Odds for 2016 Slam wins

[helterskelter]

Here are Stan James's tennis specials for 2016:

Number of Slam wins:

Novak Djokovic: 0 = 7/1; 1 = 11/5; 2 = 13/8; 3 = 7/2; 4 = 9/1

Andy Murray: 0 = 4/6; 1 = 6/4; 2 = 8/1; 3 = 40/1; 4 = 250/1

Roger Federer: 0 = 1/3; 1 = 2/1; 2 = 20/1; 3 = 100/1; 4 = 400/1

Rafael Nadal: identical odds to Federer, except 22/1 for two Slam wins.

In percentage terms, and not factoring in their profit margin, it means they think there's a 75% chance that each of Federer and Nadal will go Slamless [and so a 50% chance that both will go Slamless], a 60% chance that Murray will go Slamless, and a 12.5% chance that Djokovic will go Slamless.

They think it is marginally more likely that Djokovic will win two Slams than that he will win just one, but much more likely that he'll win one than that he'll win three.

Djokovic's chances for the Grand Slam are 10%. (Incidentally, they are being very, very generous there so as to avoid massive payouts on the off chance it actually happens. If you calculate his chances based on the odds they give him at each of the Slams, it comes out to much less than 10%, although it's impossible to calculate precisely right now, because they've taken down their US Open odds for the moment. A while ago, after the US Open, they gave him something like a 2.5% chance of the Slam, but after he swept the post-US Open series, they increased his chances at each Slam, so it might be more in the region of 4-5% now. It's not 10%, though).

 

[Jokervich]

Murray has more of a chance of winning 1 slam than Federer does? LOL

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Murray has more of a chance of winning 1 slam than Federer does? LOL

Sounds about right. Anyway neither of them are gonna win. Djoko will get all 4. Zzzzz

 

[SublimeTennis]

Here are Stan James's tennis specials for 2016:

Number of Slam wins:

Novak Djokovic: 0 = 7/1; 1 = 11/5; 2 = 13/8; 3 = 7/2; 4 = 9/1

Andy Murray: 0 = 4/6; 1 = 6/4; 2 = 8/1; 3 = 40/1; 4 = 250/1

Roger Federer: 0 = 1/3; 1 = 2/1; 2 = 20/1; 3 = 100/1; 4 = 400/1

Rafael Nadal: identical odds to Federer, except 22/1 for two Slam wins.

In percentage terms, and not factoring in their profit margin, it means they think there's a 75% chance that each of Federer and Nadal will go Slamless [and so a 50% chance that both will go Slamless], a 60% chance that Murray will go Slamless, and a 12.5% chance that Djokovic will go Slamless.

They think it is marginally more likely that Djokovic will win two Slams than that he will win just one, but much more likely that he'll win one than that he'll win three.

Djokovic's chances for the Grand Slam are 10%. (Incidentally, they are being very, very generous there so as to avoid massive payouts on the off chance it actually happens. If you calculate his chances based on the odds they give him at each of the Slams, it comes out to much less than 10%, although it's impossible to calculate precisely right now, because they've taken down their US Open odds for the moment. A while ago, after the US Open, they gave him something like a 2.5% chance of the Slam, but after he swept the post-US Open series, they increased his chances at each Slam, so it might be more in the region of 4-5% now. It's not 10%, though).

Here is my prediction;

AO: Djokovich
FO: Nadal or Djokovich
WB: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray
US OPEN: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray

 

[CYGS]

Here is my prediction;

AO: Djokovich
FO: Nadal or Djokovich
WB: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray
US OPEN: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray

Bet your house on it. EASY.

 

[dr325i]

Here is my prediction;

AO: Djokovich
FO: Nadal or Djokovich
WB: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray
US OPEN: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray

Federer "easy" - lol, another "realistic" fan.
Who is Djokovich?

