PDA

View Full Version : Some serious Fedal value can be had on next year's slams


batz
09-23-2012, 09:27 AM
Some of these prices are just bonkers IMO.

www.oddschecker.com


Mens Australian Open Outrights
Winner
Novak Djokovic 7/4
Andy Murray 3
Rafael Nadal 5
Roger Federer 11/2

Mens French Open Outrights
Winner
Rafael Nadal 20/19
Novak Djokovic 9/4
Roger Federer 14
Andy Murray 20

Mens Wimbledon Outrights
Winner
Andy Murray 3
Novak Djokovic 3
Rafael Nadal 4
Roger Federer 5

Mens US Open 2013 Outrights
Winner
Novak Djokovic 11/5
Andy Murray 5/2
Rafael Nadal 5
Roger Federer 5

akv89
09-23-2012, 09:36 AM
Wow, Federer really being undervalued in those bets. If I were a betting man, I would put money on him for all four majors given those odds.
If I put 10 bucks on him at each major, it would cost me $40. But I would make $55 if he wins the Aussie, $140 if he wins the French, $50 if he wins Wimbledon, and $50 if he wins USO. He would only need to win one, any one, to make a profit.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 09:40 AM
Wow, Federer really being undervalued in those bets. If I were a betting man, I would put money on him for all four majors given those odds.
If I put 10 bucks on him at each major, it would cost me $40. But I would make $55 if he wins the Aussie, $140 if he wins the French, $50 if he wins Wimbledon, and $50 if he wins USO. He would only need to win one, any one, to make a profit.

And he'd only need to win no slams at all (the most likely option) for you to lose $40.

augustobt
09-23-2012, 09:41 AM
Those odds for Mr. Federer winning one major in '13 is pathetic.

But I remember that after his lost in the French and after the tank job against Haas his odds for wimbledon were as pathetic as those, even more. About 6.7 in one site that I know.

akv89
09-23-2012, 09:46 AM
And he'd only need to win no slams at all (the most likely option) for you to lose $40.

Opinions like yours contribute to such undervaluing off of which others make a profit. You have contributed in making some Federer fans slightly richer and they owe you a debt of gratitude.

tennisMVP
09-23-2012, 09:48 AM
I literally laughed out loud when I saw Murray was listed higher than Nadal in 3 of the 4 slams :lol:

Tony48
09-23-2012, 09:52 AM
Federer should at least be 2nd at Wimbledon. That's crazy. I'm not really a betting man (other than the occasional lottery entry) but I'd be willing to put money on Fed winning Wimbledon

tennisMVP
09-23-2012, 09:52 AM
Federer should at least be 2nd at Wimbledon. That's crazy. I'm not really a betting man (other than the occasional lottery entry) but I'd be willing to put money on Fed winning Wimbledon

Yeah, I guess people took note of the Benneteau match. And in the final Murray was close to a 2 sets to love lead. Djokovic match was fine form.

kishnabe
09-23-2012, 09:55 AM
Bookies are stupid with the Murray ratio.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 09:58 AM
Opinions like yours contribute to such undervaluing off of which others make a profit. You have contributed in making some Federer fans slightly richer and they owe you a debt of gratitude.

Doubt it. I'm sure there are many Federer fans happy to empty their wallets independent of Talk Tennis. Looks like the betting companies will be making a lot of money in 2013 (and will make a bit of a loss too, with Nadal's odds at Roland Garros placed at 20/19, when Nadal winning Roland Garros 2013 is a certainty).

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:01 AM
LOL!! Ridiculous list! The maker of the odds is probably hoping for a federer win so that he can win major bucks!!

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 10:05 AM
LOL!! Ridiculous list! The maker of the odds is probably hoping for a federer win so that he can win major bucks!!

Or the maker of those odds probably isn't a Federer fan, so he can view the tennis odds objectively without thinking (wrongly) that Federer will win anything at all.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:08 AM
Or the maker of those odds probably isn't a Federer fan, so he can view the tennis odds objectively without thinking (wrongly) that Federer will win anything at all.

could be but im pretty sure he would still hope for a fed win since most people are betting on Nole and Murray

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 10:11 AM
Some of these prices are just bonkers IMO.

www.oddschecker.com


Mens Australian Open Outrights
Winner
Novak Djokovic 7/4
Andy Murray 3
Rafael Nadal 5
Roger Federer 11/2

Mens French Open Outrights
Winner
Rafael Nadal 20/19
Novak Djokovic 9/4
Roger Federer 14
Andy Murray 20

Mens Wimbledon Outrights
Winner
Andy Murray 3
Novak Djokovic 3
Rafael Nadal 4
Roger Federer 5

Mens US Open 2013 Outrights
Winner
Novak Djokovic 11/5
Andy Murray 5/2
Rafael Nadal 5
Roger Federer 5

I'd give Federer better odds at RG. If Nadal goes out, Federer will probably take it. But yes, Nadal going out is a dubious proposition, at best.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 10:13 AM
I'd give Federer better odds at RG. If Nadal goes out, Federer will probably take it. But yes, Nadal going out is a dubious proposition, at best.

