How To Challenge The Big 3

[Great Hands]

The Big 3 have been way beyond anyone else for over 4 years now.

There are a bunch of 'second tier' players in the group behind them - Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga (when fit), Raonic etc. Wawrinka looked like he may challenge the Big 3, but he seems to have dropped away somewhat, and is very inconsistent.

So my question is: what do these guys need to do to consistently challenge the big 3?

What can they do to start beating the big 3 on a regular basis?

What does Nishikori need to do to move from challenger to champion? What does Raonic need to work on? How can Wawrinka become more consistent? What about Dimitrov?

I'm talking specifics here - what do these players need to work on? What do they need to change - in their training, in their tactics, in their mentality, in their technique, in their court positioning, whatever. And how do you think they could go about doing this?

How do these guys step up and avoid being also-ran could-have-beens?

 

[Kieran]

Good topic!

I think Raonic is too limited to get to that stage, but he's a man who will get to a slam final somewhere along the way, and go down in straights, kinda like Phillippoussis in 2003. He's just too stilted and limited. he'll claim scalps, but in sniper mode, not in the cut and thrust of hand to hand combat in a major final.

A problem for the next generation is that they just don't seem to have much space to breathe without bumping into a well-drilled, slam munching machine like Rafa, Novak or Roger. It's a gulf in class, but also in morale and confidence. The records of these guys is prohibitive. A bloke like Grigor could do well, but mentally he doesn't seem hurt or hungry enough. Nishi has the mental spats, but doesn't seem to be physically up to it. Plus, I have my reservations about him, at the very highest levels, I just don't see him sustaining his best for the duration of a slam.

There is an opening right now, with Rafa struggling to come back to full form, and Roger getting old. Nole need only slip up and a major is won by another of the makeweights. Nothing lasts forever.

But as El Dude said before, we may need to skip these guys and look at the next generation coming after them. Although he's basically a part-time player, I prefer Nick to Grigor. Much more big match temperament there, although he needs to ditch the desire to entertain. Coric, Thiem, there's none of these boys tainted by the long wait in line for the Three to drop dead and die, basically. They seem more daring, to me, and this is what wins big, in tennis. It isn't about technique, it's about what you have in the trouser department, and these boys have more gall and courage, far as I can see...

 

[Great Hands]

dimitrov has mental issues, imo. the number of times he's double faulted, or made a nervous eror, on a big points...way too many times. he had cnances to take nole to a 5th at wd last year, and andy to a 5th at ao this year, but his nerve failed him when it mattered most. the tthing is, i don't know how you teach someone not to choke. is it actually teachebl? how doe someone go about trying not to choke?

 

[Great Hands]

dimitrov has mental issues, imo. the number of times he's double faulted, or made a nervous eror, on a big points...way too many times. he had cnances to take nole to a 5th at wd last year, and andy to a 5th at ao this year, but his nerve failed him when it mattered most. the tthing is, i don't know how you teach someone not to choke. is it actually teachebl? how doe someone go about trying not to choke?


i guss i just felt that these quesitns are rouitnely asked of andy, but less asked of thet other players trying to challenge the bnig 3. as well asfinding it an interesting topic, i thighout it was only fair to put the others udner the micrisope too!

based upon your post, the genereal point seems ot be: none of these guys can can't hcallnege the big 3 consistenly, becasue theyre not good enough,[so there; no poit in really discussing it any futhr..]

but the same is true of andy. and it'sa always been true of andy. at majors - 2 wins over rafa - one when he retired, 2 inws over novak when he was off form, and one win against a tired roger, almost 6 years andy's elder in his 32nd year, who'd played a 5 setter in teh preivous round. that ;sit, out of 21 gerand slan matches.

[the same cld be sadi fo andy, though. he's ony ever beaten the big 3 when they'r been off their game.] yet people seem to expect mo3r from andy than they do of the other 2nd tier players. peole's expcetations of him semt o be unrealsitc because he manged to get 2 slams when novkak played poorly.

to paraphase some of your statemtntns and apply them to andy - i.e. palcing him with teh challngers, whre he belongs, rather than trying to hold hiom, unfarily, to the standrds of the big 3:

'There is an opening right now, with Rafa struggling to come back to full form, and Roger getting old. Nole need only slip up and a major is won by ...Andy!

