PDA

View Full Version : Lendl's Outlook for 2010


OddJack
12-01-2009, 08:09 AM
"I think you might see four different winners in the Grand Slams. It will be fascinating to watch."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4701542

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 08:23 AM
Great read! The stats posted for Federer's years ending as number one clearly show an ever so slight decline despite the over all winning results in slams. I also find the current top ten, and especially top five to be far superior now than when he first finished at number one, and that can explain the decline in overall wins/loss percentage.

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 08:37 AM
Hasn't happened since 2003, but very well could happen.

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 08:40 AM
A great read indeed. Lendl's comments are spot-on, and I would indeed not be surprised at all to see 4 different GS winners in 2010. Even more, it could well be that we'll be seeing 4 different players occupying the #1 spot for a while.

TheChosenOne
12-01-2009, 08:50 AM
4 different winners? I doubt that. It could very well be Roger getting a calendar slam to be honest. Or if Nadal gets back to top form, Fed and Nadal could realistically split the slams. There are other hopes like Djoker or Murray, but what have they proven? Neither even reached a final last year. Del Potro is inconsistent.

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 08:51 AM
A great read indeed. Lendl's comments are spot-on, and I would indeed not be surprised at all to see 4 different GS winners in 2010. Even more, it could well be that we'll be seeing 4 different players occupying the #1 spot for a while.

I would not be surprised at all to see four different slam winners and agree that the number one ranking may shuffle some later on in the season amoung a few different players. IMO, we very well may see a new slam winner that is not amoung the top three or four suspects.

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 08:53 AM
4 different winners? I doubt that. It could very well be Roger getting a calendar slam to be honest. Or if Nadal gets back to top form, Fed and Nadal could realistically split the slams. There are other hopes like Djoker or Murray, but what have they proven? Neither even reached a final last year. Del Potro is inconsistent.

Just a short reminder: at the of age 21, on the verge of becoming 22, one Roger Federer was considered by many pundits as a complete underachieving failure in the grand slams. Things can change a lot in the course of time! :)

TheChosenOne
12-01-2009, 08:57 AM
Just a short reminder: at the of age 21, on the verge of becoming 22, one Roger Federer was considered by many pundits as a complete underachieving failure in the grand slams. Things can change a lot in the course of time! :)

Yea maybe.. But Roger also isnt 20 feet tall. There havent been to many great consistent year in year out large grand slam winners

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 09:01 AM
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, some people just can't bring themselves to acknowledge the improved competition and accept that the same couple of guys are not going to dominate as in recent years, despite all signs and evidence pointing to a changing of the guard. It should be an exciting year for sure.

grafselesfan
12-01-2009, 09:03 AM
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, some people just can't bring themselves to acknowledge the improved competition and accept that the same couple of guys are not going to dominate as in recent years, despite all signs and evidence pointing to a changing of the guard. It should be an exciting year for sure.

You seem to be overly bullish on your opinions. The fact is naysayers have been saying what keep saying for 3 years now and are continously proven wrong, so people arent just going to go over to your side if you keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 09:03 AM
4 different winners? I doubt that. It could very well be Roger getting a calendar slam to be honest. Or if Nadal gets back to top form, Fed and Nadal could realistically split the slams. There are other hopes like Djoker or Murray, but what have they proven? Neither even reached a final last year. Del Potro is inconsistent.


I doubt Federer will win the calender grand slam. 04/05/06/07 were his best ever years and he still didn't achieve that feat. Federer's last chance to win the calender slam was this year - players will only get better.

grafselesfan
12-01-2009, 09:04 AM
I doubt Federer will win the calender grand slam. 04/05/06/07 were his best ever years and he still didn't achieve that feat. Federer's last chance to win the calender slam was this year - players will only get better.

I agree with this.

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 09:06 AM
I agree with this.

WHAT! GSF actually agree's with me!!!!!!!

thankyou BTW.

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 09:07 AM
Yea maybe.. But Roger also isnt 20 feet tall. There havent been to many great consistent year in year out large grand slam winners

I wasn't just hinting at DelPotro, it could well be that Djokovic will be adding to his GS tally, or even Murray picking up a GS, as well. Not to mention some other possibilities. I am a massive Fedal fan, but unfortunately, a realistic tennis fan as well, and I just can't help but think that their absolute dominance over the crop is over.

BigServer1
12-01-2009, 09:10 AM
You seem to be overly bullish on your opinions. The fact is naysayers have been saying what keep saying for 3 years now and are continously proven wrong, so people arent just going to go over to your side if you keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Wow...I...Uh...Completely agree.

Fed's not going to win everything ever again, he's proven that since 2007, he's a slam first, everything else a distant second kinda guy. Still, his demise has been trumpeted since early 2007, and he just keeps proving people wrong. He's 28, not 38, and he's got some good tennis left in him. I think he'll win a slam, possibly two in 2010.