 

[helterskelter]

Here is my prediction;

AO: Djokovich
FO: Nadal or Djokovich
WB: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray
US OPEN: "IF" Federer doesn't freeze with fear like this year, Fed EASY. If not Djokovich or Murray

Djokovic is strong favorite for all four Slams next year. He's still very unlikely to win more than two of them.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Odds overrating Murray's chances as usual. Nothing new here. I expect bookies to put him as second favorite for next 3/4 Slams at least.

What about Wawrinka's odds?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Would be nice if they all went slamless imo.
If you told me in 2009 that in 2016 we'd still be talking about no one else having a chance for slams besides the big 4, I'd ask for your dealers #.

 

[SublimeTennis]

Federer "easy" - lol, another "realistic" fan.
Who is Djokovich?

No man, read what I wrote, IF FEDERER DOESN'T FREEZE. I still say, and I am a realist, I know on slow courts Djokovic is the favorite, no question, but I ask you to watch the Semi's of Wimbledon against Murray, IMO either would have best Djokovic in the final, its the best I've ever seen Murray and Fed play, just watch it, as Mac said "This is like watching a highlight reel", but then in the final, look at the facial muscles of Fed, all tight, nervous and he STAYS BACK, of course he's going to lose, the entire tournament he's aggressive, the final he chokes, moves back, no one out baselines Djokovic, but that's what people do when they get nervous, it's a "safe" place, same with US Open.

 

[GabeT]

Would be nice if they all went slamless imo.
If you told me in 2009 that in 2016 we'd still be talking about no one else having a chance for slams besides the big 4, I'd ask for your dealers #.

I wonder about that. A world without clear favorites, isn't that less interesting?

 

[Cenarius]

AO: Djokovic/Wawrinka
FO: Djokovic/Wawrinka
W: Murray/Djokovic
UO: Djokovic/Murray

First and second favorites.Federer and Nadal are done playing slam finals.Early and mid 90's players won't be playing slam finals in 2016.

 

[xan]

No man, read what I wrote, IF FEDERER DOESN'T FREEZE. I still say, and I am a realist, I know on slow courts Djokovic is the favorite, no question, but I ask you to watch the Semi's of Wimbledon against Murray, IMO either would have best Djokovic in the final, its the best I've ever seen Murray and Fed play, just watch it, as Mac said "This is like watching a highlight reel", but then in the final, look at the facial muscles of Fed, all tight, nervous and he STAYS BACK, of course he's going to lose, the entire tournament he's aggressive, the final he chokes, moves back, no one out baselines Djokovic, but that's what people do when they get nervous, it's a "safe" place, same with US Open.

How fed and murray played against eachother has no relevance as to how they would play against djoker. Apples and oranges, just sayin.

 

[dr325i]

No man, read what I wrote, IF FEDERER DOESN'T FREEZE. I still say, and I am a realist, I know on slow courts Djokovic is the favorite, no question, but I ask you to watch the Semi's of Wimbledon against Murray, IMO either would have best Djokovic in the final, its the best I've ever seen Murray and Fed play, just watch it, as Mac said "This is like watching a highlight reel", but then in the final, look at the facial muscles of Fed, all tight, nervous and he STAYS BACK, of course he's going to lose, the entire tournament he's aggressive, the final he chokes, moves back, no one out baselines Djokovic, but that's what people do when they get nervous, it's a "safe" place, same with US Open.

You are not realistic. The only way for Federer to beat Novak in a slam (SF or F) is 3:0. And that is not likely. Anything longer than 3 sets, Federer runs out of steam and favors Novak.
Federer beating others with ease has nothing to do with him choking in every final against Novak. I don't think he choked 21 times against Nadal either.

 

[dr325i]

How fed and murray played against eachother has no relevance as to how they would play against djoker. Apples and oranges, just sayin.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[MichaelNadal]

I wonder about that. A world without clear favorites, isn't that less interesting?

How do you get a job where you need experience with no experience? No one can become a favorite if they never step up, it's been too long waiting for the new gen to do that.

