Predict remaining slam winners of 2010

The tennis guy said:
Maybe US open was played in US, and Agassi got unprecendent support from the crowds.
Click to expand...

Still,we are talking about a old man and Fed was getting into jesus mode(2004-2006 is his prime according to most federer fans) at that time,getting better and better. Fed needed five sets to put him away in 2004 and the old man still managed to take a set in 2005(and one of the other sets was a tiebreaker which again is impressive for that age).
 
iamke55 said:
Amazing how few people are predicting Nadal to win the FO.
Click to expand...

It is because his situation is uncertain. If healthy he is the nr.1 clay player by a large margin but can he stay healthy? This is even without mentioning his lack of confidence or the fact that there a lot of good young claycourter like delpo and djoker who can challenge him not to mention a completely presure free federer.
 
FO is wide open for at least 5 guys now that rafa's situation is unclear......but don't write him of yet...he is still the best on clay.
Still....imo...Djoko takes this FO....gut feeling :D
 
FlamEnemY said:
Pick me, pick me!...

Anyone who thinks onesided domination is a good thing is very wrong. I personally want to see players trying, playing their best, living up to the challenge that Federer is. And even though I dislike Murray's game, for example, it would have been ok with me if he won because that brings more drama, more excitement to the game. All credit to Fed if he wins the calendar slam. But I hope that at the very least he goes through hell to do that, being forced to give it all, everything that he has.
Click to expand...

+1. I don't like to see complete domination either. I personally liked it during 2008 when fed came to the USO having not won a slam, playing crap at the masters and then winning the tournament. Same goes for french open 2009. Those were exciting as fed fans. AO 2010 was great, but a part of me wanted murray to win. I certainly don't want fed to win all 4 slams. I want some of my other favorites as well.

and for the person who said most fed fans like fed because he is always winning, I disagree. perhaps some do, but those aren't real fans. I for one am a fan because of his beutiful game and i enjoy seeing him play
 
namelessone said:
My dad just called me up after the final and he is no way a Nadal fan,quite the contrary. His favourite player was borg so he watches tennis today without fandom(obviously while complaining about today's players and fearing that Nadal will pass him in RG) and even he thought that the final was a bit of a letdown and he hoped that the young andy would have pushed Fed more. But I guess my dad,as a neutral fan,is also a *******.

Also,a little exercise of logic:

Nadal dominated the FO for 4 years and many fans(fed fans usually but a lot of neutrals as well) were like "give it to him already,what's the point".
Take this domination,multiply by two surfaces(grass and HC) over a period of five years or so and you will see how neutral fans feel about Fed's domination,as they feel about ANY domination. I understood Fed dominating the field while he was trying to make a point. But if he dominates AFTER he has had his glory then a lot of fans will be put off. What's the point watching if the same guy wins and the young guns can't challenge him even when he turn 29 and has made history.
Click to expand...

Absolutely stupid post.
 
namelessone said:
This is just a defense mechanism because everyone that does not agree with your views is a *********. But whatever,I'm used to it by now.

Yes,I believe that there are more tennis fans than Federer fans but there are a lot of fans who don't dislike Fed but are fans of other players first and foremost.I am not talking about casual fans but more hardcore fans,if you will. I also believe tennis needs to draw in more viewers and domination,no matter the player dominating will decrease viewership.

Nadal's constant denial of RG and Fed's troubles with him in all these years are the reason tennis has stayed interesting.It is the reason why Fed's 2009 was so sweet for a lot of tennis fans,including fed fans. The Fed-Nadal rivalry has defined tennis for the last 5 years,for both casual and hardcore fans. Like I said,no Nadal and Federer wins EVERYTHING that matters,maybe giving a couple of masters to the other guys.

That is boring. And I think it would also be boring for some Fed fans. If Fed is a great champion,he needs to be challenged,right? Or did you like it better when he had no rivals?
Click to expand...
agree with the bolded. it definitely made it sweeter and more memorable for us fed fans imo.
 
namelessone said:
Still,we are talking about a old man and Fed was getting into jesus mode(2004-2006 is his prime according to most federer fans) at that time,getting better and better. Fed needed five sets to put him away in 2004 and the old man still managed to take a set in 2005(and one of the other sets was a tiebreaker which again is impressive for that age).
Click to expand...

Don't talk about 2004. They played during hurricane with 50-60 mph wind. Agassi only played Federer tough in US in those years, he got blew away by Federer outside of US including Australia. I go to US open every year. It's tough to play against Agassi there in his later years.