If Federer had better odds, he should still be below Djokovic (I thought Djokovic's annihilation of Federer in the SF in straight sets was a great display of clay-court tennis from Djokovic), since Djokovic is the superior clay-courter at the moment between them. But I agree, Nadal winning Roland Garros 2013 is a certainty, so it makes no sense to discuss any possibility other than Nadal winning Roland Garros 2013, since he has a 52-1 record there and in 2012 only had his serve broken one time (1R against Bolelli) before the final.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:15 AM
If Federer had better odds, he should still be below Djokovic (I thought Djokovic's annihilation of Federer in the SF in straight sets was a great display of clay-court tennis from Djokovic), since Djokovic is the superior clay-courter at the moment between them. But I agree, Nadal winning Roland Garros 2013 is a certainty, so it makes no sense to discuss any possibility other than Nadal winning Roland Garros 2013, since he has a 52-1 record there and in 2012 only had his serve broken one time (1R against Bolelli) before the final.

Nadal will win most likely if he's back to normal and he competes

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 10:16 AM
Nadal will win most likely if he's back to normal and he competes

Even if Nadal isn't normal, I still think Nadal can win Roland Garros 2013 without playing his best tennis, since no one comes close to matching his magnificence there.

Tony48
09-23-2012, 10:19 AM
Even if Nadal isn't normal, I still think Nadal can win Roland Garros 2013 without playing his best tennis, since no one comes close to matching his magnificence there.

You're right, basically. But I would not put it past Djokovic to be able to beat a below-par Nadal at RG.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:22 AM
Even if Nadal isn't normal, I still think Nadal can win Roland Garros 2013 without playing his best tennis, since no one comes close to matching his magnificence there.

I guess but I mean if he wasnt as good as he was this year Djokovic wouldve beaten him but Nadal's serves were so good this year thats what made it hard so if he's not a 100% he could lose

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 10:28 AM
Why do they give Fed virtually no shot at winning anything next year? His odds should be a lot higher than that.

forzamilan90
09-23-2012, 10:33 AM
kinda random but what's a good betting site for tennis for USA people (I live in Georgia)?

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:37 AM
kinda random but what's a good betting site for tennis for USA people (I live in Georgia)?

Betting135 is pretty good

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:38 AM
Why do they give Fed virtually no shot at winning anything next year? His odds should be a lot higher than that.

hence why its ridiculous

forzamilan90
09-23-2012, 10:47 AM
Betting135 is pretty good

um absolutely nothing shows up on google when i type that in

Mainad
09-23-2012, 11:12 AM
I literally laughed out loud when I saw Murray was listed higher than Nadal in 3 of the 4 slams :lol:

I'll be reserving my laughter until after I see what kind of shape 2013 Nadal will be in! :cool:

merlinpinpin
09-23-2012, 11:47 AM
Why do they give Fed virtually no shot at winning anything next year? His odds should be a lot higher than that.

Yeah, even factoring in his age, that's crazy. Except at RG, where he barely edges Murray, he's got worse odds than him everywhere else. Hello? :shock:

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 11:54 AM
hence why its ridiculous



It is ridiculous. I think he should be way ahead of Nadal,and at least tied for second behind Andy. Putting him last is just nonsense.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 12:01 PM
um absolutely nothing shows up on google when i type that in

Betting 365 my bad sorry

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 12:02 PM
It is ridiculous. I think he should be way ahead of Nadal,and at least tied for second behind Andy. Putting him last is just nonsense.

IKR! it was probably made by ***

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 12:11 PM
Betting 365 my bad sorry

Bet365, you mean.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 12:17 PM
Bet365, you mean.

yeap!!! thats it

Moz
09-23-2012, 12:21 PM
Bookies set the odds to balance their books, so these odds reflect the proportions of money they expect to take rather than strictly the players chances of winning.

If Murray often seems artificially short it's because they expect to take more money for him, which isn't surprising considering the betting habits of his home nation.

I expect these are all-in so you don't get your stake refunded if the player doesn't turn up.

veroniquem
09-23-2012, 12:24 PM
The only slightly shocking odd is the Wimbledon one (for Fed). Of course it is hard to predict form so long in advance but the rest seems logic to me especially AO and RG. Since 2008, Fed has been beaten twice by Nadal and has failed to win a single set off Djoko in 2 encounters at AO. If you factor in the age + the type of surface (slower and higher bouncing than W), I think his odds are about right. RG is even more doubtful. As for USO, Fed hasn't won one since 2008, not even vs Delpo, the least threatening of the rivals he got there. And you would have his odds super high? I actually find his USO odds generous (probably due to surface and how well he still does in preparatory event Cincy). ETA: and regardless of how much credibility you're willing to give those results, it seems rather normal that Murray finally beating Fed in a best of 5 match AND winning his 1st slam raise his odds a bit for the next slams.

Hood_Man
09-23-2012, 12:41 PM
I don't know if I really disagree with Fed's odds for a lot of these. Even I can admit that Federer, while playing really well and displaying his new Godzilla sized testicles, had some good fortune along the way in this year's Wimbledon.

He's still consistently reaching semi finals, but when he's coming up against the Nadal's or Djokovic's (or these days, the Berdych's too) in these matches it might as well be the first week.

firepanda
09-23-2012, 01:37 PM
20/19 is idiotic. It is debatable if Nadal is even still a favourite, injured as he is.

フェデラー
09-23-2012, 01:42 PM
I don't know if I really disagree with Fed's odds for a lot of these. Even I can admit that Federer, while playing really well and displaying his new Godzilla sized testicles, had some good fortune along the way in this year's Wimbledon.