I don't see the calendar slam happening.

grafselesfan
12-01-2009, 09:13 AM
I actually agree with Lendl too that in hindsight Federer actually could have won the Calender Slam this year. He folded mentally in both the Australian and U.S Open finals, squandered many break chances and other opportunities to win earlier sets, then played an abysmal 5th set in both. I dont mind, as I would have hated Federer to have won the Calender Slam, but it is funny to think it was actually possible for him this year with how everything unfolded. He will definitely regret that as there is a good chance he will never get another chance that good again.

That said I still expect Federer to win 1 or possibly 2 slams next year. I would be happy if he won 0 but I dont see that happening. Also if there are 4 different slam winners then that pretty much gaurantees Federer and Nadal would each win 1. The only players who will win the French Open or Wimbledon next year are Federer and Nadal, so 4 different winners means each wins 1 (more likely Nadal the French and Federer Wimbledon). No way in hell you will see Djokovic, Murray, or Del Potro win Wimbledon IMO. The French Open I could see an outside shot of Del Potro or Djokovic, but not likely.

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 09:17 AM
I actually agree with Lendl too that in hindsight Federer actually could have won the Calender Slam this year. He folded mentally in both the Australian and U.S Open finals, squandered many break chances and other opportunities to win earlier sets, then played an abysmal 5th set in both. I dont mind, as I would have hated Federer to have won the Calender Slam, but it is funny to think it was actually possible for him this year with how everything unfolded. He will definitely regret that as there is a good chance he will never get another chance that good again.

That said I still expect Federer to win 1 or possibly 2 slams next year. I would be happy if he won 0 but I dont see that happening. Also if there are 4 different slam winners then that pretty much gaurantees Federer and Nadal would each win 1. The only players who will win the French Open or Wimbledon next year are Federer and Nadal, so 4 different winners means each wins 1 (more likely Nadal the French and Federer Wimbledon). No way in hell you will see Djokovic, Murray, or Del Potro win Wimbledon IMO. The French Open I could see an outside shot of Del Potro or Djokovic, but not likely.

Djokovic is a conteder at wimbledon in the future. Maybe not this year or next, but he's made the semi's already and can improve on his conditioning - which was the reason behind his lame semifinal with Nadal.

Can't see Federer winning the FO ever again. Nadal is still the king but it will be interesting to see if Federer can beat Nadal at the French - Federer's last test of his career.

TheChosenOne
12-01-2009, 09:19 AM
Its not the fact with Fed winning everything in sight.. But its in fac, that these days Fed saves himself for the slams. Much like Sampras did over the course of his career. People forget, 2009 wasnt exactly a great overall year for Fed, but look at his slam results. Reached every final, and even though he isnt what he was a few years ago he was in position to win everyone. Very well could have to be honest. The only 2 slam finals he lost it went into the 5th set. So for even, Fed to not be at his absolute zenith, it was good enough to reach every slam final and took Nadal and Del Potro playing the best tennnis of their careers to beat him. Fed isnt the same animal at non slam events that he is at slams.

grafselesfan
12-01-2009, 09:21 AM
Djokovic is a conteder at wimbledon in the future. Maybe not this year or next, but he's made the semi's already and can improve on his conditioning - which was the reason behind his lame semifinal with Nadal.

Can't see Federer winning the FO ever again. Nadal is still the king but it will be interesting to see if Federer can beat Nadal at the French - Federer's last test of his career.

I am not sure what to make of Djokovic on grass yet. He is a good grass court player and always posts good results on the surface (other than the Safin blip) but is he a bonafide contender? He lost to Haas twice this year, and people can say he was struggling, but at Wimbledon he looked in good form until the Haas match. By contrast at the U.S Open in obviously off form he still made the semis and wasnt really close to losing before then. My feeling now is he wont ever be the player on grass he is on hard courts and clay. He has had some good performances on grass at Wimbledon 07 and Queens 08, but he hasnt really build on those. Time will tell though. I like Djokovic and have been dissapointed in him on grass ever since Queens 08.

If Nadal doesnt regain his old form I could see Federer being a contender to win the French again, actually Djokovic and Del Potro too in that case. Of course Nadal even not regaining his old form would still have a very good shot to win, just not as much a lock as before, and regaining his old form would be back to pretty much a lock IMO.

TheChosenOne
12-01-2009, 09:21 AM
Federer doesnt have to be at his best. He just has to be good enough to beat his draw. So a calendar slam could be reasonably. Especially if Nadal is not back to where he was which in reality may NEVER be. With no Red hot Nadal or red hot Del Potro, Fed can dispose of the rest. It took two players playing the best tennis of their lives to beat him and Fed wasnt even at his best

TheChosenOne
12-01-2009, 09:27 AM
Djokovic is a conteder at wimbledon in the future. Maybe not this year or next, but he's made the semi's already and can improve on his conditioning - which was the reason behind his lame semifinal with Nadal.