2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1 Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-4, 6-3 Stats
2005 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-1 Stats
2005 Australian Open
Australia Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3 Stats
2004 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard S Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
2003 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2003 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer, Roger
6-7(3), 6-3, 7-6(7) Stats
 
I agree. Complete and total domination is boring and is only entertaining for so long. While its not like I cringe in pain every time Federer hoists another grand slam, it just gets kinda boring. But there was a reason why as a Fed fan 2008 and 2009 were so great, because more new and young faces had begun to challenge Federer and he wasn't dominating like before.

As for the remaining slam winners

FO: Rafa's inevitable success during the clay court season will be enough to provide Nadal with the momentum going into the French and it's assumed he learned his lesson not to play his grandpa knees to death.
Wimbledon: Fed or Rafa, getting a feeling it'll be Rafa. Assuming that he won teh French, he'll be coming off a fresh slam win.
US Open:Federer. Fed will be eager to regain his US Open crown, the motivation he'll use to win the USO.
 
Last edited:
bruce38 said:
After effects of Mono, sure. Why else has Nadal done nothing since AO09? Fed is back.
Click to expand...

Fed didn't have mono at the French, Australian maybe, but he just got beat bad, plain and simple. Nadal didn't drop a set and Fed just suffered from a serious loss of confidence. Fed lost to Mardy Fish just months before for gods sake, FISH out of all people. That alone delivered the killing blow to his confidence.
 
flyinghippos101 said:
I agree. Complete and total domination is boring and is only entertaining for so long. While its not like I cringe in pain every time Federer hoists another grand slam, it just gets kinda boring. But there was a reason why as a Fed fan 2008 and 2009 were so great, because more new and young faces had begun to challenge Federer and he wasn't dominating like before.
Click to expand...

Exactly,I don't see what is so tough to get. If Federer had won RG in 2005-2009 there wouldn't have been a special moment like RG 2009.
It was the same for us Nadal fans with wimbledon and australian open and I reluctantly hope it will be the same with USO in the future.

Nadal got beat twice in WB finals so it was a great moment to see him take it in 2008. Nadal had tough times in AO(had a five setter with hewitt in 05',missed o6',gonzalez beatdown in 07',tsonga beatdown in 08') so it was great to see him win it in 2009. Things like these are what make careers special. Even Fed doesn't enjoy winning these titles as before because I think that deep down he knows that, without a challenge,it's not as much fun anymore.
 
flyinghippos101 said:
Fed didn't have mono at the French, Australian maybe, but he just got beat bad, plain and simple. Nadal didn't drop a set and Fed just suffered from a serious loss of confidence. Fed lost to Mardy Fish just months before for gods sake, FISH out of all people. That alone delivered the killing blow to his confidence.
Click to expand...

I believe fed did have mono. I know there are people who doubt he did, but mostly affected his practice and many the AO, but even then nole just played a great match.

fed himself said that the mono was gone by the french. He just simply got outplayed at the french and wimbly.
 
flyinghippos101 said:
Fed didn't have mono at the French, Australian maybe, but he just got beat bad, plain and simple. Nadal didn't drop a set and Fed just suffered from a serious loss of confidence. Fed lost to Mardy Fish just months before for gods sake, FISH out of all people. That alone delivered the killing blow to his confidence.
Click to expand...

You have no idea if the mono effects were still there or not. Fed getting only 4 games in a slam final is suspect no matter how well Nadal played.
 
Probably:
RG - Del Potro (yes Delpo, tall he is, he has developed into a great player, has the shots, and while servin lights out there are few out there who can beat him. Not to mention he would be an awful matchup for Nadal there, even worse than Soderling).

Wimbey - Got to go with Federer. Grass is not the surface Delpo,Murray and Djokovic thorougly enjoy, so I can see only few to challenge him there(Nadal is not at the top of his game right now as well.)

US Open - I think Murray would take that. He showed in the 1st and in the 3rd, that he's capable of winning it over Federer. Cause in the end that's what it takes to win there. Of course Delpo and Djokovic are in with a pretty decent shout, but their stamina and fitness is questionable. Federer of course I expect him to be in the final.

Wishfully:
RG - Federer to win it over Nadal.
Wimbey - Roddick to win it over Federer
USO - Delpo defending his title.
 
icedevil0289 said:
I believe fed did have mono. I know there are people who doubt he did, but mostly affected his practice and many the AO, but even then nole just played a great match.

fed himself said that the mono was gone by the french. He just simply got outplayed at the french and wimbly.
Click to expand...

