Slam prediction for 2013...your pick?

[BauerAlmeida]

AO: Djokovic
RG: Djokovic
Wimby: Murray
USO: Del Potro

[cc0509]

batz;7017747]Why does he have to win multiple slams before people can reasonably state he has a chance to win another? Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing the link, and moreover, plenty of people seem to agree with me as many are tipping him to win a slam next year. For clarity, I'm not saying I'm one of those people - my gripe was with Bobby Junior's claim that Murray only really performed at the USO in 2012 - my personal opinion is that Murray may well struggle to win a slam next year - but not because Roger has won 17 and Rafa has won 11.

I agree with you that Murray performed well this year in slams and not just at the USO. His match against Djokovic at the AO could have gone either way and he obviously performed very well at Wimbledon, not to mention the Olympics!

Do Murray's career achievements pale in comparison to the other members of the top 4? Absolutley. Does this have any bearing on Murray's chances of winning a slam in 2013? Absolutely not. Roger's 17 slam wins don't change the fact that he has only made 1 slam final in the last 2 years - so why would he be favoured ahead of Murray whose record over that period is better? If you check the bookies you'll see that Roger is behind Murray in the betting for al four slams next year - yes, even RG.

I agree that his past achievements do not predict how he will do in 2013 but many do not see it that way. Many see his performances against the top four in past slams and predict he will continue those choking ways. As I said, I think he will win a slam in 2013 with Roger getting older as we speak and Nadal not winning a slam off clay since 2010. Murray certainly has the best shot now than he ever has had. I would be quite surprised if Murray did not win a slam in 2013. Hopefully he won't become a one slam wonder.

[beast of mallorca]

What I want to happen: (don't shoot me, I'm just a fan)

AO 2013 Rafa defeats Djoker
FO 2013 Rafa defeats Djoker
W 2013 Rafa defeats Federer
USO 2013 Rafa defeats Murray

What probably will happen :

Djoker d Murray
Rafa d Fed
Fed d Djoker
Djoker d Murray

[MindoverMatter]

I think people are forgetting that Murray's best slam is the Australian Open, not the US Open or Wimbledon. While he does get a bump for being the hometown favorite, I don't think it will be his next slam.

Then again, there's always the example of Roddick - the US Open wasn't his best slam, but it was the only one that he won. There's Federer to blame for that but, well, speculation is useless because who knows what this past decade would have looked like without Federer.

Anyway, my predictions are:

AO: Murray defeats Djokovic
FO: Nadal (If he plays) defeats Djokovic. If Nadal doesn't play, then Djokovic defeats Ferrer
W: Djokovic defeats Nadal if he plays, and if not then Djokovic defeats Tsonga
USO: Djokovic defeats Federer

[Ms Nadal]

[quote=beast of mallorca;7017919]What I want to happen: (don't shoot me, I'm just a fan)

AO 2013 Rafa defeats Djoker
FO 2013 Rafa defeats Djoker
W 2013 Rafa defeats Federer
USO 2013 Rafa defeats Murray

This would be awesome for our Rafa! .

[Gonzo_style]

AO: Djokovic
RG: Djokovic
W: Murray
USO: Del Potro

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I dont agree with those, way too generous to Murray especialy. Mine would be:



Australian Open:

1. Djokovic

-----huge gap-----


2. Murray
3. Nadal
4. Federer



French Open:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic

-----huge gap------


3. Federer
4. Ferrer
5. Del Potro
6. Murray or Berdych



Wimbledon:

1. Federer and Nadal (tied)
3. Murray
4. Djokovic
5. Berdych
6. Tsonga



U.S Open:

1. Djokovic
2. Murray
3. Nadal
4. Federer
5. Del Potro
6. Berdych



It wouldnt shock me if Murray had an even bigger breakthrough year and won 2 or 3 majors, but he isnt the odds on favorite to win any of them at this point. Definitely not Wimbledon where he has never beaten Nadal or Federer. The Wimbledon bookies having Djokovic and Murray as both having better odds to win Wimbledon than Federer and Nadal are smoking some funny stuff.

Well, I'm not really going by logic. I'm just going by what I feel is the reasonable trajectory of the players' careers and a bit of gut-feeling.

[papertank]

AO: Nadal d. Murray
French: Djokovic d. Nadal
Wimbledon: Murray d. Djokovic
US: Djokovic d. Delpo

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by batz

Yep - he was garbage when he took Nole all the way in the AO semis, terrible when he made the final of Wimbledon and bloody awful when he won the Olympics.

10% chance to beat Nadal at the AO? Is this the same Nadal with a 2-2 H2h v Murray in hardcourt slams? The same Nadal that Murray leads 5-4 on hards since 2008 - that Nadal?