 

[SublimeTennis]

You are not realistic. The only way for Federer to beat Novak in a slam (SF or F) is 3:0. And that is not likely. Anything longer than 3 sets, Federer runs out of steam and favors Novak.
Federer beating others with ease has nothing to do with him choking in every final against Novak. I don't think he choked 21 times against Nadal either.

You know everyone says that, but we haven't seen that, he was strong in what 14 wimby final in the 3rd, didn't tire in the 4th, same with this year, it might be true, but we haven't seen it.

And I dare you to watch that Semi, look I'm not a Federer freak fan who thinks he can do no wrong, but many agree with me, you cannot doubt that Fed stayed back in the finals, yet was aggressive and effective through both tournaments, only answer as with anyone who is aggressive but stays back, they panic, all of my friends who watched that said the same thing. Djokovic was beatable, Fed froze.

 

[SublimeTennis]

You are not realistic. The only way for Federer to beat Novak in a slam (SF or F) is 3:0. And that is not likely. Anything longer than 3 sets, Federer runs out of steam and favors Novak.
Federer beating others with ease has nothing to do with him choking in every final against Novak. I don't think he choked 21 times against Nadal either.

You know everyone says that, but we haven't seen that, he was strong in what 14 wimby final in the 3rd, didn't tire in the 4th, same with this year, it might be true, but we haven't seen it.

And I dare you to watch that Semi, look I'm not a Federer freak fan who thinks he can do no wrong, but many agree with me, you cannot doubt that Fed stayed back in the finals, yet was aggressive and effective through both tournaments, only answer as with anyone who is aggressive but stays back, they panic, all of my friends who watched that said the same thing. Djokovic was beatable, Fed froze.

 

[mattosgrant]

Murray has more of a chance of winning 1 slam than Federer does? LOL

It isnt shocking. Federer isnt getting younger. It will be hard for him to even mantain his 2014/2015 level much longer, let alone improve it. Murray also has a better shot at the Australian and French Opens right now (even though still very unlikely to win the French). Wimbledon and U.S Open for now might seem like Federer, but not sure if it would be that way 8-10 months into the future given Federer's age challenges, and that Murray can probably only improve slightly from here.

 

[xan]

You know everyone says that, but we haven't seen that, he was strong in what 14 wimby final in the 3rd, didn't tire in the 4th, same with this year, it might be true, but we haven't seen it.

And I dare you to watch that Semi, look I'm not a Federer freak fan who thinks he can do no wrong, but many agree with me, you cannot doubt that Fed stayed back in the finals, yet was aggressive and effective through both tournaments, only answer as with anyone who is aggressive but stays back, they panic, all of my friends who watched that said the same thing. Djokovic was beatable, Fed froze.

Again it wouldnt matter. Allow me to explain.
When Stan won against Novak this year at rg he knew Novak was the better player (overall). He is better and in order to beat him i have to go all out and hope i catch fire.
Which is what essentially happened.
Meanwhile with Fed he is more decorated of the two. He knows Novak is better than him this year but doesnt truly admit to what extent. When asked previously he thinks Novak isnt that far off. That far off. In a year where Novak absolutely crushed tennis breaking records along the way with almost twice as many points as 2nd player, Roger thinks he isnt that far off.
His prerogative. Which is what will be his undoing imo. You see Roger, being the player he is and winning all that he had, is very stubborn when it comes to preparing for matches. One only needs to look at Nadal example. He can play against Murray however he wants (he is/was better). But with all due respect to Andy, Novak is a different beast.

He already said he doesnt care much about wtf, and he thinks Novak isnt that far off. He is already setting himself in a trap. Comes final he will try to outplay Novak with his usual game just to find usual doesnt cut it anymore. Not on this court. Not against that player. Better chance has someone who knows novak is a better and has to play lights out with nothing to lose. Fed, thanks to his accolades and mindset, wont ever have the same approach.

