El Dude said:One comment. In that list, the biggest surprise for me was to see some of the placements of new Slam winners relative to each other. For instance:
*Connors and Borg won their first Slams in the same year, despite being four years apart in age.
*Lendl won his first Slam just a year before Edberg and Becker, despite a gap of six and seven years, respectively! This one surprised me the most.
*Roger won his first Slam only two years before Rafa, despite being five years apart. Of course I knew this, but it was a good reminder. Despite being just a year older than Andy and Novak, Rafa almost seems like a cross-generational player.
All due respect to Lendl, Mac wasn't the same player when Borg left and when he got married..his game took a bit of a sabbatical..however he was unable to recapture his brilliant success when he tried to reboot his career. Lendl found openings in Mac's S/v game and totally bossed the 2nd phase of JPM. I still recalled Mac being drilled in the face and body numerous times. It was dreadful to watch.. if there were ever a time for a newcomer to break through it may 2017.Fiero425 said:El Dude said:One comment. In that list, the biggest surprise for me was to see some of the placements of new Slam winners relative to each other. For instance:
*Connors and Borg won their first Slams in the same year, despite being four years apart in age.
*Lendl won his first Slam just a year before Edberg and Becker, despite a gap of six and seven years, respectively! This one surprised me the most.
*Roger won his first Slam only two years before Rafa, despite being five years apart. Of course I knew this, but it was a good reminder. Despite being just a year older than Andy and Novak, Rafa almost seems like a cross-generational player.
This just demonstrates the level of competition at any given time! With Borg, he was without peer on clay; Vilas actually his pigeon! Connors had to compete against several top players ending their careers; Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, & Nastase! Lendl had to deal with the end of Borg and the prime of McEnroe and Connors! Roger's delayed ascension to greatness was obviously kept in check early on by Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, & a host of other more than competent players! It happens; all in the timing! :angel: :dodgy:
the AntiPusher said:All due respect to Lendl, Mac wasn't the same player when Borg left and when he got married..his game took a bit of a sabbatical..however he was unable to recapture his brilliant success when he tried to reboot his career. Lendl found openings in Mac's S/v game and totally bossed the 2nd phase of JPM. I still recalled Mac being drilled in the face and body numerous times. It was dreadful to watch.. if there were ever a time for a newcomer to break through it may 2017.Fiero425 said:El Dude said:One comment. In that list, the biggest surprise for me was to see some of the placements of new Slam winners relative to each other. For instance:
*Connors and Borg won their first Slams in the same year, despite being four years apart in age.
*Lendl won his first Slam just a year before Edberg and Becker, despite a gap of six and seven years, respectively! This one surprised me the most.
*Roger won his first Slam only two years before Rafa, despite being five years apart. Of course I knew this, but it was a good reminder. Despite being just a year older than Andy and Novak, Rafa almost seems like a cross-generational player.
This just demonstrates the level of competition at any given time! With Borg, he was without peer on clay; Vilas actually his pigeon! Connors had to compete against several top players ending their careers; Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, & Nastase! Lendl had to deal with the end of Borg and the prime of McEnroe and Connors! Roger's delayed ascension to greatness was obviously kept in check early on by Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, & a host of other more than competent players! It happens; all in the timing! :angel: :dodgy:
El Dude said:Yeah, the record supports Fiero's view more - Mac's best year was 1984, and then he collapsed after that, recovering to be more of a second tier type.
Anyhow, here is the h2h with Lendl, year to year:
Yeaer: McEnroe - Lendl (Slams)
1980: 2-0 (incl USO for McEnroe)
1981: 0-1 (FO for Lendl)
1982: 0-4 (USO to Lendl)
1983: 3-2 (Wim to McEnroe)
1984: 5-1 (FO to Lendl, USO to McEnroe)
1985: 3-2 (USO to Lendl)
1987: 0-1 (USO to Lendl)
1988: 0-1 (FO to Lendl)
1989: 1-3 (AO to Lendl)
1990: 0-2
1991: 0-1
1992: 0-1
So think AP just missed that middle part where McEnroe re-righted the ship. John started out strong, then Lendl was more dominant in 1981-82--so right as Borg was leaving. Then John took control and dominated in 1984. Lendl got it back at the 1985 US Open and dominated McEnroe from that point on.
