Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
Not a chance, unless Olderer reaches a slam final and gifts it to some mug like he did in 2009 USO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,393 Posts
Pics to win AO, vamos :rocker2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
And to answer the question, I think Federer/Nadal/Djokovic still have a stranglehold on all the slams. I hope someone can at least challenge them to make things interesting. But Murray just collapses. Tsonga is equally inconsistent. Berdych, Soderling, etc. etc. are all so streaky. And I don't think Juan Martin will ever be what he was 2 years ago unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,363 Posts
Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer all have chances. del Potro's was a fluke, I have to agree with Nadtards on that...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
163 Posts
No.

Murray :haha: :haha: :haha:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,682 Posts
Del Potro is obviously going to improve next year, but he has already won a slam.

Realisticly the only threats are Murray and maybe Tsonga.

Maybe some surprise will come at the AO, either a youngster break through or an older player such as Nalbandian will come back and prove everyone wrong. Not so much of a chance but who knows
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
only real possibilities I see are maybe Tsonga at Australia, Tomic at WImbledon, or Del Potro at RG/US
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Well I guess this thread shows how pathetic the 5-20 spot in tennis is these days.. No one giving any other player a snowball's chance in hell of winning a slam next year.


You know how sad this all sounds? ROFL
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
Well I guess this thread shows how pathetic the 5-20 spot in tennis is these days.. No one giving any other player a snowball's chance in hell of winning a slam next year.


You know how sad this all sounds? ROFL
You can spin it the other way: The top 3 are so good, nobody stands a chance against them. If many 5-20 players have a legitimate chance at a slam, it means it's a mug era with slams being decided on a flip of a coin and no one being able to dominate...
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
29,317 Posts
You can spin it the other way: The top 3 are so good, nobody stands a chance against them. If many 5-20 players have a legitimate chance at a slam, it means it's a mug era with slams being decided on a flip of a coin and no one being able to dominate...
I agree with this.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
49,306 Posts
You can spin it the other way: The top 3 are so good, nobody stands a chance against them. If many 5-20 players have a legitimate chance at a slam, it means it's a mug era with slams being decided on a flip of a coin and no one being able to dominate...
Malivai Washington and Martin Verkerk wouldn't be making many slam finals these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Alot of that has to do with homogenizing the conditions and slowing of surfaces and just baseline tennis in why we have what he have today at the top. The 5-20 in the world just don't have the game at the baseline to compete with the top 3-4 under these conditions. Going back to the older conditions then things would get interesting.. Nole and Rafa wouldn't dominate to the same extent because of faster conditions with low bouncing surfaces, Murray would struggle with his pushing under old Wimbledon and USO type conditions and Fed's chances of course increase along with the some of bigger hitting attack players like Tsonga and Berdych and some others
 

·
Mammoths
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
As above.

Homogeneity narrows the number of prevailing styles within tennis and so if one player is dominant on one type of surface there is a good chance they will be dominant on say, 70% of surfaces, rather than the 30 or 40% of the 90's; the numbers chosen were arbitrary but should be illustrative. This makes the few individuals who are excelling at the top of tennis even fewer as it only pertains to one main overarching tennis ethos. With greater surface variance, given rise is the potential for more styles to flourish at the top level, and suddenly the few can become the many. This isn't a rebuttal as such to the argument that less people dominating means the era is stronger, but it's a point to be considered.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
As above.

Homogeneity narrows the number of prevailing styles within tennis and so if one player is dominant on one type of surface there is a good chance they will be dominant on say, 70% of surfaces, rather than the 30 or 40% of the 90's; the numbers chosen were arbitrary but should be illustrative. This makes the few individuals who are excelling at the top of tennis even fewer as it only pertains to one main overarching tennis ethos. With greater surface variance, given rise is the potential for more styles to flourish at the top level, and suddenly the few can become the many. This isn't a rebuttal as such to the argument that less people dominating means the era is stronger, but it's a point to be considered.
Too much commonsense, it's so obvious as the sun spins around the earth. When you have limited variance between the respective surfaces and yes they've been homogenised of course the concentration of greater success is going to be limited. It's so simple it really.
 

·
Lurrrkin'
Joined
·
18,058 Posts
I see a legitimate chance for Raonic to be honest. It's not just a feeling, there's something about his face. His face shows he'll pull off a surprise or two, possibly even a slam final next year. Go on do it, look directly at a pic of Raonic's face and tell me you don't think he'll succeed next year. It's just impossible.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top