Roland Garros 2012

Who will win it all in May 2012?

  • Djokovic

    Votes: 44 29.3%

  • Nadal

    Votes: 45 30.0%

  • Federer

    Votes: 41 27.3%

  • Murray

    Votes: 9 6.0%

  • Ferrer

    Votes: 3 2.0%

  • Tsonga

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 4.0%
  • Total voters
    150
  • Poll closed .
EaGamer

EaGamer

Rookie
Who has the best chance to win it all? Will Djoker complete the slam? Will Federer grab another? Perhaps Murray wins his first. Or Tsonga wins in his homeland. Does Ferrer have any realistic chance of winning? Or does Rafa finally win another?

Post away.
 
Last edited:
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
It will be in June 2012, not May. I hope Nadal can do it for the seventh time, and that would be a record on his own, unless we count Max Decugis from the pre-WW1 days before the tournament was even a major.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Djokovic and Serena will win the French Open this year. If not them then Nadal and Azarenka. Nobody else even has a chance. On Planet Federer orgasm though watch Federer romp away with this poll with atleast twice as many votes as the next highest.
 
EaGamer

EaGamer

Rookie
Mustard said:
It will be in June 2012, not May. I hope Nadal can do it for the seventh time, and that would be a record on his own, unless we count Max Decugis from the pre-WW1 days before the tournament was even a major.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, I put for the poll to close June 10th, but forgot to change the title
 
Last edited:
MixieP

MixieP

Hall of Fame
You guys are all playing it safe going with Joker.:evil:

And Nadal is on parole ;)

I'll stir things up a bit by going with Ferrer.
 
M

merwy

G.O.A.T.
MixieP said:
You guys are all playing it safe going with Joker.:evil:

And Nadal is on parole ;)

I'll stir things up a bit by going with Ferrer.
Click to expand...

It's not like we're gambling for money. Everyone just votes for the person that he thinks will win. Then at the end of the tournament it's fun to see how many votes the eventual winner has. If everyone just votes on a random underdog it won't reflect the real expectations of the people
 
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Clarky21 said:
Djesus,and he will do it without dropping a set. Nobody else even stands a chance.
Click to expand...

without dopping a set? nahhhhhh com on clarky, not dropping a set is a totally different matter. He's never even won the AO without dropping a set. Last year he dropped sets on clay so there's a very slim chance of him winning RG without dropping one.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Towser83 said:
without dopping a set? nahhhhhh com on clarky, not dropping a set is a totally different matter. He's never even won the AO without dropping a set. Last year he dropped sets on clay so there's a very slim chance of him winning RG without dropping one.
Click to expand...

There are many less good clay courters than hard courters. In fact there are none other than Nadal who is Djokovic's pigeon these days and who is declining so fast on clay it could be soon be his worst surface like grass is for Federer now, and Federer who isnt even that likely to play Djokovic at Roland Garros and has almost no chance to duplicate last years performance. For a Djokovic fan you are awfully pesstimistic. I am still LOLing at your saying he is unlikely to win another 2 Australian Opens in his career a couple months ago.
 
Rhino

Rhino

Legend
Federer beats Djokovic in the final (unless Fed is on Djok's side of the draw).
Rafa and Murray don't even make the semis.
 
Evan77

Evan77

Banned
It's too early to talk about RG. Let's see what happens in MC, Madrid and Rome first.

on the other hand, If I have to pick a winner now... I'd say Djoko (yeah, I know I'm not being very original, lol)
 
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
NadalAgassi said:
There are many less good clay courters than hard courters. In fact there are none other than Nadal who is Djokovic's pigeon these days and who is declining so fast on clay it could be soon be his worst surface like grass is for Federer now, and Federer who isnt even that likely to play Djokovic at Roland Garros and has almost no chance to duplicate last years performance. For a Djokovic fan you are awfully pesstimistic. I am still LOLing at your saying he is unlikely to win another 2 Australian Opens in his career a couple months ago.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was unlikely to win 2 more AO's, you said he would win at LEAST 2 more, and i just said that any more than 2 would see him with 6 in total which was maybe pushing it a bit at this point, especially given that he would be at least 27 years old and only if he won the next 3 which would mean winning 5 in a row. Otherwise he would be 28+ to win more than another 2 AOs. I didn't say this was unlikely either, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

I think 2 is a good bet, but I think any more than that would be pretty huge, not something extremely likely. Just like people who think Nadal will win at least another 2-3 RG titles. Personally I think he'll win at least 1 more and anymore than that will be a bonus.

The whole of TW is still LOLing at you saying Serena would win 20-25 slams :lol: I see you're picking her for the french now..

Anyway, regardless of the clay competition being less than hardcourt, winning RG without losing a set is still a very big task. Nadal has done this twice and in 2010 he had a pretty easy draw. Last year Novak lost sets on clay to Bellucci, Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro and Federer. In Australia in 2011 he should have won without dropping a set but lost a tibreak to Dodig. It's easy to lose a set in a slam, winning without dropping a set is a long shot.
 