He's still consistently reaching semi finals, but when he's coming up against the Nadal's or Djokovic's (or these days, the Berdych's too) in these matches it might as well be the first week.

The one I really don't understand is the Wimbledon one. I mean you can call it good fortune, but it still took a lot to beat Djokovic in the semi and Murray in the final. Not sure how this years winner all of a sudden has less of a chance that Nadal who went out in the second round...

forzamilan90
09-23-2012, 01:45 PM
yeap!!! thats it

Been reading up and don't think they do business with USA. Sucks that online gambling (betting) is such an issue for the USA. I just want to bet some money on footie and tennis, sigh.

NadalAgassi
09-23-2012, 01:49 PM
Federer's odds for winning the Australian or French are about right. Djokovic, Nadal (if in half decent shape), and Murray are all more likely to win the Australian than him at this point. The French nobody other than Nadal and Djokovic is going to win that anytime the next few years, his real odds to win there next year would be no better than the 7% he is given. Wimbedon and the U.S Open odds could be better than that though.

What is most noteable overall is how poor the odds given for Federer and Nadal both are, and how strong the odds for Murray have suddenly become. The odds would be difficult to make at this point in general as nobody knows how Nadal will return. However I would probably have Federer and Nadal as having better odds to win Wimbledon than either Djokovic or Murray. Federer won Wimbledon this year and is a 7 time winner, and Nadal has had a better overall record there than anyone since 2008 with 2 titles and 3 finals out of 4 times played. Murray has not yet beaten either of them at Wimbledon so would have him 3rd. Would have Djokovic 4th at best for Wimbledon.

Djokovic's odds are about as expected overall, although I dont agree with him being the favorite for Wimbledon at all.

NadalAgassi
09-23-2012, 01:50 PM
20/19 is idiotic. It is debatable if Nadal is even still a favourite, injured as he is.

LOL those are actually great odds for Nadal at the French Open. Reality is unless he retires he is much more than 50% likely to win any French Open he plays, even now. Other than Djokovic who else could win RG next year. Federer or Murray? Dont me laugh.

veroniquem
09-23-2012, 02:17 PM
Actually, Federer's odds should be much better than Murray's at the French. He's reached tons of finals there after all, won it once and even beat Djoko there last year. He's also won a neat bunch of clay titles in his career. A far cry from Murray who I believe would find a way to lose RG to about any decent clay court player , let alone a top guy. The only thing that lowers Fed's odds at the French (understandably so) is his age but overall his clay game is vastly superior to Murray's. Murray even loses to Raonic on clay, that says it all really!

Agassifan
09-23-2012, 06:13 PM
It will be embarrassing for the ATP if a 32 year old man wins a slam when 3 great players are at their peaks. It is already borderline embarrassing that a 31 year old is #1 and has won 90% of his matches over the 12 months.

kishnabe
09-23-2012, 06:16 PM
It will be embarrassing for the ATP if a 32 year old man wins a slam when 3 great players are at their peaks. It is already borderline embarrassing that a 31 year old is #1 and has won 90% of his matches over the 12 months.

Obviously this is a weak era and not like the strong era when a 21 year-25 year old was the niumber one(2003-07).

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 06:16 PM
It will be embarrassing for the ATP if a 32 year old man wins a slam when 3 great players are at their peaks. It is already borderline embarrassing that a 31 year old is #1 and has won 90% of his matches over the 12 months.



Nadal isn't even in his prime much less at his peak.

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:18 PM
Nadal isn't even in his prime much less at his peak.

Just wondering, when would you say Nadal's prime started, and when did it end?

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 06:22 PM
Just wondering, when would you say Nadal's prime started, and when did it end?



I think his prime started around 2006 and ended in 2010. He's been past his peak since 2008,and past his prime for nearly 3 years,imo.

veroniquem
09-23-2012, 06:24 PM
Nadal's prime started almost immediately. One of his 2 best seasons on the tour happened when he was 18/19. Nadal was extremely precocious. He's also phenomenally talented. Too bad that physical problems and injuries have been in the way on and off the whole time as well. Nadal doesn't have clear peak years like Fed, he's just had more physical breakdowns throughout his career. ETA: his prime started in 2005 with a bang. 2006 was actually one of Rafa's worst seasons due to injury troubles at the end of 2005 but that's typical of Rafa's career: roller coaster style depending on his physical condition.

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:25 PM
I think his prime started around 2006 and ended in 2010. He's been past his peak since 2008,and past his prime for nearly 3 years,imo.

Are you basing this off of his play or his success?

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 06:30 PM
Nadal's prime started almost immediately. One of his 2 best seasons happened when he was 18/19. Nadal was extremely precocious. He's also phenomenally talented. Too bad that physical problems and injuries have been in the way on and off the whole time as well. Nadal doesn't have clear peak years like Fed, he's just had more physical breakdowns throughout his career.


I'm not so sure about that. Nadal is a clay courter,but in 2006 was the first time he made the final of a slam not on clay. I feel like he entered his prime in that same year for that reason alone.



He has talent,but phenomenally talented? I don't think so.