A problem for ...Andy... is that he just doesn't seem to have much space to breathe without bumping into a well-drilled, slam munching machine like Rafa, Novak or Roger. It's a gulf in class, but also in morale and confidence.

 

[Great Hands]

Good topic!

Thanks, Kieran!

Interesting post!

I agree about Grigor having mental issues. I had high hopes for him, but he's been consistently disappointing. It's not just a lack of hunger, a lack of intensity...the number of times he's double faulted, or made a nervous error, on a big point...way too many times. He had chances to take Nole to a 5th at WD last year, and Andy to a 5th at AO this year, but his nerve failed him when it mattered.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Great topic. Thanks GH.

Putting those times aside, where the big 3 really stank the joint, nobody ever beats the big 3 by playing defensive tennis. As far as I can remember, those guys only lose to lesser players when somehow the lesser players manages to take time away from them, and sustain it for the whole match. Rafa experiences that regularly at Wimby. Fast surface, offensive player, no time to line up his shots the way he is used to, ends up losing to players of lesser ranking.

Taking time away from Roger is another thing all together because he is the master of rushing people, but it can still be done and as he is aging, we will see that more often. Same with Nole. Almost impossible to rush him because he is so good at turning defense into offense, like Roger was 5-6 years ago.

It will take a player who has a considerably strong weapon or a one-two punch to beat those guys. Talking about Milos, he has beaten most of the big three, because he has a serve and forehand combo that can do that, even when they are playing not too poorly.

At the end of the day, offense will do that. Or, you will be an amazing defender like Nole or Rafa, where you force the guy to hit 6 winners in a row and the 7th one is an error. Rafa fans enjoyed that many times against Roger. Outside Rafa and Nole, nobody defends like that. I thought Simon was going to be that guy for a while, 5-6 years ago, but that did not pan out.

 

[Great Hands]

The Big 3 have been way beyond anyone else for over 4 years now.

There are a bunch of 'second tier' players in the group behind them - Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga (when fit), Raonic etc. Wawrinka looked like he may challenge the Big 3, but he seems to have dropped away somewhat, and is very inconsistent.

So my question is: what do these guys need to do to consistently challenge the big 3?

What can they do to start beating the big 3 on a regular basis?

What does Nishikori need to do to move from challenger to champion? What does Raonic need to work on? How can Wawrinka become more consistent? What about Dimitrov?

I'm talking specifics here - what do these players need to work on? What do they need to change - in their training, in their tactics, in their mentality, in their technique, in their court positioning, whatever. And how do you think they could go about doing this?

How do these guys step up and avoid being also-ran could-have-beens?

i.e. there's been a lot of talk recentyl about all this as regards murray, but what aboyut the other guys?

 

[Great Hands]

Great topic. Thanks GH.

Thanks!

You make some very interesting points.

It will take a player who has a considerably strong weapon or a one-two punch to beat those guys.

Interestingly, Murray has managed to sometimes beat the big 3, and he doesn't have a strong weapon, unless you count the first serve (but it's not like Milos's!). O.K., he's done it only 5 times at majors, one of which was a retirement, and the other 4 the players were not at their best. But he won with a good all-around game, great movement, and just excellent talent on the ball. But you're right, that's not going to get it done consistently as Murray's only won those 4-5 times at majors in 21 attempts. Murray doesn't really have the game to beat the big 3 when they're playing well, at least not consistently. Nishikori's had some success against the big 3 when he's playing well, because he takes the ball so early and thus rushes them, an important thing, as you mentioned. He managed to do this to Novak at the USO last year. But I haven't seen much greatness from him this year yet.

 

[Riotbeard]

Great topic. Thanks GH.

Putting those times aside, where the big 3 really stank the joint, nobody ever beats the big 3 by playing defensive tennis. As far as I can remember, those guys only lose to lesser players when somehow the lesser players manages to take time away from them, and sustain it for the whole match. Rafa experiences that regularly at Wimby. Fast surface, offensive player, no time to line up his shots the way he is used to, ends up losing to players of lesser ranking.

