merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Interestingly enough, the last ATG's to dominate the game before the current crop of players were all 'gifted' a slam (with a draw that totally disintegrated before they had to play it) at the tail end of their respective careers.
* Lendl got AO '90, his very last slam win, with Cherkasov in QF, Noah in SF, and a retirement from Edberg in the final.
* Agassi got AO '03, also his last slam win, in which he played Grosjean, Ferreira, and Schuettler in QF, SF, and F.
* Sampras got his at Wimby '00, with his infamous draw from cakeland (not a single top 20 in sight): Gambill in QF, Voltchkov in SF, and Rafter (then ranked 21) in the final. After that, he got one last win, at his home slam, USO 2002.
* Nadal got the cakewalkiest draw ever at USO 2017, with Rublev, Del Potro, and Anderson in the last three rounds. Then, he won one more at his 'home' slam, RG 2018.
Now, as we can see, the last two guys to win 8 slams were essentially 'gifted' the last one, while Sampras, who is in the 10+ slams bracket, got gifted his next-to-last. Nadal is also a 10+ slam winner. Does this mean that he was also gifted his next-to-last slam (which would mean he won't win anymore)? Or can we imagine that, as a 15+ slam winner, he gets *two* slams after his gimme, which would mean another one to come? If asked, I would pick the second option, ie one more to come (FO 2019 seems the most logical pick).
(Of course, if the series hold and Federer gets *three* slams after his gimme (as a 20+ slam winner), that would mean he isn't through winning by a long shot, as he hasn't had said gimme yet (although he got an injured Cilic in the Wimby 2017 final, the rest of his draw from QF on (Raonic and Berdych) was perfectly normal, and could actually be argued to have been on the tough side considering their ranking and ability on grass). Still, even should this one be considered as an 'easy' win, that would mean two more to come, including at least one at his 'home' slam, ie Wimby.)
So, either one or zero more slams for Nadal, and either two or four+ for Federer should the series hold.
Discuss.
* Lendl got AO '90, his very last slam win, with Cherkasov in QF, Noah in SF, and a retirement from Edberg in the final.
* Agassi got AO '03, also his last slam win, in which he played Grosjean, Ferreira, and Schuettler in QF, SF, and F.
* Sampras got his at Wimby '00, with his infamous draw from cakeland (not a single top 20 in sight): Gambill in QF, Voltchkov in SF, and Rafter (then ranked 21) in the final. After that, he got one last win, at his home slam, USO 2002.
* Nadal got the cakewalkiest draw ever at USO 2017, with Rublev, Del Potro, and Anderson in the last three rounds. Then, he won one more at his 'home' slam, RG 2018.
Now, as we can see, the last two guys to win 8 slams were essentially 'gifted' the last one, while Sampras, who is in the 10+ slams bracket, got gifted his next-to-last. Nadal is also a 10+ slam winner. Does this mean that he was also gifted his next-to-last slam (which would mean he won't win anymore)? Or can we imagine that, as a 15+ slam winner, he gets *two* slams after his gimme, which would mean another one to come? If asked, I would pick the second option, ie one more to come (FO 2019 seems the most logical pick).
(Of course, if the series hold and Federer gets *three* slams after his gimme (as a 20+ slam winner), that would mean he isn't through winning by a long shot, as he hasn't had said gimme yet (although he got an injured Cilic in the Wimby 2017 final, the rest of his draw from QF on (Raonic and Berdych) was perfectly normal, and could actually be argued to have been on the tough side considering their ranking and ability on grass). Still, even should this one be considered as an 'easy' win, that would mean two more to come, including at least one at his 'home' slam, ie Wimby.)
So, either one or zero more slams for Nadal, and either two or four+ for Federer should the series hold.
Discuss.