I think he had one peak year and that was in 2008 where he never played better,won his first Wimby,won Olympic gold,won Toronto,blitzed through the clay season(except Rome),had a huge match winning streak,and made the semi at the USO. It's clear that 2008 was Nadal's peak year.

veroniquem
09-23-2012, 06:33 PM
I'm not so sure about that. Nadal is a clay courter,but in 2006 was the first time he made the final of a slam not on clay. I feel like he entered his prime in that same year for that reason alone.



He has talent,but phenomenally talented? I don't think so.



. We strongly disagree on that last point I guess. Never mind. Without all the injuries, Nadal's career would have been more impressive than Fed's imo but of course we'll never know. Yep, he did well at Wimbledon in 2006 and of course as usual on clay but I believe it was his worst season on hard court (he won a master or slam on hard in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 but not in 2006). Also in 2005, he was less of a clay courter than almost any other year (most titles won on hard including 2 hard court masters and his only indoor title. That was great for him even if it didn't include a slam).

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:37 PM
For what it's worth, I think Nadal entered his prime in 2007.

veroniquem
09-23-2012, 06:43 PM
For what it's worth, I think Nadal entered his prime in 2007. Based on what? Not his results for sure as they were better in 2005 than in 2007 (plenty more titles).

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:46 PM
Based on what? Not his results for sure as they were better in 2005 than in 2007 (plenty more titles).

His play. I thought Nadal played his best grass-court Tennis that year. Better than even 2008 or 2010.

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 06:49 PM
For what it's worth, I think Nadal entered his prime in 2007.



Do you think he's still in his prime?

veroniquem
09-23-2012, 06:50 PM
To prisoner of birth: You got to be joking. He was getting the hang of grass in 2007 but he was also struggling and was very close to losing to Sod at W but somehow he was playing better grass tennis in 2007 than in 2008 when he won BOTH Queen's and Wimbledon beating Djoko and Fed in the process? Or than in 2010 when he destroyed Sod after the first set? Yeah right, whatever.

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:55 PM
To prisoner of birth: You got to be joking. He was getting the hang of grass in 2007 but he was also struggling and was very close to losing to Sod at W but somehow he was playing better grass tennis in 2007 than in 2008 when he won BOTH Queen's and Wimbledon beating Djoko and Fed in the process? Or than in 2010 when he destroyed Sod after the first set? Yeah right, whatever.

Federer was nowhere close to his level of play of 2007 in 2008. Yet, Nadal almost beat Federer in 2007. Djokovic never was a great grass-courter. It's funny when people like you look for results to tell them when a player is in his prime/peak.

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:57 PM
Do you think he's still in his prime?

That's hard to say. Nadal is one player who seems to have primes in bursts.

ETA : I'm gonna say, not anymore.

Agassifan
09-23-2012, 09:18 PM
Nadal isn't even in his prime much less at his peak.

Umm.. for half of Fed's run, Nadal was definitely playing the best stretch of his career (5 consecutive slam finals, winning 2 of them).

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 09:24 PM
Umm.. for half of Fed's run, Nadal was definitely playing the best stretch of his career (5 consecutive slam finals, winning 2 of them).


Do you mean Cvac?



No he wasn't,and we will never agree on this. Nadal making all of those finals was a testament to how crap the competition was,and not that he was playing well. He was mugging it up badly last year,had no backhand,was tired/sickly,had no stamina,and no serve. He turned into Forehand Man,and even that shot was dropping short and without any pop on it. Sorry,Nadal played sh*t last year no matter how many finals he made.

RAFA2005RG
09-23-2012, 10:29 PM
Umm.. for half of Fed's run, Nadal was definitely playing the best stretch of his career (5 consecutive slam finals, winning 2 of them).

That's funny, I could have sworn Nadal won 3 straight slams in 2010 (including by far his best US Open form ever).

PrinceMoron
09-23-2012, 10:29 PM
For what it's worth, I think Nadal entered his prime in 2007.

Live or die by your serve, no matter what the rest of your game is like. What happened to Nadal's, it all looked rosy for a minute?

furryballs
09-24-2012, 12:34 AM
what are the odds on MUzza winning all 4???

Zarfot Z
09-24-2012, 01:24 AM
Why do they give Fed virtually no shot at winning anything next year? His odds should be a lot higher than that.

Because he's old.

Really, if he won all four next year, I wouldn't be surprised to find him underrated in the 2014 majors as well.

But Federer has proven that age is no barrier. He has the best WL record out of everyone this year and reclaimed the number 1 ranking. He's also consistently beating rivals who are 5-6 years younger than him.

RAFA2005RG
09-24-2012, 01:38 AM
Because he's old.

Really, if he won all four next year, I wouldn't be surprised to find him underrated in the 2014 majors as well.

But Federer has proven that age is no barrier. He has the best WL record out of everyone this year and reclaimed the number 1 ranking. He's also consistently beating rivals who are 5-6 years younger than him.

But Murray and Djokovic both have a better record in the slams this year. And Nadal is Federer's biggest threat at the slams.

JSummers
09-24-2012, 01:52 AM
snip...Nadal winning Roland Garros 2013 is a certainty... snip

It's not even a certainty Nadal'll play by Roland Garros 2013. How can this be a certainy?

Zarfot Z
09-24-2012, 02:24 AM
But Murray and Djokovic both have a better record in the slams this year. And Nadal is Federer's biggest threat at the slams.