Taking time away from Roger is another thing all together because he is the master of rushing people, but it can still be done and as he is aging, we will see that more often. Same with Nole. Almost impossible to rush him because he is so good at turning defense into offense, like Roger was 5-6 years ago.

It will take a player who has a considerably strong weapon or a one-two punch to beat those guys. Talking about Milos, he has beaten most of the big three, because he has a serve and forehand combo that can do that, even when they are playing not too poorly.

At the end of the day, offense will do that. Or, you will be an amazing defender like Nole or Rafa, where you force the guy to hit 6 winners in a row and the 7th one is an error. Rafa fans enjoyed that many times against Roger. Outside Rafa and Nole, nobody defends like that. I thought Simon was going to be that guy for a while, 5-6 years ago, but that did not pan out.

I agree with most of this. I think one more players should do is hit more to Rafa's forehand. Everybody but Novak allows him to camp in his backhand corner, and his backhand is actually pretty darn good at this point (well maybe not right now but is when he is playing well).

I think Nishi has the best chance of that generation to win a slam. Has the best baseline game, pretty good mentally, and seems to be putting the physical side together or at least improving in this department.

 

[Puppet Master]

Murat beat me to it, basically it's the aggressive game plan and how long one can sustain it. The best defenders we have in the game are Nadal and Djoker, let's face it, even their defensive game is not good enough to beat the other one when he is playing aggressively. When Roger comes to mind, sure he is a lesser defender, but in my opinion a better shot maker and has more attacking capabilities than the both of them. Among the "challengers" you mentioned Great Hands, all of them at some point lose the plot, and unfortunately that gets them into a lot of trouble. Namely Dimitrov, looking at his Wimbledon performance last year it would be sensible to assume the guy performs like that on all surfaces and would be very dangerous at slams since he is so fit. Well would the assumption be sensible? Not even close, the guy gets so passive at times, and then scratches his head in disappointment after the match. Some time ago, I had very high hopes for the guy, but now it is clear to me that he just lacks mental strength, and is generally very inconsistent on hard courts. The problem is to some extent the same with Nishikori and Raonic, at least regarding the mental aspect of it. None of them have that belief honestly and it's pretty obvious. Yes, I know that Raonic has beaten both Fed and Nadal now, and Dimitrov has managed to beat Djokovic, Nishikori got very close to beating Nadal and has beaten both Fed and Novak more than once, but none of them are going to do it consistently and I know it, unless some major change happens.
And another thing to consider, for someone to have similar achievements as the big 3, that person would need to be as talented if not more than the big 3, or at least do something as well as the big 3 do. Having said that, I guess no one here expects 15 slams from Dimitrov, or 10 from Nishikori, but 1 or 2 already would have been nice.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The Big 3 have been way beyond anyone else for over 4 years now.

There are a bunch of 'second tier' players in the group behind them - Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga (when fit), Raonic etc. Wawrinka looked like he may challenge the Big 3, but he seems to have dropped away somewhat, and is very inconsistent.

So my question is: what do these guys need to do to consistently challenge the big 3?

What can they do to start beating the big 3 on a regular basis?

What does Nishikori need to do to move from challenger to champion? What does Raonic need to work on? How can Wawrinka become more consistent? What about Dimitrov?

I'm talking specifics here - what do these players need to work on? What do they need to change - in their training, in their tactics, in their mentality, in their technique, in their court positioning, whatever. And how do you think they could go about doing this?

How do these guys step up and avoid being also-ran could-have-beens?

Great Hands...for me it rather simple.

Develop a damn transition game.

Pinning the big three at the baseline, running them corner to corner, and even wide of the alley, and not moving forward to block a volley into the open court is pure madness in my opinion.

By allowing the Big 3 to survive brutal baseline rallies and not capitalizing gets you exactly what you see.

The "Second Tier" can win when they are unbelievably hot and zoned in at their top level. like when TB pummeled Rafa down under, .but this is what, a 10% proposition?