Kudos to him for actually beating Novak this year, but what does he have to show up for it? A cincy title? Doubt a player of Feds caliber with his resume can be content with that. He has to prepare for Novak and how he plays against others is irrelevant because no one is as good as Novak is today. And that means actually admitting to himself Djokovic is far off and that he has to play super aggressive A game like theres nothing to lose. If he hopes Novak level will drop or that he will get 75% serves in, good luck with that.
Hope is not a plan.

 

[SublimeTennis]

Again it wouldnt matter. Allow me to explain.
When Stan won against Novak this year at rg he knew Novak was the better player (overall). He is better and in order to beat him i have to go all out and hope i catch fire.
Which is what essentially happened.
Meanwhile with Fed he is more decorated of the two. He knows Novak is better than him this year but doesnt truly admit to what extent. When asked previously he thinks Novak isnt that far off. That far off. In a year where Novak absolutely crushed tennis breaking records along the way with almost twice as many points as 2nd player, Roger thinks he isnt that far off.
His prerogative. Which is what will be his undoing imo. You see Roger, being the player he is and winning all that he had, is very stubborn when it comes to preparing for matches. One only needs to look at Nadal example. He can play against Murray however he wants (he is/was better). But with all due respect to Andy, Novak is a different beast.

He already said he doesnt care much about wtf, and he thinks Novak isnt that far off. He is already setting himself in a trap. Comes final he will try to outplay Novak with his usual game just to find usual doesnt cut it anymore. Not on this court. Not against that player. Better chance has someone who knows novak is a better and has to play lights out with nothing to lose. Fed, thanks to his accolades and mindset, wont ever have the same approach.

Kudos to him for actually beating Novak this year, but what does he have to show up for it? A cincy title? Doubt a player of Feds caliber with his resume can be content with that. He has to prepare for Novak and how he plays against others is irrelevant because no one is as good as Novak is today. And that means actually admitting to himself Djokovic is far off and that he has to play super aggressive A game like theres nothing to lose. If he hopes Novak level will drop or that he will get 75% serves in, good luck with that.
Hope is not a plan.

Having a little trouble following you here brother. I agree with you 100% Fed is stubborn in a bad way, last years Semi's against Cilic he played in close, Federer, tactically is not the greatest, I've heard many say that, that he's an extremelly talented front running whose not the best on tactics. When you have a in zone Cilic killing shots from the baseline, you don't play in close, Fed was getting massacred, but if he played back in that case, he could have moved Cilic around, wore him out, outplayed him. One thing I've noticed about people on this forum, not you per se, is people don't understand or care about strategy, and if you say something about Fed everyone jumps on you, for example the cardinal rule when coming forward is only do it when your opponent is out of position, I'd see Fed hit a regular shot to Djokovic backhand, run straight to the net and wonder why he got passed.

The two 90's fast courts left, Dubai and Cincy, Fed toyed with Djokovic, that's how much better he is on fast courts, you know what, I'm not even talking to anyone unless they are smart enough to bring in court speed to the conversation, is Nadal a favorite on slow clay? Of course, is there a REASON for that? Likewise is Federer a favorite on 90's fast courts? Of course, is there a reason for that.

The fact remains that on slow courts, which is 99.9% of all courts, Djokovic is a BEAST, he doesn't get enough credit because some don't like him or his playing style, again he's the Larry Holmes to Muhammad Ali, but there is no question, I don't care if it's 5 setter GS or 3 sets, if for ONE YEAR they sped the courts up to 90's and previous speed, Fed would win all 4 GS's, no realistic fan doubts that, but the courts aren't fast, they are slow, so it's always going to favor Djokovic.

So sorry for rambling, couldn't make out your point, could be because I'm sick.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

No man, read what I wrote, IF FEDERER DOESN'T FREEZE. I still say, and I am a realist, I know on slow courts Djokovic is the favorite, no question, but I ask you to watch the Semi's of Wimbledon against Murray, IMO either would have best Djokovic in the final, its the best I've ever seen Murray and Fed play, just watch it, as Mac said "This is like watching a highlight reel", but then in the final, look at the facial muscles of Fed, all tight, nervous and he STAYS BACK, of course he's going to lose, the entire tournament he's aggressive, the final he chokes, moves back, no one out baselines Djokovic, but that's what people do when they get nervous, it's a "safe" place, same with US Open.