Grand Slams aren't everything. Federer has won the most MS1000 titles this year, grabbed a handful of ATP500 titles and an Olympic silver medal to boot.

lawrence
09-24-2012, 02:33 AM
I think it would be safe to put money on Nadal winning RG and Federer winning 1 of the other 3 purely given his odds.

In fact I might go do that

batz
09-24-2012, 02:53 AM
Grand Slams aren't everything. Federer has won the most MS1000 titles this year, grabbed a handful of ATP500 titles and an Olympic silver medal to boot.

Funny that - when Murray was the only guy to win multiple hardcourt MS events for 4 years in a row during years when he was winning 5 or 6 ATP titles per season, that's all I was ever told on this forum - 'it's all about the slams' was what they said. 'MS are meaningless - Federer doesn't even try at them' was another popular view.

Now that Murray has outperformed Roger at the slams for the first time, it seems that slams aren't everything after all.

Who'd've thunked it eh.

batz
09-24-2012, 02:59 AM
what are the odds on MUzza winning all 4???

If you did it as an acumulator based on the odds that I posted, he would be about 450/1 to win all the majors next year i.e.

3/1 x 20/1 x 3/1 x 5/2

If you just wanted to back him win the next 3 then it would be around 180/1

UKTennis
09-24-2012, 03:02 AM
Funny that - when Murray was the only guy to win multiple hardcourt MS events for 4 years in a row during years when he was winning 5 or 6 ATP titles, that's all I was ever told on this forum - 'it's all about the slams' was what they said. 'MS are meaningless - Federer doesn't even try at them' was another popular view.

Now that Murray has outperformed Roger at the slams for the first time, it seems that slams aren't everything after all.

Who'd've thunked it eh.

Very true.

In regards to Federer winning a Slam you could probably toss a coin. He may flunk out in the quarters in every one or he may play brilliant tennis for a fortnight in one of them and win it. We also don't know yet when Federer's inevitable decline starts (and I mean in relation to challenging for the top titles, as he's obviously not as good as 04-07) due to his age.

RAFA2005RG
09-24-2012, 04:31 AM
Grand Slams aren't everything. Federer has won the most MS1000 titles this year, grabbed a handful of ATP500 titles and an Olympic silver medal to boot.

Just goes to show the difference between slams and everything else. Quite often, non-slam success doesn't correlate with slam success. Agassi 1998 is a great example. He had a superb year, 5 titles (10 finals) but never passed the 4th round of a slam. Agassi 1999, also 5 titles (8 finals), but 2 of them were slams (followed by the 2000 Australian Open). Federer's dominance in the non-slams of 2012 doesn't convince me that he's going to win a slam in 2013, when Djokovic makes slam finals more consistently and Murray is on the rise, and Nadal remains a thorn in Federer's side with 5 straight slam wins over him.

Mortifier
09-24-2012, 05:22 AM
Just goes to show the difference between slams and everything else. Quite often, non-slam success doesn't correlate with slam success. Agassi 1998 is a great example. He had a superb year, 5 titles (10 finals) but never passed the 4th round of a slam. Agassi 1999, also 5 titles (8 finals), but 2 of them were slams (followed by the 2000 Australian Open). Federer's dominance in the non-slams of 2012 doesn't convince me that he's going to win a slam in 2013, when Djokovic makes slam finals more consistently and Murray is on the rise, and Nadal remains a thorn in Federer's side with 5 straight slam wins over him.

...and yet Federer has won as many Slams as anyone in 2012.

You're right about Djoko and everything else though. You forget to mention that Djokovic has been kind of sh-tty since the FO, not the same excellence as he was presenting before.

Or that Nadal is somewhat injured and hasn't done a single fanboy happy since the FO.

Murray has one a single Slam and had a bit of help with it as well. I strongly believe that Federer would have won that final if he'd play either Djoko or Murray. He's the king of diversity and has learned to cope with anything thrown at him. That being said, he wasn't in the final so that's not relevant to be honest.

I still think it's ridiculous to count Federer out as the bookies are at the moment. That, as well as many posters here on the board are counting Rafa out. Both will be back - we've seen it so many times before.

RAFA2005RG
09-24-2012, 05:34 AM
I expect Djokovic and Murray to win slams more so than Federer, because Murray made the semis of all 4 slams and the final of 2 of them. And Djokovic made the semis of all 4 slams and the final of 3 of them. Federer by contrast lost in the QF of US Open and only made one final. Federer's non-slam results mean nothing. As for Nadal, it depends what you understand about his knees. Some people have fallen for his knees being a big deal. Others have not.

Wilander Fan
09-24-2012, 05:37 AM
I am guessing 2013 will be the year someone else finally breaks through. Raonic looks like he is about to break through.

Mortifier
09-24-2012, 06:26 AM
I expect Djokovic and Murray to win slams more so than Federer, because Murray made the semis of all 4 slams and the final of 2 of them. And Djokovic made the semis of all 4 slams and the final of 3 of them. Federer by contrast lost in the QF of US Open and only made one final. Federer's non-slam results mean nothing. As for Nadal, it depends what you understand about his knees. Some people have fallen for his knees being a big deal. Others have not.

But consistency doesn't nescessarely mean GS titles. Ask Murray pre-US Open, Djokovic before his second GS title, Lendl etc. You rather have one deep run, a win, than four semis. Federer is just that, he can be red hot for 2 weeks and claim the title whilst the others can reach semis left and right that won't amount to anything.