Can't see Federer winning the FO ever again. Nadal is still the king but it will be interesting to see if Federer can beat Nadal at the French - Federer's last test of his career.



Djoker went out to Tommy Haas at both Queens and Wimbeldon. Its safe to say Djokovic is a great grass player. He could improve but he has suffered some pretty weird losses on that surface. And to Tommy Haas? Why would the Number 3 player in the world consecutively lose to Tommy Haas on grass if he is so good?

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 09:31 AM
Djoker went out to Tommy Haas at both Queens and Wimbeldon. Its safe to say Djokovic is a great grass player. He could improve but he has suffered some pretty weird losses on that surface. And to Tommy Haas? Why would the Number 3 player in the world consecutively lose to Tommy Haas on grass if he is so good?

No, Djokovic is a contender IMO on grass but not a 'great' GC player.

Tennis is a game of matchups - Djokovic is a better player than Haas, but with each different matchup comes different looks. For a while, blake owned Nadal and ATM simon owns Federer. Both players are inferior.

Haas is a good player - twice he has nearly beaten Federer in slams.

Kostas
12-01-2009, 09:32 AM
Nadal is still the king

And what - pray-tell - has happened in the past 6 months that has led you to this conclusion?

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 09:34 AM
And what - pray-tell - has happened in the past 6 months that has led you to this conclusion?

Of clay - noone else active has a better clay court resume.

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 09:35 AM
You seem to be overly bullish on your opinions. The fact is naysayers have been saying what keep saying for 3 years now and are continously proven wrong, so people arent just going to go over to your side if you keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.

My views are anything but intended to seem "bullish" as you put it, anything but that. If anything, the facts that I support my opinions with are just that, evidence that is based on actual match and tournament play, and the results from those over a recent couple of years. I wouldn't even dare to think I could, or would I want to change the opinions of others who have their own outlook on what the future might hold and obviously already have their mind set on what they believe, especially someone as one sighted and closed minded as you. I just try to state the way I perceive it to be just as anyone else, in my case however it is usually in a well written, understandable manner that is not intended to be insulting to others. I do realize that concept is foreign to you. You're calling me "bullish" or "opinionated" is like the pot calling the kettle black in that sense.

dh003i
12-01-2009, 10:12 AM
I doubt Federer will win the calender grand slam. 04/05/06/07 were his best ever years and he still didn't achieve that feat. Federer's last chance to win the calender slam was this year - players will only get better.

Well, you don't have a crystal ball, nor does anyone else. I'm not sure even I would have predicted Federer winning the FO and having a 5th-set shot at a GS this year.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 10:13 AM
Federer just has to be good enough to win 2 more slams, not dominate the entire ATP schedule.

flying24
12-01-2009, 10:18 AM
My views are anything but intended to seem "bullish" as you put it, anything but that. If anything, the facts that I support my opinions with are just that, evidence that is based on actual match and tournament play, and the results from those over a recent couple of years. I wouldn't even dare to think I could, or would I want to change the opinions of others who have their own outlook on what the future might hold and obviously already have their mind set on what they believe, especially someone as one sighted and closed minded as you. I just try to state the way I perceive it to be just as anyone else, in my case however it is usually in a well written, understandable manner that is not intended to be insulting to others. I do realize that concept is foreign to you. You're calling me "bullish" or "opinionated" is like the pot calling the kettle black in that sense.

For once grafselesfan makes sense. You are very bullish on trying to force all others to admit Federer will be lucky to win 1 slam next year, is definitely dropping down from #1, that the new gaurd are all coming in waves and will dominate next year, blah blah blah. Then when others disagree you call them delusional and keep repeating yourself over and over. You are quickly becoming one of the more annoying posters on TW, and certainly you are far from being one of the more knowledgable ones.

dh003i
12-01-2009, 10:18 AM
Its not the fact with Fed winning everything in sight.. But its in fac, that these days Fed saves himself for the slams. Much like Sampras did over the course of his career. People forget, 2009 wasnt exactly a great overall year for Fed, but look at his slam results. Reached every final, and even though he isnt what he was a few years ago he was in position to win everyone. Very well could have to be honest. The only 2 slam finals he lost it went into the 5th set. So for even, Fed to not be at his absolute zenith, it was good enough to reach every slam final and took Nadal and Del Potro playing the best tennnis of their careers to beat him. Fed isnt the same animal at non slam events that he is at slams.