 

[El Dude]

It really comes down to age. The Big Three are among the ten greatest players of the ATP era, possibly all among the top 5 - and that kind of talent concentration doesn't come around very often. Combine that with a weak generation after them and they'll be able to sustain their dominance beyond when they might have if they had a stronger generation coming up (imagine how many Slams Roger would have if the generation after him was the Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic crew, rather than Nadal/Djokovic/Murray). But at some point it is inevitable. Just as Roger at 33 can't quite hold muster to Novak at 27, so too will someone, even a lesser player, in their prime (22-27) be able to beat a 30+ year old Novak.

Let's put it this way. Novak turns 28 in May; Dimitrov turns 24 in May. Right now Novak is far better, but let's fast-forward three years. Novak will be 31 and Grigor 27. Novak will likely have another 4-6 Slam trophies on his shelf, with 12+ to his name. Let's say Grigor still doesn't have any. He might be VERY hungry, plus he'll be as good as he'll ever be. A 27-year old hungry Grigor could very well beat an aging 31-year old Novak.

And that isn't even counting the generation after Grigor's - Kyrgios, Coric, Kokkinakis, not to mention Donaldson, Zverev, Chung, Rublev, etc. As Keiran said, some of these guys already show more fire than a Dimitrov or Tomic, and have the potential for more balanced games than Raonic, and hopefully more stamina than Nishikori. I personally see Kyrgios as another Del Potro type, both in terms of talent level but also perhaps a tendency to injury, so Coric might have the higher ceiling, but that's another topic.

In other words, it will happen. There's no way it cannot. But what seems likely, even almost certain at this point, is that unlike "poor" Roger back in 2008, the current kings--Novak and Rafa--won't be dethroned by the younger generation while in their prime.

Actually, the situation isn't unlike Laver and Rosewall, who were the kings of tennis in the 60s. This culminated with Laver's Calendar Slam in 1969 at the age of 30-31. Using my generation theory, their generation--those players born from 1934-38--was one of the greatest in tennis history, with Laver and Rosewall leading the way, but also Slam-winners like Emerson, Hoad, Santana, Stolle, Cooper, Olmedo, Gimeno, etc. The generation after them, born 1939-43, was one of the weakest. The only near-great player was Arthur Ashe, who won three Slams, with only two others winning a single Slam each - William Bowrey and Chuck McKinley, and both in the amateur era (Bowrey won the last before the Open Era, the 1968 Australian Open).

It wasn't until the following generation, those players born in 1944-48, with players like John Newcombe, Ilie Nastase, Stan Smith, and Jan Kodes, was it clear that the baton of dominance had been passed - and by that point, 1971-73, both Laver and Rosewell were deep into their 30s (Laver was 32-35, Rosewall 36-39 during those years). And then Jimmy Connors, Guillermo Vilas, and Bjorn Borg stole the baton in 1974 and on, and the rest is history.

Anyhow, maybe I should have written this as a blog article, but it is interesting how different generations rise to dominance, and how some generations are dethroned in different ways. I see a strong correlation the current Big Three--particularly Novak and Rafa--and Laver and Rosewall. Something like this:

Rosewall/Laver = Nadal/Djokovic
Generation Ashe = Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov
Generation Newcombe/Kodes/Nastase/Smith = Kyrgios/Coric/etc
Connors/Vilas/Borg = ???

Of course every era is different, but sometimes history plays out in cycles that are, if rarely exactly the same, at least has some resonance, like a harmonic. So we shall see.

 

[Federberg]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

 

[mrzz]

^Completeley agree with Federberg's post above.

There's not much of a game plan if you do not have the talent to execute it. Raonic might have a chance in a tie-breaker filled match, and Nishikori and Dimitrov on a good day (Nishikori is the only player around with the talent/attitude combination to face this guys, imo, not counting del Potro).

And, maybe one of these guys could train like crazy on a strategy to beat Djokovic. And then he meets Federer...

The problem with the big three is that there are three of them...

 

[Great Hands]

we get a lot of talk about what murray fails to do to beat eh big 3, what he needs to work on. i just thought it might be interesting to exapnd upon this, rather than singling out murray. as i say, these other guys aren';t beating the big 3 coniststnly eihter, but seem to get a free pass. some of them have murray's talent, but they haven't had his success. i think murray is actualllu mantellay stronger than a lot of them - he has more intesity, more fiere, he tires harder. he doesn't get a lot of credit for it thugh. he just gets chastised for not beign as good as the big 3.]