Rather a needle to the heart than a sledgehammer to the chest so to speak.

zam88
09-24-2012, 06:35 AM
Even if Nadal isn't normal, I still think Nadal can win Roland Garros 2013 without playing his best tennis, since no one comes close to matching his magnificence there.


While i agree he's got the best shot if his health comes around and should be the odds on favorite even if he doesn't play any tennis between now and the AO.

My question to you is:

If you are THAT certain about nadal's victory, how much action are you putting down on it?

how much action have you put on him in past Roland Garros tournaments?

zam88
09-24-2012, 06:40 AM
For what its worth, I'm not sure if Federer wins another slam or not. At this point I'm so completely satisfied with his career that anything else would be just pure gravy.

And frankly I wonder how high his own drive will be moving on from here.. I can't help but think he achieved a lot of personal gratification after Wimbledon and is also pretty satisfied.

If he loses even a little hunger, there are too many guys like Dkoker, Murray, and even Nadal that will want it more. If he slacks even a little on his preparation, the upsets are going to come.

Unfortunately Feds at an age where if he wanted to keep competing in slams he'd have to try harder, not slack at all.... and i'm not sure he's going to do that.

I think he's 40/60 to win 1 more slam, and has virtually no chance at 2 more.

I would say the odds are good enough though for anyone to consider a bet on him at Wimbledon or the USO.. I think any bet on him at the FO or AO would be somewhat foolish unless the injury situation changes.

sunny_cali
09-24-2012, 06:44 AM
Funny that - when Murray was the only guy to win multiple hardcourt MS events for 4 years in a row during years when he was winning 5 or 6 ATP titles per season, that's all I was ever told on this forum - 'it's all about the slams' was what they said. 'MS are meaningless - Federer doesn't even try at them' was another popular view.

Now that Murray has outperformed Roger at the slams for the first time, it seems that slams aren't everything after all.

Who'd've thunked it eh.

You do realize this was after Federer had won 10+ Slams right ? And while he was winning 3 Slams a year, he was still winning more Masters/Titles than anyone else on tour. The meaningless bit is exaggerated, but clearly for someone who'd won more Slams than anyone else, the MS didn't quite matter so much.

It's also clear that Annaconda has finally managed to get through and get Roger to take the MS more seriously -- that was the only way he'd have a shot at the World no. 1.

Only just outperformed and he is still No. 3.

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 06:54 AM
The poll maker was *** :twisted:

RAFA2005RG
09-24-2012, 07:44 AM
But consistency doesn't nescessarely mean GS titles. Ask Murray pre-US Open, Djokovic before his second GS title, Lendl etc. You rather have one deep run, a win, than four semis. Federer is just that, he can be red hot for 2 weeks and claim the title whilst the others can reach semis left and right that won't amount to anything.

Rather a needle to the heart than a sledgehammer to the chest so to speak.

The problem is, Federer wasn't red hot for 2 weeks. At Wimbledon he almost lost to the ******* Benneteau, and he was very close to losing the 2nd set to Murray in the final. He truly dodged some bullets (or more so, his opponents were scared to shoot). The needle was Nadal, as nobody gets hotter than Nadal (at Roland Garros).

NadalAgassi
09-24-2012, 07:49 AM
It will be embarrassing for the ATP if a 32 year old man wins a slam when 3 great players are at their peaks. It is already borderline embarrassing that a 31 year old is #1 and has won 90% of his matches over the 12 months.

LOL when the Federer era players (minus Federer to a degree) were at their peaks 33 year old Agassi was the Australian Open Champion and World #1, something you of all people should know.

NadalAgassi
09-24-2012, 07:52 AM
Actually, Federer's odds should be much better than Murray's at the French. He's reached tons of finals there after all, won it once and even beat Djoko there last year. He's also won a neat bunch of clay titles in his career. A far cry from Murray who I believe would find a way to lose RG to about any decent clay court player , let alone a top guy. The only thing that lowers Fed's odds at the French (understandably so) is his age but overall his clay game is vastly superior to Murray's. Murray even loses to Raonic on clay, that says it all really!

Murray shouldnt even be 4th for the French. He should be behind Ferrer for sure, and maybe even behind Del Potro. I think Federer's odds for the French are about right, but Murray's should be much worse. There is almost no chance of him winning there.

batz
09-24-2012, 08:23 AM
You do realize this was after Federer had won 10+ Slams right ? And while he was winning 3 Slams a year, he was still winning more Masters/Titles than anyone else on tour. The meaningless bit is exaggerated, but clearly for someone who'd won more Slams than anyone else, the MS didn't quite matter so much.
It's also clear that Annaconda has finally managed to get through and get Roger to take the MS more seriously -- that was the only way he'd have a shot at the World no. 1.

Only just outperformed and he is still No. 3.

Sorry - your point is what - that Roger's overall record is better than Murrays? Is anyone who isn't completely mental arguing against that?

Roger hasn't won 3 slams in a season since 2007. This year (2012) is the first year since 2006 that he's won more than 1 hardcourt masters series in a year - Murray is the only man to have won multiple hardcourt MS across 08,09,10,11 - but none of it mattered - because it was 'all about the slams'.

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 09:38 AM
Sorry - your point is what - that Roger's overall record is better than Murrays? Is anyone who isn't completely mental arguing against that?