Fiero425 said:El Dude said:Yeah, the record supports Fiero's view more - Mac's best year was 1984, and then he collapsed after that, recovering to be more of a second tier type.
Anyhow, here is the h2h with Lendl, year to year:
Yeaer: McEnroe - Lendl (Slams)
1980: 2-0 (incl USO for McEnroe)
1981: 0-1 (FO for Lendl)
1982: 0-4 (USO to Lendl)
1983: 3-2 (Wim to McEnroe)
1984: 5-1 (FO to Lendl, USO to McEnroe)
1985: 3-2 (USO to Lendl)
1987: 0-1 (USO to Lendl)
1988: 0-1 (FO to Lendl)
1989: 1-3 (AO to Lendl)
1990: 0-2
1991: 0-1
1992: 0-1
So think AP just missed that middle part where McEnroe re-righted the ship. John started out strong, then Lendl was more dominant in 1981-82--so right as Borg was leaving. Then John took control and dominated in 1984. Lendl got it back at the 1985 US Open and dominated McEnroe from that point on.
Lendl began to "toy" with McEnroe from '85 USO on! Ivan had taken on Tony Roche to help him elevate his game to win Wimbledon! He did the job, but no matter how hard he worked, even skipping a couple FO's he could have won, he wasn't able to upset any grass specialists like Edberg, Cash, or Becker! He wasn't upset himself, but at times, a Mayotte would take him to 5 sets! Ivan had one shining moment on grass, winning Queens over Edberg and Becker in straights in '90! That was his last great chance after skipping FO to practice on grass, relinquishing his #1 ranking in the process! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover
mrzz said:I guess 2013 also did not have a new GS winner [Wawrinka won in 2014]
Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
the AntiPusher said:Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
I am not so sure JMDP can defeat the big 4 plus Stan in a best of 5 format..to win a slam he may have to encounter 3 or 4 of them..that's a tall order
delPoFearhand said:the AntiPusher said:Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
I am not so sure JMDP can defeat the big 4 plus Stan in a best of 5 format..to win a slam he may have to encounter 3 or 4 of them..that's a tall order
Unless he gets his ranking back up to where it "should" be- in the top 10 for sure, maybe even top 5. Then he could, depending on a favorable draw of course, only have to face 2 to get a GS title. Of course that will take time, but by Wimbledon I think he'll be top 10, maybe top 5 by USO.
the AntiPusher said:Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
Roger and Rafa will make a slam final in 2017..those two have so much genius it's almost maddening..
sid said:the AntiPusher said:Rational National said:When was the last final that didn't involve either Novak, Andy or Stan? I assume Cilic / Kei, but even then when was the last one before that (Was it Roger / Murray Wimbledon or Rafa / Ferrer at the French)
The reason I say, is no matter what the statistical analysis might say, the consistency of Novak and Andy coupled with the intermittent genius of Stan means that 2017 is likely to have at least one (if not 2) of the above in every final - Once there, I don't see anyone on the rise that could genuinely beat them at the moment - of course it will eventually, but I saw nothing in 2016 to say that it will happen in 2017 - in fact I put more stock at this stage in a Del Potro return to the winners circle than I do Raonic (who I do believe you correctly identify as the most likely newbie) and thus I think I would be more than happy to offer 10/1 on a new GS winner in 2017
Roger and Rafa will make a slam final in 2017..those two have so much genius it's almost maddening..
I also put more stock in Del Potro or Stan @ this stage than Roger & Rafa,can not see these 2 lighting up what thay did in the past.Maybe Raonic wil take a Slam maybe not.The Big 2 will make more Slam finals than the others,that's how I think things will go.