I'm loving how you concede that Murray might 'sneak' the USO. Others would win it of course, but Murray would sneak it - despite beign the defending champion.

Murray suffered more brain-fart-esque losses than the rest of the top 4 this year. Despite having the best year of his career it doesn't mean he was the best.

He was pwnd in the Wimbledon final despite a good start and eventually folded - go watch it... once Federer was back even it was almost one-way traffic from there on in. That, by top standards, is not a great performance in a major final. At the Olympics he played fantastically - but was also the beneficiary of Federer playing much worse than he had as Wimbledon (and of Nadal being absent).

So far as the AO goes, Djokovic is playing well and he's better on that surface hands-down than Murray. Nadal is a question-mark. I wouldn't be surprised if he came back playing pretty good tennis OR, equally, if it took him 6 months to get back up to speed. Either way I'd put money on Federer winning the AO before Murray. Fresher legs, better recent form, more experience, more random God form factor potential if he gets his stars lined up right.

So far as Murray having a good year - of course he did - but his path to the Olympics and the US Open titles were made easier by Nadal not being there (as it would have been for anyone else too technically). The fact he was the first person to win a major without having to defeat either Federer or Nadal for something like 7 years says a lot. Put both of them back in the draw at semis time and see how well Murray can handle a couple of top players in a row. He's never done it once in his entire career to date at a major. He's always flunked the next match when he's gotten past one of the big guns at a major. He's still not at the level of the other three, even if his short-term form has stepped up a notch big time.

Lastly, being the defending champion has no impact on a player's chances of winning a major. Being a great player does. Murray has no more chance at next year's US Open as of now than Djokovic or Federer. Time will tell how soon Nadal can get back into top gear, if at all.

[JTJet]

Austrailian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Murray
US Open : Murray

[OddJack]

AO Murray

FO Djoker

W Murray

US Federer

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The fact he was the first person to win a major without having to defeat either Federer or Nadal for something like 7 years says a lot.

Well, it mainly says that Federer wasn't good enough to meet him in the semi-finals whilst Nadal was off sick!

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Put both of them back in the draw at semis time and see how well Murray can handle a couple of top players in a row. He's never done it once in his entire career to date at a major.

True, but then only 2 other players have ever done that so far and then only the once ie. Del Potro (2009 USO) and Djokovic (2011 USO).

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

He's always flunked the next match when he's gotten past one of the big guns at a major.

Not so. After beating Nadal in the quarters of 2010 AO, he went on to win the semi-final.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

He's still not at the level of the other three, even if his short-term form has stepped up a notch big time.

Agreed. Until he wins more Slams, he is not yet quite at their level.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Lastly, being the defending champion has no impact on a player's chances of winning a major.

I think it increases their odds of winning another one slightly more than if they had never won one.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Murray has no more chance at next year's US Open as of now than Djokovic or Federer..

Well, of course. All 3 are now past US Open champions and all 3 have an equal chance of winning another one.

[smiley_face]

2013:

AO: Djokovic (def Murray)
FO: Djokovic (def Federer)
Wb:Tsonga (def Murray)
US: Djokovic (def Berdych)

[smiley_face]

Thats about Grand Slam. Master 1000 is the 2nd most important event and here is my prediction:

Indian Wells: Federer
Miami: Djokovic
Mt. Carlo: Ferrer
Rome: Djokovic
Madrid: Federer (only when the blue-clay is kept)
Toronto: Djokovic
Cincinnati: Murray
Shanghai: Raonic
Paris: Gasquet

WTF: Federer

[smiley_face]

I'm sorry but I think Nadal should move to golf. Coming back after so many serious injuries/surgeries could make thw wheelchair become his best friend in the next 10 years.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Not so. After beating Nadal in the quarters of 2010 AO, he went on to win the semi-final.

That's a slightly convenient example to use. He beat Nadal who pulled out and was playing like a tool for long streches in that match, and then had to play Cilic who I'm surprised was even able to win the first set before Murray rolled him pretty comfortably losing only 10 games in the last three sets. He was then all but impotent in the final until he was 2 sets down.

Originally Posted by Mainad

Agreed. Until he wins more Slams, he is not yet quite at their level.

This comes back to stuff people often mention about betting odds on majors. This year the odds-on bets for each major, in the lead up to the event, would have been wrong 2 of 4 times (correct on Aussie and French Open). The odds at the beginning of the season on each major were wrong for 3 of the 4 majors.

So, as you say, a couple of great matches doesn't relate all that well historically into long-term class in tennis. Murray has, time and time again, fallen in relatively meek fashion at the business end of majors and, notably, after he's had a good win.

