Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Homeboy Hotel, Jun 16, 2011.
I'd say Murray's got the bigger chance if Federer is seeded in Nadal's half.
As long as Fred, Noel and Ralph are around, I can't see Murray winning a slam.
They've both got an equally as good chance.
I can't see Fed losing to anyone except Nadal (IF he keeps his RG form going)and Murray will have to overcome his nerves and pressure for the first time in a major, unfortunately this major brings the most pressure to him of them all, so to overcome that will be a huge task for him. If he can, he's capable of beating anyone as well.
Djoker has a pretty good chance as well, it took a massive effort from Fed to give Djoker his first loss and only loss for the year but there will be question marks over his ability to keep that form on grass which has been a tough surface on his game.
Then there's Rafa who most people would back to beat anyone of the other top 4 players but could be susceptible to losing or being pushed by a big server. The problem for Rafa is to play without pressure and hit freely. If winning RG has taken the pressure off him like he said it did, then he'll most likely win unless Fed turns back the clock or Djoker finds his feet and best form on the grass.
You could've said the same thing going into the US Open 2009, but look who won that?
Sharpshooter, I totally agree with your post. I think Murray's Queens win will give him a slight mental boost in being able to get the win under similar British scrutiny. (How much it will benefit during Wimbledon, probably not much)
I think Murray can only win (or get to the final) of Wimbledon if he could beat Novak on the grass which I'm sure he could do. I'd love to see a Murray vs Federer final.
Although Nadal has not lost at Wimbledon since the 2007 final, he does seem beatable - Just look at the guys that have taken sets off him at Wimbledon last year: Soderling, Petzschner, Hasse, that was during his best form when he never lost once during clay swing.
Nadal's form this year is far from 2008/2010 best so Murray might stand a chance better than ever to beat him and get a Wimbledon win.
IMO from a Murray fan, it's now or never.
Not really. Rafa was awful after RG in 2009. Djoko wasnt having a great year, Delpo was on the rise. His making the final and winning was not that surprising.
I find it hard to rate Murray's chances of winning Wimby as higher than Roger's under any circumstances, so even though Roger's head to head with Rafa isn't great and Murray has a better grasscourt record than Novak - I'd still probably say Roger has the greater chance.
I do however accept your contention that Murray is approaching the 'now or never' point.
There are a lot of "floaters" at Wimbledon (probably more here than at any other major) who should worry the seeded players.
Yeah as I said Murray can beat anyone if he can get over his nerves and over come the pressure. He certainly has the talent and after Rafa, I'd love to see Murray win it too. I met him at the AO this year and he was kind enough to be the first player to sign the jumbo tennis balls my friends and I bought, so I got a bit of a soft spot for him.
If he can win Wimbledon, I reckon we'll see him come out of his shell in all majors and become more of a slam threat.
Completely disagree. There are fewer dangerous floaters at Wimbledon than at any other slam because there are fewer players who can compete on the surface. Big servers are often trotted out as being 'dangerous floaters' @ Wimby- in response, I offer Ivo Karlovic's Wimbledon record.
It's not just the big server aspect, you need to be a great athlete as well. Ivo is far from it, he is not mobile enough to do really well on grass. Martina Navratilova even said so, if anyone knows what it takes it's her. Athletecism is a key ingredient and I doubt there are many players that are more or equally as athletic as the top 4.
but guys like Isner - big serve, much better movement, and much improved return game.
Raonic is just not the serve, but has a great ground game.
The hardest Slam is usually the first Slam so you've got to say Federer has a bigger chance and if Federer shows the form we saw against Djokovic in the FO Semi then it's going to take someone playing lights out to beat him.
Murray is looking really good though so if the big four all find form then we could be in for some fantastic matches.
I accept that those two guys come under the banner of dangerous floaters for Wimby - my point is that there a fewer of them @ Wimby compared to any other slam.
Lots of Spaniards /South Americans come into that category for RG and there are numerous guys who play well on hards and could be considered a 'dangerous floater'.
Its not like Murray has it easier against Nadal or Joker than Fed has. In the last slam, Andy went down in straights whereas Fed got one set (almost 2 !).
I'd give Federer a slightly higher chance. However, let's see who reaches the final first !
Dull's not playing his best of late, Noel's just been beaten, lets see how he springs back. This could be Andy's chance, if he makes it to the semi. His ankle is still bothering him, right ?
Apparently not Senti - says it's almost 100% again - it certainly can't be used as an excuse.
Amen, but I'd say as long as Fred, OR Noel OR Ralph are around. Just one of them is plenty enough to stop him from ever winning.
Depends on the draw. Neither Fed or Murray can beat Nadal at Wimbledon. The only one who can beat Nadal right now is Djokovic. The only one who seems to be able to beat Djokovic is Fed. So, both Murray and Fed needs to hope they land in Djoker's hald (assuming he is 2nd seed) and hope that Nadal losses to another player.
I hope someone outside the top 4 wins Wimbledon then that would really screw your mind.
There is a world outside Freddy, Djoker, Nads and Murray you know.
What if Fred was the only one around and he lost to Berdych? Or Rafa was the only one around and he lost to Tsonga? Or if Novak was the only one around and he lost to Kohlschreiber?
Absolutist bollocks. On stilts.
Grandslam results almost for the last decade suggest otherwise.
There really isn't a world outside the top THREE.
There is just one 6ft 6in Argentinian alien and that's it.
Man that form is so freaking over rated. Yes it is a very high standard BUT Djoker wasn't playing his best (you have to admit his form tapered off during the FO) and still he should've won the first set (serving at 5-4) AND the 4th set (again serving at 5-4), so no it won't take someone to play lights out to beat him especially if he faces Nadal. Fed played at a much higher level in both Wim 06 and 07 than what he can possibly play now (according to all Fed fans) and still struggled to beat Nadal back then so I'd say he'll have a very tough time against him this time. Not saying he CAN'T win, but it would have to be flawless tennis from start to finish because as we've seen Nadal is too good to give chances to, you cannot drop off for a moment otherwise he pounces like no other.
Nadal will also not play as conservative as he does at RG, he will go for more and that has proved to be a sound strategy for him ever since he fell two sets to love down against IIRC Robbie Kendrick in the 06 tournament. This will limit Fed's chances to take the initiative during rallies. The slice serve out wide also makes it very difficult for Fed to earn points against because his BH simply cannot handle it. We saw this during the 08 final where Fed could only manage to break Rafa once in almost 5 hours. Fed's best chance is if someone takes Nadal out.
But wouldn't it be great for tennis if a new unexpected face won Wimbledon.
A Tsonga or a Ferrer or a Soderling or a Gasquet.
And there is a massive world outside the top 3.
It's very disrespectful to the efforts and talents of all other players and their parents, friends and coaches to say this.
There are literally thousands of very talented, hard working players struggling to break through and all you can see is the top three.
That's just absurd. The whole reasoning is absolutely childish and based on recent past.
If Murray had not choked in Roma against Djokovic when he served for the match, would you give him a chance against Djokovic? If Nadal had won the TB in Miami, would you give him a chance?
If Federer did not draw Djokovic at RG you would give him 0 chance against Djokovic because he lost 3 times this year against him.
Hmmm lets see pick between:
A. 7 time Wimbledon finalist and 6 time champion who also happens to be the all time GS title holder
B. 0 time Wimbledon finalist and 3 time slam finalist who has been given a beat down on each occasion.
I will pick A.
So you too think Roger has more chance of beating Rafa at Wimby than Murray has of beating Novak?
Separate names with a comma.