Who takes the AO if Nole doesn't win?

Who lifts the trophy in Melbourne if Novak doesn't win?

  • Fedr

    Votes: 25 24.8%
  • The Guru

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • Ralph

    Votes: 6 5.9%
  • John Martin

    Votes: 5 5.0%
  • Stanislas

    Votes: 5 5.0%
  • Kay

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Muzziah

    Votes: 53 52.5%
  • Robot Server

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Tim

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Coffin

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    101

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
i had such imaginations many times ,and most of them comes true.. am Novak fan .. I might be wrong ,i dunno..but many months back ,i got this imaginary thought that Fed won AO17 .
I think because you are a Djokovic fan maybe it's something in your subconscious mind that you fear will happen but I don't think it will actually happen. Let's see how Federer looks first at the start of 2017 and let's see the AO draw.
 

HuusHould

Professional
I'm unsure who "Robot server" is, I assume the Guru is Pepe Imaz and Coffin is David Goffin! Pardon my ignorance Robot server is of course Raonic.
 
Last edited:

batz

G.O.A.T.
Why you think so many people say that? I read that kind of comments a lot of times and I don´t think they are all Murray haters. He is a brilliant player AND have had some of luck with the draws some/many times.
OK mate- humour me. How are you measuring 'luck'? How are you able to demonstrate that Murray has had more of it than anyone else and that it is therefore material to the debate?

Murray is held to a standard by many people on here that simply isn't applied to others. For example - nobody says a dicky bird about Roger, Rafa and Novak facing guys from outside the top 20 when they won their first slam. Or Roger beating guys like Gonzo and Roddick to win slams, or Rafa beating the mighty Thomas Berdych in a Wimbledon final. But if Murray meets Raonic in a Wimbledon final? LUCKY MURRAY!

It's bollocks on stilts - it really is.
 

HuusHould

Professional
Murray a racing certainty to win AO. The beat down he gave djokovic in London will mean Murray will probably take him out in 3 or 4 sets in Australia as at the moment he has djokovics number.

Murray also a good bet for the French open. Remember he owned djokovic in Rome and dominated djokovic for first set in French open something that Becker admitted recently essentially changed the whole dynamic of the year.

The test for Murray will be after the French open. Then he will have a lot to defend and whether he copes with the pressure is hard to know.

But Australian open is murrays if
I'm turning up with a sack full of feathers to prevent this.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Why you think so many people say that? I read that kind of comments a lot of times and I don´t think they are all Murray haters. He is a brilliant player AND have had some of luck with the draws some/many times.
And that just about sums up almost any top player past, present and no doubt future too! :cool:
 

Paul Harman

Semi-Pro
OK mate- humour me. How are you measuring 'luck'? How are you able to demonstrate that Murray has had more of it than anyone else and that it is therefore material to the debate?

Murray is held to a standard by many people on here that simply isn't applied to others. For example - nobody says a dicky bird about Roger, Rafa and Novak facing guys from outside the top 20 when they won their first slam. Or Roger beating guys like Gonzo and Roddick to win slams, or Rafa beating the mighty Thomas Berdych in a Wimbledon final. But if Murray meets Raonic in a Wimbledon final? LUCKY MURRAY!

It's bollocks on stilts - it really is.
All those arguments fell apart when Murray beat the top 5 in succession to win WTF.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray only needs to make the final to retain number 1 after AO
That is if Nole doesn't win the AO. Murray is ahead of Nole by 630 ATP points but the points difference between a slam winner and a finalist is 800 points.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
Hmmm...really? I seem to recall Djokovic and Murray doing the same in various matches from 2007/8 onwards! :cool:
Never beat nadal or federer at their very best. Nadal 2011 was peak nadal but he wasn't at his very best . Federer was past his best by 2010.

Maybe ao 2012 was the one time Djokovic came out on top when both at their best.

Del Potro has the game to take the racket out of anyone's hand
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Never beat nadal or federer at their very best. Nadal 2011 was peak nadal but he wasn't at his very best . Federer was past his best by 2010.
Djokovic beat Nadal and Federer back to back at 2007 Montreal and Federer at 2008 AO. Murray beat Federer at 2008 Madrid and 2008 WTF and Nadal at 2008 US Open


Del Potro has the game to take the racket out of anyone's hand
Maybe but he's not the only one.
 

ultradr

Legend
If Nole has an early exit like Wimby, who takes the crown?
I don't think Nadal wins. Quarter-final at best. But if Rafa meets Federer, Rafa beats Federer this time.