[what about specific advice for specifc players?

there's been a lot of talk about what's holding murray back - metnally, tehcnically, whatever - the asunption, as el dude rightyl poitned out, is that there is soemthing ';wrong' with him.

so i'm just apllying that same logic, asking those same quesiotns, of the other guys.

do you think nishikori or warinka or berdych have any spefic mental issues, for exmpale, that are holding them back? if so, what is the spefici natuer of these issues? how cld they resoleve them? e.g. a new coach?

dimitrov - mental weaknees has been mentioned. is there anything he could do better twehcnially, though?

etc etc

i/e/ let's not just stop at murray!

[what about wainka's tactics? ]

[i.e. there's been a lot of talk recentyl about all this as regards murray, but what aboyut the other guys?]

i guss i just felt that these quesitns are rouitnely asked of andy, but less asked of thet other players trying to challenge the bnig 3. as well asfinding it an interesting topic, i thighout it was only fair to put the others udner the micrisope too!

based upon your post, the genereal point seems ot be: none of these guys can can't hcallnege the big 3 consistenly, becasue theyre not good enough,[so there; no poit in really discussing it any futhr..]

but the same is true of andy. and it'sa always been true of andy. at majors - 2 wins over rafa - one when he retired, 2 inws over novak when he was off form, and one win against a tired roger, almost 6 years andy's elder in his 32nd year, who'd played a 5 setter in teh preivous round. that ;sit, out of 21 gerand slan matches.

[the same cld be sadi fo andy, though. he's ony ever beaten the big 3 when they'r been off their game.] yet people seem to expect mo3r from andy than they do of the other 2nd tier players. peole's expcetations of him semt o be unrealsitc because he manged to get 2 slams when novkak played poorly.

to paraphase some of your statemtntns and apply them to andy - i.e. palcing him with teh challngers, whre he belongs, rather than trying to hold hiom, unfarily, to the standrds of the big 3:

'There is an opening right now, with Rafa struggling to come back to full form, and Roger getting old. Nole need only slip up and a major is won by ...Andy!

A problem for ...Andy... is that he just doesn't seem to have much space to breathe without bumping into a well-drilled, slam munching machine like Rafa, Novak or Roger. It's a gulf in class, but also in morale and confidence.

 

[El Dude]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

This is a misunderstanding and distortion of what I wrote (assuming you are responding to my post). I didn't say the "competition" was weak, but the younger generation is. Or do you disagree that the generation that includes Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc isn't weak?

 

[Great Hands]

'There's not much of a game plan if you do not have the talent to execute it.''

'And, maybe one of these guys could train like crazy on a strategy to beat Djokovic. And then he meets Federer...

The problem with the big three is that there are three of them...'

if the above is ture, then why is murray, who is not as talented as teh big 3 either, rotuinely chastised for not improving enough to be as good as them? [whilst the other players are 'allowed' to be less good thatn the big 3?]

we get a lot of talk about what murray fails to do to beat eh big 3, what he needs to work on. i just thought it might be interesting to exapnd upon this, rather than singling out murray. [as i say,] these other guys aren';t beating the big 3 coniststnly eihter, but seem to get a free pass. some of them have murray's talent, but they haven't had his success. i think murray is actualllu mantellay stronger than a lot of them - he has more intesity, more fiere, he tires harder. he doesn't get a lot of credit for it thugh. he just gets chastised for not beign as good as the big 3.]

there's been a lot of talk about what's holding murray back - metnally, tehcnically, whatever - the asunption, as el dude rightyl poitned out, is that there is soemthing ';wrong' with him. [the quesiotn seems to be: what;s werng with murray? why isn't he as good as the big 3? to be as good, he needs ot improve x, y and z.' so i'm just apllyign this question/aatitude ot the other guys. what;s werng with them? why aren' they as good as the big 3? to be as good, they need to improve x, y and z.'



for one thing, i think warinka could work in his metnality on the ocurt. he has a tendency to get desondet and irrtaed if things aren't going his way.





it doens't seem fair to only chasitse murray in this way, and not anyone else.]

somehow, when it's murray, he's 'failed' by not beatin gthem, when it's nayone else, it's o.k. to lose.

so i'm just apllying that same logic, asking those same quesiotns, of the other guys.