Federer doesnt have to be at his best. He just has to be good enough to beat his draw. So a calendar slam could be reasonably. Especially if Nadal is not back to where he was which in reality may NEVER be. With no Red hot Nadal or red hot Del Potro, Fed can dispose of the rest. It took two players playing the best tennis of their lives to beat him and Fed wasnt even at his best

Yep, I agree entirely with these posts. Federer was a little lucky this year to have the shot at the GS, but also a little unlucky not to take it when given that shot. It took two of his worst serving performances ever for him to lose the AO and USO in the 5th. And it took Nadal and Del Potro playing probably their best tennis ever on those respective surfaces.

So it is a little bit silly to talk about Federer declining. People have been saying that since 2007. Funny thing about the article, which notes a "steady decline" in Fed's winning % after 2006, is that it left out the 2008 season. Federer has a higher winning % in 2009 than in 2008. How convenient to leave out the 2008 season. Just throw out the statistics that don't fit well with your argument.

Yes, he isn't as insanely consistent and clinical as he was. But he still got to all 4 slam finals and had a very serious shot at the calendar year grand slam.

The guy is just insanely good, even though he's maybe not quite as good as he was before in terms of consistency (although I believe his best game is still very close to before). Had he got this chance in 2006, he would have definitely had the calendar-year grand slam.

I think he'll have another shot at the grand slam next year. I don't think it's as likely as this year, but it's still possible. My best guess though is another 2 slams.

navratilovafan
12-01-2009, 10:21 AM
I also find the current top ten, and especially top five to be far superior now than when he first finished at number one, and that can explain the decline in overall wins/loss percentage.

Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin even far past their primes (especialy Safin and Hewitt) all had wins vs the so called new phenoms like Murray, Djokovic, and Del Potro. Perhaps you should think of the actual facts before spewing off your nonsense.

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 10:29 AM
For once grafselesfan makes sense. You are very bullish on trying to force all others to admit Federer will be lucky to win 1 slam next year, is definitely dropping down from #1, that the new gaurd are all coming in waves and will dominate next year, blah blah blah. Then when others disagree you call them delusional and keep repeating yourself over and over. You are quickly becoming one of the more annoying posters on TW, and certainly you are far from being one of the more knowledgable ones.

I don't force anyone to believe in what I do, I simply state the way I see it. I have never called anyone delusional and we all have the right to disagree. I repeat my opinions no more than anyone else, and if I may say so, you have never heard me say Federer will be lucky to win, I have said he won't dominate IN MY OPINION and have maintained I THINK he will remain a contender. Perhaps you should read my posts a little more carefully before taking them to task and putting words in my mouth. May I suggest the ignore feature if my opinions bother you and my not agreeing with you is so offensive? It works for me. As for knowledge, I think mine is as vast as about anyone's on here despite our differing views on what the future holds.

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 10:45 AM
Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin even far past their primes (especialy Safin and Hewitt) all had wins vs the so called new phenoms like Murray, Djokovic, and Del Potro. Perhaps you should think of the actual facts before spewing off your nonsense.

I don't think del Potro has even reached his pinnacle yet, and for that matter Djokovic either. I haven't even conceded that Roddick is past his prime as you obviously have. I honestly don't understand your point?

Tsonga#1fan
12-01-2009, 10:56 AM
Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin even far past their primes (especialy Safin and Hewitt) all had wins vs the so called new phenoms like Murray, Djokovic, and Del Potro. Perhaps you should think of the actual facts before spewing off your nonsense.

OK, maybe I see where you are coming from. If the nonsense you refer to is my opinion that the current top ten is better than the top ten of when Federer first finished number one it is just my feeling. One thing for sure, either it is better now and that is why Roger does have more frequent losses to those players ranked there now, or he is in decline because even though the players were better then, he managed to beat them more consistently. Which is your opinion? I believe it to be they are better now. I guess you support the decline theory to explain the losses to top five players.

Anaconda
12-01-2009, 11:12 AM
Well, you don't have a crystal ball, nor does anyone else. I'm not sure even I would have predicted Federer winning the FO and having a 5th-set shot at a GS this year.

If Federer wins all 4 majors next year then i will leave this forum for ever.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 01:08 PM
OK, maybe I see where you are coming from. If the nonsense you refer to is my opinion that the current top ten is better than the top ten of when Federer first finished number one it is just my feeling. One thing for sure, either it is better now and that is why Roger does have more frequent losses to those players ranked there now, or he is in decline because even though the players were better then, he managed to beat them more consistently. Which is your opinion? I believe it to be they are better now. I guess you support the decline theory to explain the losses to top five players.

Also Roger is losing more now because he's not in his physical/mental peak anymore. That ended Dec 2007.

jmjmkim
12-01-2009, 02:43 PM
this is very interesting