Roger hasn't won 3 slams in a season since 2007. This year (2012) is the first year since 2006 that he's won more than 1 hardcourt masters series in a year - Murray is the only man to have won multiple hardcourt MS across 08,09,10,11 - but none of it mattered - because it was 'all about the slams'.

I suggest you learn to live in the now mate - not 5 or 6 years ago.

I think what the other guy was trying to say is both matter masters and GS but just having masters is no help

batz
09-24-2012, 09:44 AM
I think what the other guy was trying to say is both matter masters and GS but just having masters is no help

That sounds to me like 'MS wins only count when they make < insert favourite player name> look better'

Put it this way - "It's not just about the slams" wasn't an argument that many Roger fans were making prior to this year.

MurrayMyInspiration
09-24-2012, 09:50 AM
That sounds to me like 'MS wins only count when they make < insert favourite player name> look better'

Put it this way - "It's not just about the slams" wasn't an argument that many Roger fans were making prior to this year.

nice post !!!! cool

MurrayMyInspiration
09-24-2012, 09:52 AM
I agree with the OPS post.

batz
09-24-2012, 09:53 AM
I see someone is using MurrayIsMyInpiration's logon again :)

MurrayMyInspiration
09-24-2012, 09:54 AM
Very good thread!

MurrayMyInspiration
09-24-2012, 09:59 AM
As batz said, just edited the posts so don't report please. There is some truth to my love for Murray's body though :) (no h0m0)

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 10:11 AM
That sounds to me like 'MS wins only count when they make < insert favourite player name> look better'

Put it this way - "It's not just about the slams" wasn't an argument that many Roger fans were making prior to this year.

Surprisingly I agree!!!

sunny_cali
09-24-2012, 10:21 AM
Sorry - your point is what - that Roger's overall record is better than Murrays? Is anyone who isn't completely mental arguing against that?

Roger hasn't won 3 slams in a season since 2007. This year (2012) is the first year since 2006 that he's won more than 1 hardcourt masters series in a year - Murray is the only man to have won multiple hardcourt MS across 08,09,10,11 - but none of it mattered - because it was 'all about the slams'.

Yes - and the 3 years prior to that he was winning both MS and Slams.

Murray did well at the Masters but he didn't do quite as well in the Slams. And while he was doing well in the Masters even against Roger he was getting creamed in the Slams. While I wouldn't say that MS' don't matter, they certainly matter less than the Slams.

What is your point ? That Murray's MS victories should count more than Roger's Slams ? The fact is that most top players treat MS' as an event to fine-tune their game for the Slams. Some take a few MS more seriously than the others, some don't. Case in point -- Fed's win against Djoker at Cincinnati. Pretty obvious that Djoker wasn't mentally or physically in it the 1st set. It had little bearing on the USO. Indeed, had they met at the USO, Djoker would likely have won.

I am perfectly happy with RF's career and don't care if he doesn't win anything more :-) Let's hope that Murray will have at least half his career :-)

sunny_cali
09-24-2012, 10:26 AM
I think what the other guy was trying to say is both matter masters and GS but just having masters is no help

Yup - pretty much.

That sounds to me like 'MS wins only count when they make < insert favourite player name> look better'

Put it this way - "It's not just about the slams" wasn't an argument that many Roger fans were making prior to this year.

I think most Fed fans are happy he's won Wimby -- most of them realize he isn't going to win any more Slams (well maybe 1 more, but its unlikely). The WTF/MS' are icing on the cake -- personally I don't read too much into them.

batz
09-24-2012, 10:26 AM
Yes - and the 3 years prior to that he was winning both MS and Slams.

Murray did well at the Masters but he didn't do quite as well in the Slams. And while he was doing well in the Masters even against Roger he was getting creamed in the Slams. While I wouldn't say that MS' don't matter, they certainly matter less than the Slams.

What is your point ? That Murray's MS victories should count more than Roger's Slams ? The fact is that most top players treat MS' as an event to fine-tune their game for the Slams. Some take a few MS more seriously than the others, some don't. Case in point -- Fed's win against Djoker at Cincinnati. Pretty obvious that Djoker wasn't mentally or physically in it the 1st set. It had little bearing on the USO. Indeed, had they met at the USO, Djoker would likely have won.



I am perfectly happy with RF's career and don't care if he doesn't win anything more :-) Let's hope that Murray will have at least half his career :-)

That Fed fans only started saying 'it's not just about the slams' very recently. What's your's?

batz
09-24-2012, 10:31 AM
Yup - pretty much.



I think most Fed fans are happy he's won Wimby -- most of them realize he isn't going to win any more Slams (well maybe 1 more, but its unlikely). The WTF/MS' are icing on the cake -- personally I don't read too much into them.

Then I'm struggling to understand what we're arguing about mate.

sunny_cali
09-24-2012, 10:37 AM
That Fed fans only started saying 'it's not just about the slams' very recently. What's your's?

Well - I am sure there will be a few fans who are well just *****.

When Murray was doing well at the Master's he was choking badly at the Slam's. It's easy to see why people didn't take his Master's wins too seriously. Not that I agree that they should be discounted -- but it gives enough ammo for the ****'s to bleat.

If RF hadn't won Wimby most people on this board would have been likely just as dismissive of his otherwise great year.

sunny_cali
09-24-2012, 10:46 AM
Then I'm struggling to understand what we're arguing about mate.