He really is a top player but seems to rely on at least one or two of the others around him having a clanger or being injured to really increase his chances. The same can't be said for the other three - all of whom have won majors when everyone else was present, healthy and seemed to be playing well.

That's how majors often have been won throughout history though. It's not a slur on Murray to say he relies more on a bit of good fortune to win a major than the other three big guns on tour - it's just how it is. I don't see much in his long term form this year which says otherwise. In short term form he's definitely picked it up a notch - Lendl in effect! - and it's about time too.

[RF20Lennon]

What will most likely happen:
AO-Djokovic
FO-nadal or Djokovic (depends on nadals health)
W-Fed or Murray (depending on the draw for fed)
USO-Djokovic or Murray

What I want:
AO- Fed (so he can get the all time titles there)
FO- Djokovic(so he can get the career slam)
W- Fed (so he can be the KING of wimby with 8 titles) or Murray (he can win his home turf slam)
USO - Fed (cause he can get the most titles)

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by smiley_face

Thats about Grand Slam. Master 1000 is the 2nd most important event and here is my prediction:

Indian Wells: Federer
Miami: Djokovic
Mt. Carlo: Ferrer
Rome: Djokovic
Madrid: Federer (only when the blue-clay is kept)
Toronto: Djokovic
Cincinnati: Murray
Shanghai: Raonic
Paris: Gasquet

WTF: Federer

Theyre getting rid of blue clay but honestly If any Djokovic or Federer play MC and nadal isnt playing, Ferrer wont win. And Gasquet isnt winning Paris LOL plenty of guys who can beat him

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

That's a slightly convenient example to use. He beat Nadal who pulled out and was playing like a tool for long streches in that match

It's a perfectly valid example to use. Nadal didn't pull out of that match until he was 2 and a half sets down. He himself said that his injury didn't kick in until the start of the 3rd set when he was already being well and truly beaten. It only becomes an inconvenient example to you because it contradicts your statement that Murray always loses at Slams after beating a top player.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

He really is a top player but seems to rely on at least one or two of the others around him having a clanger or being injured to really increase his chances. The same can't be said for the other three - all of whom have won majors when everyone else was present, healthy and seemed to be playing well.

As I said, is it Murray's fault that Federer wasn't good enough to meet him in the semis at the 2012 USO or that Nadal failed to show up? Is he supposed to hand back his trophy and tell the organisers to negate the result on that account? He played against the best players who were good enough to make it through the draw, beat them and beat the world #2 and defending champion in the final. That's all that can be expected of any player in any tournament anywhere, Slam or otherwise!

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

That's how majors often have been won throughout history though. It's not a slur on Murray to say he relies more on a bit of good fortune to win a major than the other three big guns on tour - it's just how it is.

Well, he's only won one Major so far, so he's hardly established a pattern has he? Odds are that if he wins anymore, it will be without the presence of at least one or more of the top players with Federer growing ever older and Nadal not yet confirmed to return to the tour anytime soon. That won't be his fault either, is not in any way a slur as you point out and IMO therefore not really worth mentioning.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Murray suffered more brain-fart-esque losses than the rest of the top 4 this year. Despite having the best year of his career it doesn't mean he was the best.

He was pwnd in the Wimbledon final despite a good start and eventually folded - go watch it... once Federer was back even it was almost one-way traffic from there on in. That, by top standards, is not a great performance in a major final. At the Olympics he played fantastically - but was also the beneficiary of Federer playing much worse than he had as Wimbledon (and of Nadal being absent).

So far as the AO goes, Djokovic is playing well and he's better on that surface hands-down than Murray. Nadal is a question-mark. I wouldn't be surprised if he came back playing pretty good tennis OR, equally, if it took him 6 months to get back up to speed. Either way I'd put money on Federer winning the AO before Murray. Fresher legs, better recent form, more experience, more random God form factor potential if he gets his stars lined up right.

So far as Murray having a good year - of course he did - but his path to the Olympics and the US Open titles were made easier by Nadal not being there (as it would have been for anyone else too technically). The fact he was the first person to win a major without having to defeat either Federer or Nadal for something like 7 years says a lot. Put both of them back in the draw at semis time and see how well Murray can handle a couple of top players in a row. He's never done it once in his entire career to date at a major. He's always flunked the next match when he's gotten past one of the big guns at a major. He's still not at the level of the other three, even if his short-term form has stepped up a notch big time.

Lastly, being the defending champion has no impact on a player's chances of winning a major. Being a great player does. Murray has no more chance at next year's US Open as of now than Djokovic or Federer. Time will tell how soon Nadal can get back into top gear, if at all.

This is sad, but I agree. Murray won't be making it past the semifinals of the next US Open. He could win Wimbledon, though.