Which of these is most likely to happen in 2019?

Which of these has the highest probability?


  • Total voters
    135
#3
If Novak wins first two - he swaps the rest! As simple as that! Clever calendar scheduling, prioritizing grand slams over anything else, skipping unnecessary clay court tournaments and matches can lead him there (for example he doesn't need to exhaust himself by playing all three lcay court masters! Skipping either Madrid or MC would be fine...better yet - skipping both! Let Zverevs, Thiems and Corices have their youngster parties as well as Nadal...), though i admit he should get a little lucky with RG draw, since too tough and competitive draw can potentially suck lots of energy from him, which could be required to play well at WC next! So a lot of that will depend on his path at RG to the title, how many sets he will drop en route, which opponent he faces etc...by having it tough i don't see him winning all 4 slams next season, by having easy draw at RG next year - that could happen...
 
#9
in order from most to least

1. new winner (not inevitable but say 50-50)
2. Wimbledonerer. (Yeah he looks weak now, but he's won it only 2 yrs before and it's his best slam)
3. Nadal AO (only won it once, a decade ago, but won USO more recently. health is a question)
4. CYGS. cmon, he didn't do it in peak
Assuming Djokovic won't play in 2019 at his peak...good thing you looked at the crystal ball and know exactly in which shape he will play his 2019 season...
 

NKDM

Professional
#10
in order from most to least

1. new winner (not inevitable but say 50-50)
2. Wimbledonerer. (Yeah he looks weak now, but he's won it only 2 yrs before and it's his best slam)
3. Nadal AO (only won it once, a decade ago, but won USO more recently. health is a question)
4. CYGS. cmon, he didn't do it in peak

Came pretty close though. All the smart folks (i.e not me) are saying Nole is back to his peak.
 

Towny

Professional
#11
I guess new winner. Fed and Nadal not looking great at present so more opportunities. I still wouldn't say its all that likely but it's more likely than the other options. Nadal is unlikely to win AO. He's not necessarily going to be healthy for it. Even if he is, there's in-form Novak to contend with.

Fed may recover some form. Still a big ask to win Wimbledon, especially if Djokovic is in-form for it.

Novak's not winning a CYGS next year
 
#16
New Slam Winner seems to be by far the most likely. That could be anyone not named Fed, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, DelPo or Cilic at this point - and that's still a hell of a lot of players to choose from. We are getting closer to that stage now
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
#21
Djokogoat to make my ttw name come true. Bel18ve.
You don't want to Bel18ve.

Us FedFans were stuck at Bel18ve for 5 years. Bel18ve me, it is a very long wait.

Only this time, you have Zverev 'look at me' for company.
 
#23
I could definitely see Federer or Nadal winning Wimb 19/AO 19.

The overall competition is incredibly weak, all it takes is one upset to clear the way.

I'd even go as far to say I could see Federer/Nadal winning either tournament listed there. RAFA was razor thin close to winning Wimbledon this year, let's be honest..he'd have destroyed KA.

Djokovic won't win all four. RG is still Nadal's playground and will likely continue to be. Even if he were to bag the French burnout would stop him from winning all 4. It's just too tall an ask, even for him.

As far as a new slam champion, I'm at the point where I have to see it to believe it. These guys are just so abysmal for the most part I can't see it happening any time soon even still.

So I'm at a draw between Fed Wimby/Nadal AO being the highest probability.

Djokovic certainly has the game to win any of the four, zero question of that..but does he have the steam to win all 4 at this stage in his career. I don't think so. And if he were to do it...it would be one of the most incredible things I've seen in sport ever. Especially where he was just a few mere months ago.
 
Last edited:
#26
Rod Laver has 11 Slams and he is GOAT, or at least #2 in the GOAT list
Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.
 
#28
Laugh is not an argument.

As I said, Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.
 
#29
Laugh is not an argument.

As I said, Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.
Right.
So a player who never won the RG and has 64 total titles is better than a player who has won the CYGS TWICE, 11 Grand Slams, 7 Pro Slams (including ANOTHER calendar Slam on the pro circuit in 67), and 199 titles.