Haha so what you saying is Djokovic is a better big match player and mentally owns fed haha

 

[xan]

Having a little trouble following you here brother. I agree with you 100% Fed is stubborn in a bad way, last years Semi's against Cilic he played in close, Federer, tactically is not the greatest, I've heard many say that, that he's an extremelly talented front running whose not the best on tactics. When you have a in zone Cilic killing shots from the baseline, you don't play in close, Fed was getting massacred, but if he played back in that case, he could have moved Cilic around, wore him out, outplayed him. One thing I've noticed about people on this forum, not you per se, is people don't understand or care about strategy, and if you say something about Fed everyone jumps on you, for example the cardinal rule when coming forward is only do it when your opponent is out of position, I'd see Fed hit a regular shot to Djokovic backhand, run straight to the net and wonder why he got passed.

The two 90's fast courts left, Dubai and Cincy, Fed toyed with Djokovic, that's how much better he is on fast courts, you know what, I'm not even talking to anyone unless they are smart enough to bring in court speed to the conversation, is Nadal a favorite on slow clay? Of course, is there a REASON for that? Likewise is Federer a favorite on 90's fast courts? Of course, is there a reason for that.

The fact remains that on slow courts, which is 99.9% of all courts, Djokovic is a BEAST, he doesn't get enough credit because some don't like him or his playing style, again he's the Larry Holmes to Muhammad Ali, but there is no question, I don't care if it's 5 setter GS or 3 sets, if for ONE YEAR they sped the courts up to 90's and previous speed, Fed would win all 4 GS's, no realistic fan doubts that, but the courts aren't fast, they are slow, so it's always going to favor Djokovic.

So sorry for rambling, couldn't make out your point, could be because I'm sick.

Im not sure this version of federer would win all 4 if they sped up courts. Also dont know if clay was faster but by default clay should be slow.
Also people would adjust to fast courts. As we gamers like to say, meta would change.

 

[SublimeTennis]

Haha so what you saying is Djokovic is a better big match player and mentally owns fed haha

Yea, that's what I'm saying, he's a better big match player, Fed has froze last two finals, watch all of his matches up to the final. Fed used to have ice in his veins, some lose speed, power, whatever with age, I think Fed's lost nerve, what pressure to think "I win this I'm at 18", before he just blew through everyone, it's rare these days for Fed to win a GS, but rediculous, the big "Ifs", "If" he would have stayed back against Cilic, would have got most likely Nishikori in the finals, "IF" he hadn't lost his nerve, well let me say this in fairness, Djokovic could have still got him, but Fed had NO CHANCE staying back.

 

[SublimeTennis]

Im not sure this version of federer would win all 4 if they sped up courts. Also dont know if clay was faster but by default clay should be slow.
Also people would adjust to fast courts. As we gamers like to say, meta would change.

No brother PLEASE look up the topic, we had a huge thread on here once, finally EVERYONE agreed with me, no question, I mean aside from having a bad day, etc. if the courts were like they were pre-2000ish, Fed would be way over 20GS's, no question, zero doubt, the slow courts favor the baseliners and hurt aggressive players, this is Tennis 101

 

[xan]

No brother PLEASE look up the topic, we had a huge thread on here once, finally EVERYONE agreed with me, no question, I mean aside from having a bad day, etc. if the courts were like they were pre-2000ish, Fed would be way over 20GS's, no question, zero doubt, the slow courts favor the baseliners and hurt aggressive players, this is Tennis 101

i dont know what thread you're talking about, and its likely been lost with forum overhaul.
If courts were all fast people would adjust to it again.
novak was way more aggressive in 2008 for example than he is now. but he had to adjust to conditions. just like him others would have to adjust to faster era.
also i dont favor fed at rg over others at any court speed.