Federer did have mono in AO. His face was swollen,his stamina was down and he was sweating buckets,very unusual for him. Even though his AO campaign was affected he did not have a serious case of mono or he wouldn't even been able to step on court.
However he did not have mono or any major mono side effects in RG,WB and USO. Had he not met his bad matchup at his career peak he would have won both RG and WB that year.

If you look at Fed's road up until the final in RG and WB in 2008 and 2009,you will see that there is not much difference,in fact he had easier journeys in 2008 to the final,lost fewer sets and if I remember correctly got broken fewer times at both. A guy with mono cannot accomplish that.
 
bruce38 said:
You have no idea if the mono effects were still there or not. Fed getting only 4 games in a slam final is suspect no matter how well Nadal played.
Click to expand...

oh dear lord it's breakpoint reincarnated. no fed getting only 4 games was because nadal was playing extremely well along with fed having an off day and somewhere in between pretty much giving up.
 
icedevil0289 said:
oh dear lord it's breakpoint reincarnated. no fed getting only 4 games was because nadal was playing extremely well along with fed having an off day and somewhere in between pretty much giving up.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree Nadal played extremely well, but 4 games is too extreme for that. Even if it was the french, that was not Roger. It had more to do with Fed not being all there.
 
namelessone said:
Federer did have mono in AO. His face was swollen,his stamina was down and he was sweating buckets,very unusual for him. Even though his AO campaign was affected he did not have a serious case of mono or he wouldn't even been able to step on court.
However he did not have mono or any major mono side effects in RG,WB and USO. Had he not met his bad matchup at his career peak he would have won both RG and WB that year.

If you look at Fed's road up until the final in RG and WB in 2008 and 2009,you will see that there is not much difference,in fact he had easier journeys in 2008 to the final,lost fewer sets and if I remember correctly got broken fewer times at both. A guy with mono cannot accomplish that.
Click to expand...

exactly. Wimbly 2008 he did not drop a set until the final and just lost a tight 5 setter to the better player that day.
 
bruce38 said:
Yes I agree Nadal played extremely well, but 4 games is too extreme for that. Even if it was the french, that was not Roger. It had more to do with Fed not being all there.
Click to expand...

I definitely didn't expect roger to lose with only 4 games, but I wasn't really surprised seeing him lose in 3. I mean rafa was just a beast in that tournament. He did not lose a set at all, it was just scary domination. You have to give him credit and props for that domination.
 
bruce38 said:
You have no idea if the mono effects were still there or not. Fed getting only 4 games in a slam final is suspect no matter how well Nadal played.
Click to expand...

It is not suspect cause he gave up in the second. Federer had his chances in the first and blew them. Then he had some more chances in the beginning of the second,Nadal came back and Fed was finished mentally,he just gave up. Him losing three times to the same guy there must have hurt mentally and being lead a 4th time and not being able to capitalize caused him to retire mentally from that match.

Look at his shots from the middle of the second onwards,he just hits into Nadal's court,no strategy,no follow through and didn't look to be caring as to what happened on court.

Even Nadal saw this,look at his reserved celebration at the end.
 
A little symbolism on Rafa's website
screenshot20100131at407.png
 
icedevil0289 said:
I definitely didn't expect roger to lose with only 4 games, but I wasn't really surprised seeing him lose in 3. I mean rafa was just a beast in that tournament. He did not lose a set at all, it was just scary domination. You have to give him credit and props for that domination.
Click to expand...

But if your definition of beast is not losing a set then Fed was also a beast. It just doesn't make sense to only win 4 games after the previous years. Sure Rafa improved but not that much. Rafa likely would have won anyways, but that day was more due to Fed not being there, than Rafa's play.
 
namelessone said:
It is not suspect cause he gave up in the second. Federer had his chances in the first and blew them. Then he had some more chances in the beginning of the second,Nadal came back and Fed was finished mentally,he just gave up. Him losing three times to the same guy there must have hurt mentally and being lead a 4th time and not being able to capitalize caused him to retire mentally from that match.

Look at his shots from the middle of the second onwards,he just hits into Nadal's court,no strategy,no follow through and didn't look to be caring as to what happened on court.

Even Nadal saw this,look at his reserved celebration at the end.
Click to expand...

I know I saw that as well and just cringed, but at the end you just have to say "too good nadal, too good." funny thing was my cousin, who is also a huge fed fan, and I were like its okay, this is nadal's turf, fed will get him back at wimbly and well look how that turned out. lol
 
Domination can get boring, but imagine Federer winning the calendar slam. Think what that would do for tennis. Who wouldn't want to tune in to watch a guy make history like that?