Hood_Man

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
I've gone for Nadal. Unless he fails to reach the final, the only player who can realistically beat him there is Djokovic (who will probably be invincible that day on account of almost the entire crowd being on his side, as is usually the case in Nadal matches at RG), and I'm not gonna predict someone winning 4 majors in a row.

Not yet anyway.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Towser83 said:
I didn't say he was unlikely to win 2 more AO's, you said he would win at LEAST 2 more, and i just said that any more than 2 would see him with 6 in total which was maybe pushing it a bit at this point, especially given that he would be at least 27 years old and only if he won the next 3 which would mean winning 5 in a row. Otherwise he would be 28+ to win more than another 2 AOs. I didn't say this was unlikely either, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

I think 2 is a good bet, but I think any more than that would be pretty huge, not something extremely likely. Just like people who think Nadal will win at least another 2-3 RG titles. Personally I think he'll win at least 1 more and anymore than that will be a bonus.

The whole of TW is still LOLing at you saying Serena would win 20-25 slams :lol: I see you're picking her for the french now..

Anyway, regardless of the clay competition being less than hardcourt, winning RG without losing a set is still a very big task. Nadal has done this twice and in 2010 he had a pretty easy draw. Last year Novak lost sets on clay to Bellucci, Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro and Federer. In Australia in 2011 he should have won without dropping a set but lost a tibreak to Dodig. It's easy to lose a set in a slam, winning without dropping a set is a long shot.
Click to expand...

The combination of racism and feminism that causes this often crude forum mostly filled with idiots hating the great Serena Williams is neither my fault, nor my problem. I happen to give her her due as a player, and would even if I was not a fan of hers, if others here dont, I dont really care. Her performance at Charleston making the 13 time Grand Slam winner the early favorite to win Roland Garros is plainly obvious, whether one likes it or not. It doesnt mean she will win it, sometimes the favorite doesnt win, but she has the best chance of anyone right now. Serena will continue to infuriate her many racist and sexist haters on Planet TW who wish she would just go away, when in fact there are many more years of Queen Serena left.

As for Djokovic at the Australian Open, winning just 2 would already make him the slam dunk best ever at that event, so it doesnt even matter if he wins more than 2. If you recall that was the initial conversation where the statement came up. Most (most people on Planet Earth I mean, not the irrelevant comedy value only Planet TW) would consider him the best ever there with even 1 more, considering he conclusively showed his superiority to Federer with 2 severe beatdowns, and Agassi won his last couple vs some of the easiest draws in history. However atleast 2 is a perfectly sound estimate, considering he should win atleast 2 of the next 4, and quite possibly 3 of the next 4. As it would be a big surprise if he doesnt win atleast 2 more, and it is quite possible he could win more, why wouldnt one use the term atleast two. Pretty simple really. That is not to say he wouldnt have a chance possibly past age 28 although it is too soon to say that or not. The Federer example isnt a good one, since Federer isnt winning slams due to Djokovic and Nadal. Djokovic instead will be facing Tomic and Raonic. Of course there will be new players by then, but the talk right now is the current junior crop is one of the worst ever so...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
NadalAgassi said:
The combination of racism and feminism that causes this often crude forum mostly filled with idiots hating the great Serena Williams is neither my fault, nor my problem. I happen to give her her due as a player, and would even if I was not a fan of hers, if others here dont, I dont really care. Her performance at Charleston making the 13 time Grand Slam winner the early favorite to win Roland Garros is plainly obvious, whether one likes it or not. It doesnt mean she will win it, sometimes the favorite doesnt win, but she has the best chance of anyone right now. Serena will continue to infuriate her many racist and sexist haters on Planet TW who wish she would just go away, when in fact there are many more years of Queen Serena left.

As for Djokovic at the Australian Open, winning just 2 would already make him the slam dunk best ever at that event, so it doesnt even matter if he wins more than 2. If you recall that was the initial conversation where the statement came up. Most (most people on Planet Earth I mean, not the irrelevant comedy value only Planet TW) would consider him the best ever there with even 1 more, considering he conclusively showed his superiority to Federer with 2 severe beatdowns, and Agassi won his last couple vs some of the easiest draws in history. However atleast 2 is a perfectly sound estimate, considering he should win atleast 2 of the next 4, and quite possibly 3 of the next 4. As it would be a big surprise if he doesnt win atleast 2 more, and it is quite possible he could win more, why wouldnt one use the term atleast two. Pretty simple really. That is not to say he wouldnt have a chance possibly past age 28 although it is too soon to say that or not. The Federer example isnt a good one, since Federer isnt winning slams due to Djokovic and Nadal. Djokovic instead will be facing Tomic and Raonic. Of course there will be new players by then, but the talk right now is the current junior crop is one of the worst ever so...
Click to expand...

