WTA Wednesday Order of Play

Pattaya City at 3 AM: Chang vs Tanasugarn, Doi vs Cirstea and Zvonareva vs Amanmuradova scheduled
Paris at 5 AM: Barrois vs Mattek-Sands, Gajdosova vs Niculescu, Vinci vs Halep and Lepchenko vs McHale scheduled
Pattaya City at 5 AM: Kirilenko vs Rodionova
Paris at 7 AM: Zakopalova vs Cornet followed by Parmentier vs Medina Garrigues ending with Craybas vs Wickmayer
Paris at 1 PM: Sharapova vs Scheepers
Paris at 3 PM; Goerges vs Cetkovska

Not going to happen.

Davis Cup (Friday - Saturday - Sunday)

Spain vs Kazakhstan (8 AM - 9 AM - 8 AM)
Almagro, Granollers, Ferrero and M Lopez vs Kukushkin, Golubev, Schukin and Korolev

Austria vs Russia (8 AM - 8 AM - 7 AM)
Melzer, Haider-Maurer, Peya and Marach vs Bogomolov Jr, Youzhny, Davydenko and Kunitsyn

Canada vs France (5 PM - 5 PM - 5 PM)
Raonic, Pospisil, Dancevic and Nestor vs Tsonga, Monfils, Benneteau and Llodra

Switzerland vs United States (7 AM - 8:30 AM - 6 AM)
Federer, Wawrinka, Chiudinelli and Lammer vs Fish, Isner, Harrison and M Bryan

Czech Republic vs Italy (10 AM - 9 AM - 7 AM)
Berdych, Stepanek, Rosol and Cermak vs Bolelli, Bracciali, Seppi and Starace

Serbia vs Sweden (8 AM - 8 AM - 8 AM)
Tipsarevic, Troicki, Bozoljac and Zimonjic vs Ryderstedt, Bergman, Prpic and Lindstedt

Japan vs Croatia (10 PM Thursday - 10 PM Friday - 10 PM Saturday)
Nishikori, Soeda, Ito and Sugita vs Dodig, Karlovic, Veic and Zovko

Germany vs Argentina (8 AM - 8 AM - 7 AM)
Mayer, Kohlschreiber, Petzschner and Haas vs Chela, Monaco, Nalbandian and Schwank

Pete

Thanks.

May I say Novak is in a solid position to achieve his 'dream' this year

In saying that he has a 'long road' ahead of him.

Nothing in our game remains 'stat'.I remember people saying the same thing about Rafa after his 2010 year when he obtained his career slam.Rafa did have a chance in 2011 at the AO,alas he obtained a injury and was defeated by Ferrer.Novak did defend his title at the AO in 2012 and puts him in a good position.

All eyes will be on Novak this year and the added pressure will be 'high' to see if his dream can come true and also this is a Olympic year as well.

I am not going to predict as I dont have a 'crystal ball':)

At this juncture unless otherwise witnessed by my very own eyes THE HURRICANE can walk on water as far as I'm concerned,left alone win a GOLDEN SLAM,haven't we seen it already?no one can say what he will do but all this "but he can not do this, but he can not do that" I don't fall for anymore,he's demonstrated in all categories that lately he is TENNIS,period!

Glad to see as more days pass after the AO final, more and more press are addressing the brutality and redundancy of the game today and how it's not necessarily good for the game, and how maybe that's the problem and not the schedule.

http://tinyurl.com/84lxvby

I think it could happen and would be pleased to see it. The FO changed the balls last year to speed up the game. This will help Noles against Nadal. And if Nadal plays Noles like he did at the AO, that, is too stupid to make Noles move, I think Noles has a chance to take him. Noles will definitely have the advantage at Wimbledon and then the USO could be a match we all dream of...

Even though Fed, Djoker and Rafa have all won 3 slams in a year, Fed came the closest to winning the calendar slam or the "insert name" slam (by winning 3 and making the final of the 4th), none of these guys have started the year by winning the first two or first three majors. Obviously the pressure at Wimbledon would be markedly increased if you were coming into it having won the AO and the FO. And can you imagine the immense pressure/expectation, and media interest that would be on you if you entered the USO after having won the AO, FO, and Wimbledon that year??? Holy cow!