 

[CYGS]

No brother PLEASE look up the topic, we had a huge thread on here once, finally EVERYONE agreed with me, no question, I mean aside from having a bad day, etc. if the courts were like they were pre-2000ish, Fed would be way over 20GS's, no question, zero doubt, the slow courts favor the baseliners and hurt aggressive players, this is Tennis 101

LIAR. There's no thread here in which EVERYONE can agree to anything. Next try.

 

[SublimeTennis]

i dont know what thread you're talking about, and its likely been lost with forum overhaul.
If courts were all fast people would adjust to it again.
novak was way more aggressive in 2008 for example than he is now. but he had to adjust to conditions. just like him others would have to adjust to faster era.
also i dont favor fed at rg over others at any court speed.

Courts were a crawl in 2008. Look friend if it's just Novak can't do any wrong, keep it to yourself, court speeds have slowed, everyone except you evidently know that, and it hugely favors baseliners, this is Tennis 101

 

[SublimeTennis]

LIAR. There's no thread here in which EVERYONE can agree to anything. Next try.

Whenever you see someone with a long ignore list you know they are trouble. "Liar", classy. Clearly I didn't mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON, but if you don't know court speeds affect play in a huge way you don't have a clue, and if no clue let the big boys debate.

 

[CYGS]

Whenever you see someone with a long ignore list you know they are trouble. "Liar", classy. Clearly I didn't mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON, but if you don't know court speeds affect play in a huge way you don't have a clue, and if no clue let the big boys debate.

So you admit you're a liar, which proves my point. Case closed.

 

[NoleFam]

Having a little trouble following you here brother. I agree with you 100% Fed is stubborn in a bad way, last years Semi's against Cilic he played in close, Federer, tactically is not the greatest, I've heard many say that, that he's an extremelly talented front running whose not the best on tactics. When you have a in zone Cilic killing shots from the baseline, you don't play in close, Fed was getting massacred, but if he played back in that case, he could have moved Cilic around, wore him out, outplayed him. One thing I've noticed about people on this forum, not you per se, is people don't understand or care about strategy, and if you say something about Fed everyone jumps on you, for example the cardinal rule when coming forward is only do it when your opponent is out of position, I'd see Fed hit a regular shot to Djokovic backhand, run straight to the net and wonder why he got passed.

The two 90's fast courts left, Dubai and Cincy, Fed toyed with Djokovic, that's how much better he is on fast courts, you know what, I'm not even talking to anyone unless they are smart enough to bring in court speed to the conversation, is Nadal a favorite on slow clay? Of course, is there a REASON for that? Likewise is Federer a favorite on 90's fast courts? Of course, is there a reason for that.

The fact remains that on slow courts, which is 99.9% of all courts, Djokovic is a BEAST, he doesn't get enough credit because some don't like him or his playing style, again he's the Larry Holmes to Muhammad Ali, but there is no question, I don't care if it's 5 setter GS or 3 sets, if for ONE YEAR they sped the courts up to 90's and previous speed, Fed would win all 4 GS's, no realistic fan doubts that, but the courts aren't fast, they are slow, so it's always going to favor Djokovic.

So sorry for rambling, couldn't make out your point, could be because I'm sick.

Why are you talking about 90's courts when it's 2015? Federer is of this era and won his Slams in this era not the 90's era. He won many Slams on the slowed down courts of Wimbledon and the Australian Open so I don't understand the logic that he needs faster courts to win. No he would most likely need faster courts to have a better chance at winning against Djokovic. I also have no idea why you think Federer would win RG with Nadal still lurking along with Wawrinka and Djokovic. Clay is clay and there is not much difference in speed from this era to the last. Also, the Dubai and Cincinatti wins are great but you're asking Federer to win a best of 5 on a faster court against Djokovic? I still like Djokovic's chances as the US Open is still a medium fast court and Djokovic has beaten him 3 times there. Djokovic is not a slouch on faster courts either as he's won Dubai, Shanghai, etc. Federer is a great player, no doubt, but I still think you are making the mistake many make in underestimating Djokovic's guile on any surface.