I dislike Serena because of her personality and attitude, not because of her race or gender. Last time I looked Venus was also black and female and I don't mind her at all.

Maybe she will win RG, maybe not. Personally I think she won't. But 25 slams I think is wayyyyy off.

Djokovic might well win another 3 AO's and I take your point about his future competition, but I never said he was unlikely to win 2 more.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Towser83 said:
I dislike Serena because of her personality and attitude, not because of her race or gender. Last time I looked Venus was also black and female and I don't mind her at all.

Maybe she will win RG, maybe not. Personally I think she won't. But 25 slams I think is wayyyyy off.

Djokovic might well win another 3 AO's and I take your point about his future competition, but I never said he was unlikely to win 2 more.
Click to expand...

I was not implying you were racist or sexist. I am also aware Serena is not everyones cup of tea, and her agressive personality is a turn off to some people who expect pro athletes to act like Mother Theresa. However many who dislike Serena on this forum and rag on her constantly are. Just look at the negativity directed towards the entire WTA tour on this forum, and the sexism is more than apparent. As for the racism, just look at the obsession for years with hating on not only the Williams, but on someone like Donald Young who is a journeyman on the ATP tour, and thus whose vested interest in (especialy of the negative kind) is inexplicable.

As for my prediction on Serenas winnings if she had stayed on the track she had been on last summer prior to the U.S Open final, it wouldnt have seemed so funny now. Unfortunately she didnt so reaching those figures will be harder now. However she still has alot more major success in her than almost anyone here would like to believe. Everyone else here (other than a few other Serena fans like Jones) was sure she would never win another slam, so if she even wins several more I am still closer to being right than anyone else.

So we agree Djokovic will probably win either 2 (possible) or 3 (also possible) more Austrlaian Opens, so I dont know why you even took exception with my original claim of atleast 2 more (when only 2 would already completely settle the particular topic at hand beyond any rational debate anyway). I never gave the impression I was implying he had a good shot at 4 or 5 more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blitzball

Blitzball

Professional
I'd really like to see another classic Federer vs Djokovic match where the more experienced player prevails on the red clay. But I'm pretty sure Nadal will win regardless, but Djokovic will undoubtedly defend at least one of his clay titles, if not all.
 
EaGamer

EaGamer

Rookie
NadalAgassi said:
I am also aware Serena is not everyones cup of tea, and her agressive personality is a turn off to some people who expect pro athletes to act like Mother Theresa.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I personally don't like Serena because of some of her outbursts, but regardless she can be one helluva tennis player.
 
Sentinel

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
merwy said:
It's not like we're gambling for money. Everyone just votes for the person that he thinks will win. Then at the end of the tournament it's fun to see how many votes the eventual winner has. If everyone just votes on a random underdog it won't reflect the real expectations of the people
Click to expand...
Unfo, its not a public poll, so we won't know who got it right. The total figures don't matter since Federer wins every poll anyway, lol.

Clarky21 said:
Djesus,and he will do it without dropping a set. Nobody else even stands a chance.
Click to expand...
Vintage Clarky.
 
sbengte

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Depends. I'd put my money on Nadal but if he gets his usual Herculean draw with very tough opponents like Granollers, Lopez and Almagro, then you never know.
 
K

KTENNIS

New User
People are going against Rafa? On clay? I don't see Djoker even making the finals, he hasn't been playing well in the lead-up.
 
K

KTENNIS

New User
Rhino said:
Federer beats Djokovic in the final (unless Fed is on Djok's side of the draw).
Rafa and Murray don't even make the semis.
Click to expand...

This shows how much you know about tennis. (Federer is no.3 in the world, no.3 always is on the no.2's side of the draw).
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
KTENNIS said:
Please inform me on what I have failed on. If I have failed, sorry.
Click to expand...

No need to apologise to me mate - but you did get all 'you don't know know anything about tennis' before going on to state one of the biggest misconceptions going! :)

3 and 4 are drawn at random, so the second seed can face either the 3rd or 4th seed.
 
K

KTENNIS

New User
batz said:
No need to apologise to me mate - but you did get all 'you don't know know anything about tennis' before going on to state one of the biggest misconceptions going! :)

3 and 4 are drawn at random, so the second seed can face either the 3rd or 4th seed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, just annoyed at the prospect of Nadal not getting to the semis :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OddJack
Roland Garros 2012: Odds
Replies
43
Views
5K
batz
batz
nadal_slam_king
  • Poll
How many slams does Federer need to win more than Rafa?
2
Replies
94
Views
6K
Messarger
M
Mustard
  • Poll
Who will win the 2011 Australian Open?
2 3 4
Replies
177
Views
14K
Mustard
Mustard
M
  • Poll
How many Roland Garros titles will Novak win
2 3
Replies
114
Views
4K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
yellowoctopus
Federer in 09: Wimbledon or Roland Garros?
2
Replies
70
Views
5K
Steffi-forever
S
Top