And I'm barely interested in whether Murray wins it or not.
If he does, it would be great confirmation on his #1 status.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
Djokovic beat Nadal and Federer back to back at 2007 Montreal and Federer at 2008 AO. Murray beat Federer at 2008 Madrid and 2008 WTF and Nadal at 2008 US Open




Maybe but he's not the only one.
Ok sorry I wasn't specific enough. I was thinking more of grand slams . Murray over nadal 2008 is a misnomer as nadal was shattered by then after his summer.

Djokovic is leader of masters 1000 series . Over three sets I'd say that's about right. However federer would be leader if we had two masters 1000 on grass.

There is a different skill set and mind set over five sets . Those skills are suited a lot more to nadal. I'd always back nadal at his best over djokovic and federer over five sets if they are at their best on any surface . Over three sets I'd back djokovic over nadal on any surface and federer over nadal on anything but clay.

Federer v djokovic is more complex .
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Ok sorry I wasn't specific enough. I was thinking more of grand slams . Murray over nadal 2008 is a misnomer as nadal was shattered by then after his summer.

Djokovic is leader of masters 1000 series . Over three sets I'd say that's about right. However federer would be leader if we had two masters 1000 on grass.

There is a different skill set and mind set over five sets . Those skills are suited a lot more to nadal. I'd always back nadal at his best over djokovic and federer over five sets if they are at their best on any surface . Over three sets I'd back djokovic over nadal on any surface and federer over nadal on anything but clay.

Federer v djokovic is more complex .
I'll just translate that from bollocksese:

"Mainad refuted my assertion with empirical data, so I've moved my argument on to subjective stuff that nobody can really argue with - phew that was close". ;)

Murray has only ever beaten people when they've been tired. Murray himself has never been tired - it's only something that happens to his opponents. True story.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
I'll just translate that from bollocksese:

"Mainad refuted my assertion with empirical data, so I've moved my argument on to subjective stuff that nobody can really argue with - phew that was close". ;)

Murray has only ever beaten people when they've been tired. Murray himself has never been tired - it's only something that happens to his opponents. True story.
Problem is I like Murray!!! But on this forum the moderators like to delete threads that prove nadal is the greatest and like to allow threads that talk nonsense such as nadal only won his majors when federer and Djokovic were off form!!

Now if u understood sport and physical exercise U would appreciate nadal against Murray in 2008 was running on fumes. In the exact same way Murray was this year in Paris. You see like nadal was by far a better player than Murray on anybsurface this year it was clear back In April and may that the baton had shifted from Djokovic to Murray. Murray crushed Djokovic in Rome and was all over him for a set in Paris before guess what.....tiredness took hold!!

And to show how superior Murray is to Djokovic this year in London murrray won a match he should never done when he thrashed Djokovic as he was absolutely cream crackered! Had he lost it would have been said he was tired.
 

Vegito

Hall of Fame
And that just about sums up almost any top player past, present and no doubt future too! :cool:
I´m talking about facing a tired rival in a final; having an much easier half of the draw than his opponent, or shorter matches.. Like in the Olympics 2012 or Wimbledon 2013. In the US Open 2012 Djokovic had not a day of rest from the semifinals to the final. And there are other examples. That´s what people says.

OK mate- humour me. How are you measuring 'luck'? How are you able to demonstrate that Murray has had more of it than anyone else and that it is therefore material to the debate?

Murray is held to a standard by many people on here that simply isn't applied to others. For example - nobody says a dicky bird about Roger, Rafa and Novak facing guys from outside the top 20 when they won their first slam. Or Roger beating guys like Gonzo and Roddick to win slams, or Rafa beating the mighty Thomas Berdych in a Wimbledon final. But if Murray meets Raonic in a Wimbledon final? LUCKY MURRAY!