 

[FedTheMan]

I have it as:
AO: Djokovic (75%), Stan and Murray (10%), Nadal (10%), Fed and others (5%)
FO: Djokovic (45%), Nadal (40%), Stan and Murray (10%), Fed and others (5%)
W: Djokovic (40%), Fed (25%), Murray (20%), Nadal and others (15%)
USO: Djokovic (35%), Nadal (20%), Murray (20%), Fed (20%), others (5%)

I think Djokovic will win 2 slams. I hope Fed wins W and calls it a day. I have a feeling either Nadal or Murray will win a slam again and I'm going with Nadal. The W and USO are going to be the most open.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Novak at 9/1 for all 4 seems stingy.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Murray has to rely on avoiding Djokovic or Federer to win a slam next year.

 

[xan]

Why are you talking about 90's courts when it's 2015? Federer is of this era and won his Slams in this era not the 90's era. He won many Slams on the slowed down courts of Wimbledon and the Australian Open so I don't understand the logic that he needs faster courts to win. No he would most likely need faster courts to have a better chance at winning against Djokovic. I also have no idea why you think Federer would win RG with Nadal still lurking along with Wawrinka and Djokovic. Clay is clay and there is not much difference in speed from this era to the last.

This. Doesnt matter what clay we are talking about, clay is clay. There is no way everyone would agree in any thread what so ever that fed would have won all 4 (precisely rg) if they were all brought up to speed.
I mean you evidently know what you were talking about, feel free to link so called thread.

Edit: so apparently not everyone (which you put emphasis on when you caps it)
Point being if we were in a faster era players would change, so called baseliners of today would adjust to faster tennis. No one was born a grinder, its what tennis court dictated and its the route most took in order to be successful.

 

[Dark Magician]

AO Stanimal/Murray
FO Djokovic
W Murray/Federer
USO Djokovic/Surprise winner

 

[SublimeTennis]

Why are you talking about 90's courts when it's 2015? Federer is of this era and won his Slams in this era not the 90's era. He won many Slams on the slowed down courts of Wimbledon and the Australian Open so I don't understand the logic that he needs faster courts to win. No he would most likely need faster courts to have a better chance at winning against Djokovic. I also have no idea why you think Federer would win RG with Nadal still lurking along with Wawrinka and Djokovic. Clay is clay and there is not much difference in speed from this era to the last. Also, the Dubai and Cincinatti wins are great but you're asking Federer to win a best of 5 on a faster court against Djokovic? I still like Djokovic's chances as the US Open is still a medium fast court and Djokovic has beaten him 3 times there. Djokovic is not a slouch on faster courts either as he's won Dubai, Shanghai, etc. Federer is a great player, no doubt, but I still think you are making the mistake many make in underestimating Djokovic's guile on any surface.

Thanks for your question, you are a very polite person and I enjoy people like you, you have legitimate questions and don't just try to make others feel bad.

So the reason why everyone talks about court speed is for various reasons, IE how could a slow court player like Nadal or Djokovic fare against fast courts players all pre-2000ish, is for example Federer MUCH better than these guys, but suffers from slow court speed, how many of us miss net play, strategy over pure physicality, court speed is a huge but many times on this forum overlooked. It's just a very important and interesting topic.

You are correct that "Love the one you are with", that is it's 2015, courts are slow, deal with it, but many are lobbying for half season slow courts, for example the first half of the year, then the second half pre-2000 fast courts, the reason being well mainly for Fed as he's such an icon, it would hurt slow court players and allow fast court players to win GS's and other titles. Many Federer fans are upset that they slowed down the courts so dramatically, hurting their favorite player, like Fed or not you must admit he has rabid fans and has been great for tennis.