[what about specific advice for specifc players?

do you think nishikori or warinka or berdych have any spefic mental issues, for exmpale, that are holding them back? if so, what is the spefici natuer of these issues? how cld they resoleve them? e.g. a new coach?

dimitrov - mental weaknees has been mentioned. is there anything he could do better twehcnially, though?

etc etc

[because if you think the big 3 are so much beter than everyone else that there's no point in even trying to imporve, why, after murray gets beaten, don't people just shirg their shoudlers and say - well, it's the big 3 - whaty can you do?' somehow, when it's murray, he's 'failed' by not beatin gthem, when it's nayone else, it's o.k. to lose.

i.e. my question was along the lines of: if you were kei or stan or grigro's coach, what woulfdyou do to improve, to give yourself a shot? o.k. manybe they won't succeed, but at least they'd be trying seomtinhg!

i/e/ let's not just stop at murray!







[what about wainka's tactics? ]

[i.e. there's been a lot of talk recentyl about all this as regards murray, but what aboyut the other guys?]

i guss i just felt that these quesitns are rouitnely asked of andy, but less asked of thet other players trying to challenge the bnig 3. as well asfinding it an interesting topic, i thighout it was only fair to put the others udner the micrisope too!

based upon your post, the genereal point seems ot be: none of these guys can can't hcallnege the big 3 consistenly, becasue theyre not good enough,[so there; no poit in really discussing it any futhr..]

but the same is true of andy. and it'sa always been true of andy. at majors - 2 wins over rafa - one when he retired, 2 inws over novak when he was off form, and one win against a tired roger, almost 6 years andy's elder in his 32nd year, who'd played a 5 setter in teh preivous round. that ;sit, out of 21 gerand slan matches.

[the same cld be sadi fo andy, though. he's ony ever beaten the big 3 when they'r been off their game.] yet people seem to expect mo3r from andy than they do of the other 2nd tier players. peole's expcetations of him semt o be unrealsitc because he manged to get 2 slams when novkak played poorly.

to paraphase some of your statemtntns and apply them to andy - i.e. palcing him with teh challngers, whre he belongs, rather than trying to hold hiom, unfarily, to the standrds of the big 3:

'There is an opening right now, with Rafa struggling to come back to full form, and Roger getting old. Nole need only slip up and a major is won by ...Andy!

A problem for ...Andy... is that he just doesn't seem to have much space to breathe without bumping into a well-drilled, slam munching machine like Rafa, Novak or Roger. It's a gulf in class, but also in morale and confidence.

 

[Great Hands]

the questions in my origianl post are rotinely applied to murray. i just thought i'd apply them to the other guys as well.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

big 3 ? wut..a big one more like.

looks like its going to be surprise winners like cilic and staminal to burst the so-called big 3 bubble before the bubble reforms again (prob).

 

[Fiero425]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

This is a misunderstanding and distortion of what I wrote (assuming you are responding to my post). I didn't say the "competition" was weak, but the younger generation is. Or do you disagree that the generation that includes Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc isn't weak?

I coined a phrase describing this newer generation; "unable to finish!" They can be serving for a match, most times 2 points away from victory, on a few occasions with multiple match points like Tsonga at the FO vs Djokovic a couple years ago, and this 2nd tier of players find a way to lose it vs the top rung! They just can't help themselves with isolated victories like Fabio over Rafa 2 months ago in Rio SF! He had an isolated chance of winning and he took it with a great "get" on his part to win in 3 sets on Nadal's beloved clay! :angel: The 2nd tier have all the tools to break through and a little of it happened last season with Wawrinka, Cilic, and Nishikori! Raonic has made strides by winning over Rafa recently, but falls to Isner later; so there are setbacks each time to keep Nole, Roger, and Rafa "right there" time and time again eventually! I'm hopeful they will step up and get the job done this year; not like I want them to take out Nole! This is his time to shine and he seems to be right on schedule taking his "pet" Slam a couple months ago! He has to have his sights on the FO, but I'm hoping he doesn't put pressure on himself and end up falling before the semi's! His own record has got to wearing on him with all this new blood out there! :cover