Tru
03-25-2010, 03:28 PM
Tsonga's best match was AO 08 SF.

rofe
03-25-2010, 04:54 PM
The only difference between Federer at slams compared to smaller tournaments is that in slams he knows he has the luxury of five sets, and that keeps him from becoming overly edgy. He was obviously pissed off at himself for losing to Baghdatis in Indian Wells.

It is funny that you say that because during his peak, Fed was a beast in best of 3 format and there was always the chance (at least to me) that he was not patient enough in the best of 5 format. That perception has completely changed now of course.

Certinfy
03-25-2010, 05:59 PM
Tsonga's best match was AO 08 SF.Exactly! Against Federer in Montreal he didn't even play anywhere near to that!

duong
03-25-2010, 07:42 PM
Exactly! Against Federer in Montreal he didn't even play anywhere near to that!

I had never said that this match was the best he had ever played,
I know that it's the word "match of their life" in the title of the thread which you don't like but have you already tried to write a proper thread title in a few words ? :lol:

I've seen far more approximations in this forum than that !

As for Tsonga, and as he's probably the player from whom I can see more matches than all of the other players (being French, French TV nearly always shows his matches), I can tell you that in the first set (first set, only first set, I wrote it in OP) against Federer, he played with a superior motivaton and a superior level comparing to all of his other matches in 2009 (actually he also played very well in the end of the SF against Murray).

The way he won set point was far from his ordinary, and the reactions of his team were hysterical.

I want to say something more about it : I can read many times in this forum that Tsonga is overrated ... especially because of that match against Nadal in Melbourne 2008.

He's far from being as good as many think because of that match. Some think that he has a great volley, but actually his volley is usually pretty average.

When he faces Söderling, everybody can see that Söderling is at a superior level comparing to him ... and I guess it's nearer to the truth than what he showed that day in Melbourne SF.

Tsonga is clearly a player of a category under Davydenko, Roddick and Söderling, pretending something else because some people like his style or because of that "legendary" match in Melbourne 2008, would just be an error.

stebs
03-25-2010, 08:10 PM
Tsonga is clearly a player of a category under Davydenko, Roddick and Söderling, pretending something else because some people like his style or because of that "legendary" match in Melbourne 2008, would just be an error.

Whilst I think his usual level isn't as high as Davydenko and Roddick at least I think it is fair to say a guy of the playing style of Tsonga has potential to make the kind of big run he made in Melbourne in 2008 at least once more. He has all the features of a big hitter, a good serve, strong on both wings, decent volleys and perhaps most importantly very good movement for his size. Of course, he is a hit and miss player and so far we saw just once for a good stretch of matches he hit top form. I see no reason to believe he can't do it again at some point though. If he does, he has a serious chance to win a slam imo.

duong
03-25-2010, 10:39 PM
Whilst I think his usual level isn't as high as Davydenko and Roddick at least I think it is fair to say a guy of the playing style of Tsonga has potential to make the kind of big run he made in Melbourne in 2008 at least once more. He has all the features of a big hitter, a good serve, strong on both wings, decent volleys and perhaps most importantly very good movement for his size. Of course, he is a hit and miss player and so far we saw just once for a good stretch of matches he hit top form. I see no reason to believe he can't do it again at some point though. If he does, he has a serious chance to win a slam imo.

he has a chance but when I read on another thread that more people think that he has a chance to win a slam than Söderling, I think he's clearly overrated.

I think Monfils has as many chances to win Roland+Garros as Tsonga to win a slam, but anyway I don't think both of them will do it.

On the opposite I think Söderling has a good chance.

That's what I think.