It's bollocks on stilts - it really is.
Well I say it; but that was just many years ago. I don´t say Murray was lucky in Wimbledon 2016; I say Federer beats Nadal in Hamburg 2007 or Madrid 2009 because Nadal was tired, even if I like Federer; and some Federer fans can´t accept it. I don´t talk with fanatism guys; I´m not big fan or any player I don´t hate any player!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I´m talking about facing a tired rival in a final; having an much easier half of the draw than his opponent, or shorter matches.. Like in the Olympics 2012 or Wimbledon 2013. In the US Open 2012 Djokovic had not a day of rest from the semifinals to the final. And there are other examples. That´s what people says.
What are you talking about? Murray had to face Djokovic in the semis of the 2012 Olympics and had to play the semis of mixed doubles the day before the final. At 2013 Wimbledon he had several very long and very tough matches against Verdasco and Janowicz (then at the top of his form). At 2008 US Open, he had to play his semi against Nadal over 2 days because of bad weather (just like Djokovic in 2012) and then had to face a well rested Federer in the final. Do I hear you or anybody else making excuses for Murray on that occasion or is it only his rivals that are allowed excuses?
Murray had the much tougher draw at the recent WTF on top of playing much more tennis than Djokovic in the preceding couple of months but he STILL went on to win, didn't he? It's swings and roundabouts for everybody isn't it?


Well I say it; but that was just many years ago. I don´t say Murray was lucky in Wimbledon 2016; I say Federer beats Nadal in Hamburg 2007 or Madrid 2009 because Nadal was tired, even if I like Federer; and some Federer fans can´t accept it. I don´t talk with fanatism guys; I´m not big fan or any player I don´t hate any player!
There's an old and very sound rule of thumb: if you are fit to play, then you play. If you aren't fit to play, then you don't. It's unfair to their competitors for an opponent or, much more likely their misguided fans, to keep making excuses for their hero's losses as if their opponent had nothing to do with it all!
 

Vegito

Hall of Fame
What are you talking about? Murray had to face Djokovic in the semis of the 2012 Olympics and had to play the semis of mixed doubles the day before the final. At 2013 Wimbledon he had several very long and very tough matches against Verdasco and Janowicz (then at the top of his form). At 2008 US Open, he had to play his semi against Nadal over 2 days because of bad weather (just like Djokovic in 2012) and then had to face a well rested Federer in the final. Do I hear you or anybody else making excuses for Murray on that occasion or is it only his rivals that are allowed excuses?
Murray had the much tougher draw at the recent WTF on top of playing much more tennis than Djokovic in the preceding couple of months but he STILL went on to win, didn't he? It's swings and roundabouts for everybody isn't it?
It´s debatible. How demanding was that mixed doubles? You say Federer was not tired in the Olympic final? I say he was. In any case Federer losing 6-2, 6.1, 6-4 in grass being the recent Wimbledon champion makes you wonder what happened!Then in Wimbledon 2013, I had no doubt Djokovic was exhausted in the final(more that Murray); his match against Del Potro in the semifinals was 04:43:00 of duration. I shared this link again: http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/23221398

You talk about the US Open 2008; well we can say Federer was lucky in the final then! I remember Nadal arrived tired to that US Open 2008 after French Open-Wimbledon-Olympics. Just read this article to see it´s not just me saying it: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/55074-us-open-2008-rafael-nadal-loses-to-andy-murray-is-he-a-hard-court-contender

Murray had the much tougher draw at the recent WTF on top of playing much more tennis than Djokovic in the preceding couple of months but he STILL went on to win, didn't he? It's swings and roundabouts for everybody isn't it?
Yes; I though Djokovic was going to destroy Murray; credit to Murray. Let´s admit that Djokovic didn´t play well in the final.[/QUOTE]
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
just for clarity - AFTER Roger had finished his match with Delpo in the Olympics, Murray played Novak. The next day (whilst Roger was doing his recovery work) Murray played TWO Mixed dubs matchs (QF and SF).

So Murray played THREE MATCHES between tired Roger completing his semi v Delpo and him and Murray taking to the court for the final.

Why can't some people just accept that some days, player x plays better than player y? There doesn't need to be en excuse, there doesn't need to be an extraneous factor - it just feckin happens.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Why can't some people just accept that some days, player x plays better than player y? There doesn't need to be en excuse, there doesn't need to be an extraneous factor - it just feckin happens.
I am saying it as a neutral: the problem here is that some Murray fans use those matches as proof of how well Murray played that day by overrating the level of his opponent.