 
#30
Obviously the new slam winner. The others are either highly unlikely or nearly impossible.

#1. New winner at a slam

...now a huge drop in probability to...

#2. Fed wins Wimbledon (10% chance)
#3 Rafa wins AO (5% chance)
#4 Nole wins the CYGS. It's been done once in 49 years and it was last done 49 years ago. 200 major finals have been contested since and no one has come close to doing it. Nobody's even got to the third leg of a CYGS at Wimbledon since Laver. The chances are literally .001% for anyone to do it, not just Djoker.
 
#31
Came pretty close though. All the smart folks (i.e not me) are saying Nole is back to his peak.
Sorry, but Djokovic never came "pretty close" to a CYGS. In fact, he didn't come anywhere remotely near to it.

Being close to a CYGS is going into the USO after having won the first 3 legs. Even then, a player isn't close to doing it until he reaches the semis or finals.

Fed's won 3/4 majors in one year three different years, but he was never close to the CYGS because he never went into the USO having won the previous 3 slams that year.
 
#32
Right.
So a player who never won the RG and has 64 total titles is better than a player who has won the CYGS TWICE, 11 Grand Slams, 7 Pro Slams (including ANOTHER calendar Slam on the pro circuit in 67), and 199 titles.


Again, the problem is that we can't display a double standard. A criterion of greatness must be universal (valid for all cases), not only valid for some cases and invalid for others. That would be double standard. You point out that Mr. Laver has Roland Garros, while Mr. Sampras hasn't. You also point out that Laver has the CYGS and 7 extra Pro Slams. So let's summarize your list of criteria to put Laver over Sampras:

1. Grand Slam distribution >>>>> Grand Slam count.
2. CYGS >>> Grand Slam count.
3. Pro Slams = Grand Slams



1. Grand Slam distribution >>>>> Grand Slam count. If that were the case, then Agassi with 8 Grand Slams (including the Career Grand Slam) would be greater than Borg with 11 Grand Slams but 0 of them on hard courts. But, as everyone knows, everyone puts Borg over Agassi. So you can't say that just because Rod Laver has the Career Grand Slam, he is authomatically better than Sampras with more GS, and then say that Borg without the Career Grand Slam is better than Agassi. That would be double standard.
2. CYGS >>> Grand Slam count. If that were the case, then Laver would be greater than Federer. But then again, almost everyone puts Federer over Laver, proving the Grand Slam count is more relevant than the CYGS. You can't say that because Laver has the CYGS he is greater than Sampras with more GS, and then say that Laver with the CYGS is worse than Federer with more GS. That would be a double standard.
3. Pro Slams = Grand Slams If that were the case, then Ken Rosewall with 23 Majors (15 Pro Slams + 8 Grand Slams) would be greater than Federer with 20 Majors. But then again, almost everyone puts Federer over Rosewall, proving that Grand Slams are more relevant than Pro Slams. You can't say that Rosewall is worse than Federer despite having more Majors and then sudddenly say that Laver is greater than Sampras for having more Majors. That would be a double standard.


As I have shown, all your criteria are not universally applied and thus not valid. A greatness criterion should be universal, to avoid double standard. I am not saying the CYGS, Pro Slams etc. are irrelevant. Those are tie-breakers. The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria (such as CYGS or Pro Slams) are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams.
 
Last edited:
#33
Again, the problem is that we can't display a double standard. A criterion of greatness must be universal (valid for all cases), not only valid for some cases and invalid for others. That would be double standard.

You point out that Mr. Laver has Roland Garros, while Mr. Sampras hasn't. You also point out that Laver has the CYGS and 7 extra Pro Slams. So let's summarize your list of criteria to put Laver over Sampras:

1. Grand Slam distribution >>>>> Grand Slam count.
2. CYGS >>> Grand Slam count.
3. Pro Slams = Grand Slams



1. Grand Slam distribution >>>>> Grand Slam count. If that were the case, then Agassi with 8 Grand Slams (including the Career Grand Slam) would be greater than Borg with 11 Grand Slams but 0 of them on hard courts. But, as everyone knows, everyone puts Borg over Agassi. So you can't say that just because Rod Laver has the Career Grand Slam, he is authomatically better than Sampras with more GS, and then say that Borg without the Career Grand Slam is better than Agassi. That would be double standard.
2. CYGS >>> Grand Slam count. If that were the case, then Laver would be greater than Federer. But then again, almost everyone puts Federer over Laver, proving the Grand Slam count is more relevant than the CYGS. You can't say that because Laver has the CYGS he is gerater than Sampras with more GS, and then say that Laver with the CYGS is worse than Federer with more GS. That would be a double standard.
3. Pro Slams = Grand Slams If that were the case, then Ken Rosewall with 23 Majors (15 Pro Slams + 8 Grand Slams) would be greater than Federer with 20 Majors. But then again, almost everyone puts Federer over Rosewall, proving that Grand Slams are mroe relevant than Pro Slams. You can't say that Rosewall is worse than Federer despite having more Majors and then sudddenly say that Laver is greater than Sampras for having more Majors. That would be a double standard.


As I have shows, all your criteria are not universally applied and thus not valid. A greatness criterion should be unviersal, to avoid double standard.

I am not saying the CYGS, Pro Slams etc. are irrelevant. Those are tie-breakers. The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria (such as CYGS or Pro Slams) are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams.
1. Borg won 5 Channel Slams and dominated for 2 years, had a ridiculously high winning percentage, etc. That's what makes him better than Agassi. Sampras does not have that same superiority over Laver, just a 3 Slam difference when Laver was banned throughout his prime. Borg has so many other records that put him above Agassi, which Sampras doesn't have over Laver.
2. Laver is greater than Federer. Not everyone puts him behind Fed (unless they don't know what existed before 2003), he's the only player who contests Federer's GOAT claim now. CYGS carries a little more weight than Slam totals. It is the single greatest achievement possible in the game. This is not to say Don Budge is better than Federer, because the Slam count difference is much higher than with Laver.
3. Pro Slams count for a little less than GS, but I'd still put Ken Rosewall at #4 for having 23 total, even ahead of Nadal and Sampras. What hurts him is never winning Wimbledon and never having a long discernible period of domination, so for that and the Slam count, Federer and Djokovic edge him out.

GOAT lists are not objective. The one "objective" GOAT list which scientifically ranked players based on a number of weighted criteria, put Jimmy Connors at #1, Federer at #2, and Ivan Lendl at #3. While Connors and Lendl are still top 10 Open Era, nobody would rank them #1 and #3. It's messy business, you have to take in all stats. Slam count doesn't trump all else. It may carry the most weight, but if one player has less Slams but fares much better everywhere else (case in point: Wawrinka has 3 Slams and Hewitt has 2, but nobody would say Wawrinka is higher on the GOAT list, right?) then that has to count for something. For example, I get a lot of crap for this, but I consider Connors to be greater than Borg. The only thing Borg has going for him is the 3-major lead, which is a massively important criterion. Still, Connors has nearly twice the number of career titles, better surface distribution (first player to win Slams on all surfaces), much greater longevity at the top, and a much longer period of domination, which are enough IMO to balance out a 3-Slam deficit.

I respect your opinion that Slam count is king, because GOAT ranking is subjective, based on what categories are weighted more. But I still disagree.
 
Last edited:
#35
I think the least likely result is Nadal winning Aussie Open. Yes he nearly won 2 years ago but that was his only legitimate run last 4 times out. I just don't see it with everyone else being fresh he's at a disadvantage.

The next least likely I would say is Fed. Losing to Kevin Anderson this year like Tsonga in 2011 kinda did it in for me. Let's face it, he's won once in 6 years coming close another time. I look at his USO performances as indication of his endurance. He slipped by Cilic in 2016 let's not forget. So that's all it takes on grass to nudge him out.

Obviously the most likely is a new Slam winner. Kevin Anderson despite the jokes is a legitimate threat now. Other than him you look at Khachanov and Thiem on their best days and maybe. Zverev is obviously a dark horse because he has the 3 Masters but can't break far into Slams. All 4 of these guys need a favorable draw obviously but when you look at the numbers it isn't asking too much.