Not that I think he will, but if Federer gets over the French Open hump again this year, he's got a very, very good shot. But I must admit I was a little bored with the result of this year's Australian Open. Murray should've won the third set.
 
namelessone said:
It is not suspect cause he gave up in the second. Federer had his chances in the first and blew them. Then he had some more chances in the beginning of the second,Nadal came back and Fed was finished mentally,he just gave up. Him losing three times to the same guy there must have hurt mentally and being lead a 4th time and not being able to capitalize caused him to retire mentally from that match.

Look at his shots from the middle of the second onwards,he just hits into Nadal's court,no strategy,no follow through and didn't look to be caring as to what happened on court.

Even Nadal saw this,look at his reserved celebration at the end.
Click to expand...

I don't think he gave up. I think something was wrong. You could see it on his face. If the situations were reversed, I'm guessing Nadal would have retired.
 
bruce38 said:
But if your definition of beast is not losing a set then Fed was also a beast. It just doesn't make sense to only win 4 games after the previous years. Sure Rafa improved but not that much. Rafa likely would have won anyways, but that day was more due to Fed not being there, than Rafa's play.
Click to expand...

roger didn't lose a set going into the FO 2008 final?
 
Nadal didn't drop a set at the 08 French and combined with Fed's loss of confidence, resulted in the crushing Federer sustained.

PS When did Breakpoint get banned
 
bruce38 said:
I don't think he gave up. I think something was wrong. You could see it on his face. If the situations were reversed, I'm guessing Nadal would have retired.
Click to expand...

your hero fed said himself that he was fine during the FO and wimbly and just got beat by nadal who was playing well. why is that so hard to believe?
 
icedevil0289 said:
your hero fed said himself that he was fine during the FO and wimbly and just got beat by nadal who was playing well. why is that so hard to believe?
Click to expand...

That's because he's not a whiner. Sure the mono may have officially gone but it takes time to get back to 100%. Roger was not 100%, and I don't just mean his game that day. 4 games proves it.
 
btw, sign me up for the parity in slams.

Federer already achieved almost everything there is. He dominated on three diferent surfaces (winning on rebound ace, grass and USO hardcourts), Laver's calendar slam, amazing as it is, is achieved on only 2 surfaces - clay and grass.

There's no one to put a chunk in his legacy right now. He won his career slam, he has 16 slams now, he's tied at most wins at the USO and AO and 1 short behind Sampras at Wimbey.

I'm sure he'll win one more down the road. Maybe an USO as well.

It'll be a nice shift if Roddick for example beats him at Wmbey, cause he really deserves it for all the efforts.

A calendar slam would be a bit over the top. Large bit that is.

It's highly unlikely tho to even talk about it. If Federer wins a calendar slam this year, I'll eat my hat...
 
bruce38 said:
That's because he's not a whiner. Sure the mono may have officially gone but it takes time to get back to 100%. Roger was not 100%, and I don't just mean his game that day. 4 games proves it.
Click to expand...

oh cry me a freaking river *******. stop making excuses and give credit where it is due
 
Enigma_87 said:
btw, sign me up for the parity in slams.

Federer already achieved almost everything there is. He dominated on three diferent surfaces (winning on rebound ace, grass and USO hardcourts), Laver's calendar slam, amazing as it is, is achieved on only 2 surfaces - clay and grass.

There's no one to put a chunk in his legacy right now. He won his career slam, he has 16 slams now, he's tied at most wins at the USO and AO and 1 short behind Sampras at Wimbey.

I'm sure he'll win one more down the road. Maybe an USO as well.

It'll be a nice shift if Roddick for example beats him at Wmbey, cause he really deserves it for all the efforts.

A calendar slam would be a bit over the top. Large bit that is.

It's highly unlikely tho to even talk about it. If Federer wins a calendar slam this year, I'll eat my hat...
Click to expand...

My,it seems that our numbers are growing :)

My picks for parity would be:

RG:Nadal so the french can shut up
WB:Murray so the brits can shut up
USO: Roddick cause he deserves one last slam and it would be fitting to get it in USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Slam winners for 2011
2
Replies
92
Views
7K
Sentinel
Sentinel
T
Slam winners for 2010
Replies
13
Views
1K
jigar
jigar
thalivest
Early predictions for Slam winners in 2011
2 3
Replies
115
Views
10K
Noleberic123
Noleberic123
F
Womens Slam winners of 2010
Replies
10
Views
864
grafselesfan
grafselesfan
federerfanatic
Who will win the 2010 womens slams
Replies
20
Views
2K
tennis_hand
T
Back
Top