Saying Murray faced weak opposition is not a mean of discrediting him(unless you are 90's clay),just stating the obvious.
He was dominant in those wins,so still has the benefit of doubt on his side.

Djokovic/Federer also faced subpar versions of Murray,thrice even in Slam finals for Novak,twice for Roger,how would you like if someone overrates Murray's level there,so he will look so much worse because he got destroyed while playing well.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
So this is a fat year, get 'em while the going is good, win a coupla more and get the tt'ers to wish for "just one more" to make your career Completely Completer Completable Complete Completeness.
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
I can tell u now federer won't be a factor. I play tennis and I know how significant a lengthy lay off is. At his age it is fatal and he simply won't ever be a factor anymore at the slams.

At his age recovery after matches will take a lot longer and he won't be able to train as hard either. Against a guy like Murray he is going to get totally overpowered and grounded down.

The thing is nadal and federer could meet inlast 16 of majors give their rankings. If they do the ticket sales and worldwide audience would be huge and would dwarf the figures of a Djokovic v Murray final.

At their stages of their career nadal and federer are going to enjoy the adulation . Neither has a prayer though of challenging Murray. I'm not convinced djokovic does either as he doesn't seem to believe he can take Murray on, from what Becker said that Rome defeat and the first set in Paris seemed to really rock djokovic .
This guy. Lol!
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
Murray won't ever lose to federer again. Federer is simply not even a shadow of what he was

I agree about Del potro. He was the only player who could beat nadal and federer at their very brilliant best. Not even djokovic could do that.

However you raise the point yourself. Is he going to be fit? He has proven how great he can be at Olympics and Davis cup but at a major I question if he can cope with the best of five sets over two weeks.

Nadal hasn't been a factor since 2014. Djokovic has been in decline since this years australian open and he knew it as well.
But still good enough to win slams even in his depleted grandpa shadow state.
 

MasturB

Legend
Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Raonic
Order of likelihood
Murray
Raonic
Del Potro

Would be surprised if anyone else took it.
odds of Winning the A/O right now

1. Novak/Murray- most likely to win. Its clearly Novak's best major, he seems to thrive down there. Murray is number #1 and playing great tennis the last few months overall. Clearly they are the favorites. Unless something major happens in the tune up tournaments, they top the favorites list
2. Stan- Past Champion, proven he can rise to the occasion at majors and beat the big boys, won the US Open..blah blah
(GAP)
3. Everyone else- lets be honest, everyone else with a decent ranking is pretty much equal odds depending on the draw. Fed has been out injured, Rafa is a question mark, and no one else looks stunningly ready to have some huge break out. Maybe Raonic could be called the sole number 3 guy if you wanted me to actually name a person to this spot.
Yeah sadly another Murrovic final on the horizon. Probably a 90% chance of that happening.

Hoping Pepe melts Novak's brain into an unmotivated, complacent glob of peace & love so someone new will be in the final, I don't care (please just not Meeloaf).
Almost certainly Murray if he is 100%. Although it would be a dream come true, i cant see Fed do it at 35.

If not Murray/Nole/Fed, almost the whole top 20 can win it.
I think Murray will, but I don't see him among the choices.

But really, who started with the silly names for the players?
Murray, 100% sure.
Bookies have Andy and Pepe's Guy as about neck and neck.

http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/australian-open/mens/winner

What a wild result. Never count out El Fedr.
 

MasturB

Legend
In all honesty what chance would you have given him going into the AO? I was thinking 10 or 15%.
I knew he'd win if he didn't have to play Djokovic.

He's been more consistent at the Australian than any other slam. The Seppi early exit was an anomaly.

He's only lost to Prime Rafa and Prime Nole there.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.

sportsfan1

Hall of Fame
As it turned out, it's the new 35 year old "young kid" Federer who won. Charge of the young generation. Don't remember hearing much about him last year. Anybody seen much of him before this? Classic looking game though with the 1hbh. I wonder what kind of a career he will have from here on out, having gotten off to such a great start.;)
 
Top