I don't think I'm underestimating Djokovic's ability of fast courts, everytime you see Fed against him on a fast court, Dubai (Which I think they did for Federer, and Cincy), watch those matches, they aren't close. Many feel that Djokovic, Nadal, while AMAZING slow court players are ONLY THAT, and are the biggest beneficiaries of the new slow courts, remember this is a new phenomenon, throughout tennis history it's been fast courts. Look at it in reverse, Sampras, no one doubts how great he was, but he couldn't do anything on clay, why? Because of clay? No, because it's a slow court, when I say that you wouldn't have heard of Djokovic in the 90's, I don't believe you would hear of Sampras on modern slow courts. It's like all courts today are as slow as 90's clay, I've read in various places that today's Wimbledon is as slow as 90's clay, and yes they have slowed the clay also with larger particles.

So it's a huge issue, do you want tennis to be only physical, IOW who can stay back and withstand 30 shot rallies over and over, instead of seeing who makes more winners, instead see who makes more errors? No net play? I haven't found one person who doesn't agree that it's only fair to have half season slow, half fast, because Djokovic WILL dominate, the only person who will consistently beat him is not talented players, but guys who are in insane shape, can concentrate, can hit less errors, oh how I miss the days of the classic set ups, the serve and volleyer vs the baseliner, IE Mac vs Borg, Sampras vs Agassi, so you should join us friend in lobbying for half and half, if you don't like aggressive play, oh well I'm sure you are a gracious person and would be glad that we like to see ALL of tennis played, not just baseline play

One last thing, I realize everyone says that Fed is at a disadvantage in a 5 setter, but have we seen any evidence of this? The assumption is at 34 he doesn't have the stamina, I actually think he does, for they are making an assumption without evidence, where have we seen him worn out in the 4th and 5th sets? I could be wrong on that though, but if they made the last half fast, 90's fast, you'd see Fed likely to bring in Wimby and US Open, as well as more masters titles, it just seems like he doesn't have a chance, and this is not about Fed alone, many players would start winning titles or finals with fast courts. It would also increase viewership, ever notice that highlight reels rarely show long rallies, but instead feature net play, drop shots, exciting tennis, it's just fare to split it up.

Lastly, not saying you, but some only talk about these things in relation to their players that they like, they think we are attacking the baseliners, look IMO Nadal is the greatest modern slow court player, not of all time of course because all time implies ALL TIME, 90's, 80's, 70's, etc. Even better than Fed, but Fed is a better all around player.

The reason they slow down the courts is obvious, increased ad revenue. A sponsor gets to see his ads many more times over a 4 hour match than he does over a 2 hour match, I'm in business, trust me this is the reason, but it will backfire on the sport of tennis because they is just a huge contingent of fans who want to see traditional tennis.

Thanks

 

[GabeT]

...
The two 90's fast courts left, Dubai and Cincy, Fed toyed with Djokovic, that's how much better he is on fast courts, you know what, I'm not even talking to anyone unless they are smart enough to bring in court speed to the conversation, is Nadal a favorite on slow clay? Of course, is there a REASON for that? Likewise is Federer a favorite on 90's fast courts? Of course, is there a reason for that.

The fact remains that on slow courts, which is 99.9% of all courts, Djokovic is a BEAST, he doesn't get enough credit because some don't like him or his playing style, again he's the Larry Holmes to Muhammad Ali, but there is no question, I don't care if it's 5 setter GS or 3 sets, if for ONE YEAR they sped the courts up to 90's and previous speed, Fed would win all 4 GS's, no realistic fan doubts that, but the courts aren't fast, they are slow, so it's always going to favor Djokovic.

So sorry for rambling, couldn't make out your point, could be because I'm sick.

And if all courts were slow and Federer had peaked at the same time Nole did, maybe Federer would have never won a single Slam.

The point is that who wins or loses depends a lot on conditions, such as surface played, that players can't control. That's why weak era arguments are so dumb. There is no weak era. Each era is simply different. And there is no way to compare players across time because conditions change.

 

[tennisaddict]

This should be the answer . 1 major each

AO - Shokovich
FO - King Rafa
Wimb - Fed
USO - Murray