Now, statistically there's a few ways to cut up the Calendar Slam. On the one hand it hasn't been done since 1969. But on the other, the 3/4 has been achieved a rather astonishing 6 times in 12 seasons by Federer (3), Novak (2) and Nadal (1). Novak accomplished this just 3 years ago and while it is asking a lot to accomplish what hasn't been done in 81 years (winning 6 consecutive Slams by Budge) but given the propensity of the 3/4 in recent times and Djokovic having held all 4 Slams at once, it's not impossible.

Now personally I think Novak is winning AO and if it's not him it'll be Cilic. French is definitely in play for Novak with Nadal obviously always the favourite. I don't think Fed wins Wimbledon although it's hard to say who has best chance. Potro or Cilic are good picks as with the USO.
 
#37
Laver is #5 behind the Big 3 and Sampras. I admit the Sampras/Laver comparison is polemical, but we must follow always the same criterion to avoid double standard. And the universal criterion of greatness is the number of Grand Slams.
Nonsense. the Grand Slam is the greatest achievement in the sport, which Laver won twice. Everything else is just counting numbers / consolation prizes for failing to do that, hence the reason Federer, Sampras, Djokovic and anyone else with no Grand Slam can not be the greatest player in history.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#39
So what’s the other 48% chance?
There are endless combinations that could happen. Many of them include:

1. Nadal winning FO, while the several other slam winners winning the rest.
2. Nadal winning FO and USO, with previous slam champs winning the rest
3 Djoker winning 1-3 slams, with previous slam champs winning the rest

There are hundreds of combinations of the above that could happen.
 
#40
There are endless combinations that could happen. Many of them include:

1. Nadal winning FO, while the several other slam winners winning the rest.
2. Nadal winning FO and USO, with previous slam champs winning the rest
3 Djoker winning 1-3 slams, with previous slam champs winning the rest

There are hundreds of combinations of the above that could happen.
Why would Nadal win USO? Hard courts are really tough on his body. His best chances come mid-season on clay and grass.
 
#44
Some of the younger players finally seem to be stepping up. I don't expect much from Zeverev because he seems to fold in the majors, but I could see the Greek kid Tisipat going deep, and the Russian named Karen going deep, and Thiem. The chances of Fed and Nadal getting knocked off by younger players seems very possible. Djokovic still looks strong but not like he did at his best. Murray and Warwinka may be done. Maybe Anderson has a major win in him. Some of these players seem to have a late renaissance in them.

I think Nadal in the FO seems probable. Djokovic for one major seems probable. After that maybe finally some new faces. I see Fed getting shut out in the majors and maybe preparing for 2020 to be his farewell tour.
 

NKDM

Professional
#46
Sorry, but Djokovic never came "pretty close" to a CYGS. In fact, he didn't come anywhere remotely near to it.

Being close to a CYGS is going into the USO after having won the first 3 legs. Even then, a player isn't close to doing it until he reaches the semis or finals.

Fed's won 3/4 majors in one year three different years, but he was never close to the CYGS because he never went into the USO having won the previous 3 slams that year.
See I told you I’m not very smart. Just babble on a bit abt tennis sometimes.
 

NKDM

Professional
#47
So new slam winner is the overwhelming choice. New winner at AO 2019 then?

If not, which other slam is it most likely to happen at - FO, Wimbledon or USO?
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
#48
First time winner.

Nadal's and Federer's chances at those respective slams are basically tied, IMO. Nadal maybe slightly ahead given how bad Federer looks now, though Wimbledon is 6-7 months away.

The chances Novak wins all 4 are extremely small. I wouldn't even give that a 1% chance of happening, and it should be last in the poll.
 
#49
So new slam winner is the overwhelming choice. New winner at AO 2019 then?

If not, which other slam is it most likely to happen at - FO, Wimbledon or USO?
At AO, FO & WIM, the fortress of big3 is still highly very strong, so it is unlikely there.
At USO , I see the real possibility of that happening, as after fed's five consecutive triumphs, none has ever defended USO
 
Top