No argument mate -- just a discussion. It seems to me you are trying to get back at the *******s for the things they threw at the Murray fans a while back.

I am just trying to say that Murray didn't help his cause then by screwing up in the Slams. Now that he has one, and is likely to win more -- expect all the fans and ***** to be a bit more mature about his wins and hopefully his losses as well.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-24-2012, 10:54 AM
Everyone knows that the big two records are grand slam titles and Masters Shields. Currently Roger :-P and Rafa :-P are tied, for the most Masters Shields in world history (21). But Nadal is more likely to overtake him, and I wouldn't be surprised if Federer finished with the 4th most of all time either (with both Djokovic and Murray ahead of him)-

Nadal (1st, 35+)
Djokovic/Murray (2nd/3rd, 24-26)
Federer (4th, 21-23)

Hood_Man
09-24-2012, 10:57 AM
That Fed fans only started saying 'it's not just about the slams' very recently. What's your's?

Not all of us...

batz
09-24-2012, 11:06 AM
Not all of us...

Of course not - a very tiny minority. I should have been clearer - apologies.

batz
09-24-2012, 11:08 AM
No argument mate -- just a discussion. It seems to me you are trying to get back at the *******s for the things they threw at the Murray fans a while back.

I am just trying to say that Murray didn't help his cause then by screwing up in the Slams. Now that he has one, and is likely to win more -- expect all the fans and ***** to be a bit more mature about his wins and hopefully his losses as well.

Fair comment. And to be clear - we're talking about the '*****. The vast majority of Fed fans on here are top notch posters.

Hood_Man
09-24-2012, 11:56 AM
Of course not - a very tiny minority. I should have been clearer - apologies.

Sorry mate, I know what you were saying. I was just behaving like a diva :(

batz
09-24-2012, 12:58 PM
Sorry mate, I know what you were saying. I was just behaving like a diva :(

Not at all mate - you were quite right to point it out, I was happy to clarify what I meant. Not a problem.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-24-2012, 01:04 PM
2013 will be a crucial year for Murray. Since Djokovic has been mentally affected by Nadal's uprising (Roland Garros 2012, double-faulted on match point, lost the mental battle), and Federer isn't in contention for slams anymore, it'll be interesting to see if Murray can make it to his first French Open final. And then the pressure will be on Murray again- can he perform better than Federer vs Nadal and/or Djokovic vs Nadal? I think if Murray can win more than 18 games (unlikely), Murray will see this as a success, and may give him confidence for Wimbledon 2013/US Open 2013.

Agassifan
09-24-2012, 01:23 PM
That's funny, I could have sworn Nadal won 3 straight slams in 2010 (including by far his best US Open form ever).

so winning 3 and not even the finals of two other slams is better than making 5 finals in a row and winning 2 (not to mention his losses were against a player who was in incredible form).

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-24-2012, 01:27 PM
so winning 3 and not even the finals of two other slams is better than making 5 finals in a row and winning 2 (not to mention his losses were against a player who was in incredible form).

I can't speak for him, but I'd say the 3 is more special, since Nadal became the first male player to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court in a calendar year, and he broke lots of other records with those 3 slam wins (youngest player to win Career Grand Slam, youngest player to win Career Golden Slam, fewest times having serve broken en route to US Open title (tied with Andy Roddick), and much more), whereas with the 5 finals in a row, he did accomplish some astounding records (7th Roland Garros, becoming the only king of a slam), but not ones that hold as much value as the records he set in 2010.

ktid
09-24-2012, 02:25 PM
2013 will be a crucial year for Murray. Since Djokovic has been mentally affected by Nadal's uprising (Roland Garros 2012, double-faulted on match point, lost the mental battle), and Federer isn't in contention for slams anymore, it'll be interesting to see if Murray can make it to his first French Open final. And then the pressure will be on Murray again- can he perform better than Federer vs Nadal and/or Djokovic vs Nadal? I think if Murray can win more than 18 games (unlikely), Murray will see this as a success, and may give him confidence for Wimbledon 2013/US Open 2013.

Surely he is considering he won a slam more recently than both Nadal and Djokovic.

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 03:16 PM
2013 will be a crucial year for Murray. Since Djokovic has been mentally affected by Nadal's uprising (Roland Garros 2012, double-faulted on match point, lost the mental battle), and Federer isn't in contention for slams anymore, it'll be interesting to see if Murray can make it to his first French Open final. And then the pressure will be on Murray again- can he perform better than Federer vs Nadal and/or Djokovic vs Nadal? I think if Murray can win more than 18 games (unlikely), Murray will see this as a success, and may give him confidence for Wimbledon 2013/US Open 2013.

Please remind who won wimbledon this year again?? And whos number 1??? at the age of 31!! nadal cant even hang on to the number 3 ranking at 26 :lol:

RAFA2005RG
09-24-2012, 05:28 PM
so winning 3 and not even the finals of two other slams is better than making 5 finals in a row and winning 2 (not to mention his losses were against a player who was in incredible form).

Clearly 2010 is the greatest sequence of Nadal's career.

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 05:45 PM
Clearly 2010 is the greatest sequence of Nadal's career.

yeap it certainly was a great and a phenomenal feat!!

Sabratha
09-24-2012, 11:41 PM
And he'd only need to win no slams at all (the most likely option) for you to lose $40.
And how do you know for sure that Federer is done winning slams?