Funny how nobody seems to want to talk about how close Nole is to...THE NOVAK SLAM. Winning 4 grand slams in a row would be a truly incredible feat, and guess what? He's one slam away.

Forget about the true Grand Slam, it's too much to ask for. But Federer and Nadal both failed to get the 4 grand slams in a row(who can forget Rafa's stunning failure to grab the 'Rafa Slam' at the beginning of '11?).

If nole wins the french, he's already accomplished somethign that both fed and nadal could never do.

Novak has a good chance of holding all four slam titles simultaneously, if he does not have to face Federer in the semis. Because, despite last season, in a 3 of 5 set match, the best at the FO are Nadal, Federer, in that order.

To have to face Federer in the semis and go up against Nadal on his best surface would be too much.

Given that the Olympics fall this year, it is not too difficult to see Novak lose steam by the USO.

But of all the players to have come through in the last two decades, he certainly has the game and the result to be in contention.

Federer was never in contention as long as Nadal was there to stop him at the FO. Similarly Nadal, although he could have been lucky in 2010

Considering how close Novak came to losing at the USO last year (Fed in the semis), and how close he came to losing to both Murray and Rafa at the AO this year... I hardly think the calendar slam or Noval Slam is a given. Next time Roger might hit an ace on MP like he did at the FO, and next time Rafa may make that BH pass in the 5th set, and next time maybe Murray will capitalize on his 3 BPs in the 5th set.

Regarding the potential French Open showdown between Nadal and Djokovic in a few months:

As a fan of the game but not a particular fan of any of the big 3(I respect them all, of course), I think its funny that people give Nadal such a decent chance to beat Nole at the FO.

Puhh-lease. Nole lost last year because Federer played his best match of the year(by far) and I will not deny for a second that Federer is capable of getting into Nole's head. That is NOT the case when Nole plays Rafa.

If it's a Rafa-Nole final, I think Nole wins in 4 sets tops. Think of Madrid and Rome last year! Scoreline will be something like 7-5, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4 in favor of Nole. Does anyone truly disagree??

Mr. Truth, we all know that Djoker has the chance to win the "Novak Slam", just like Roger had the chance to do it a couple of times and Rafa had the chance last year. As I said, Roger came the closest by making the final of the 4th slam. As with Roger, I would expect the FO to be the toughest one for Novak to win, especially should he come up against Nadal. Alhough as proven last year, it may not be too easy for him should he come up against Fed either.

Alexis

How true.I mean those points you outlined in your post above could have changed everything.

The margins were soo small in the big picture of things.

Can any one of them stay healthy enough to do it?

Mr. Truth, I think it all depends on what happens between now and the FO. If Rafa can get a win over Djoker before the FO, especially on clay, all bets are off. Despite Rafa losing to Djoker in the AO final, he thinks he's conquered the mental edge he believed Djoker to have over him in 2011. Who knows if that is really true? But one thing we do know, Nadal's confidence is a million times higher when he plays on clay versus not. But like I said, it will all depend on what happens between now and the FO.

Please I am yet to see Rafa being defeated at RG in 5 sets of tennis in a final

I was there live in 2005 and I had the pleasure last year to see Rafa,who by the way wasnt playing his best tennis,win and equal Borgs record.

Rafa will be highly primed this year at RG as he has a chance to surpass Borgs record.

Rafa is the Greatest Clay Player I have seen.D. His clay titles alone regardless of this six GS titles at RG.

Novak has a long way to go to be in the same breath as Rafa on the clay.

Nadal is favored to win FO.

Djokovic has a chance, but we now know (based on last year's experience) that he can't be favored to win it no matter what he does leading up to it.

It would be great if Djokovic and Federer had a re-match in the semi this year. IF (and that's a huge "if") Djokovic beats Federer in the semi, and follows that up by beating Nadal in the final, we can definitely say that this is his own era, and that we have indeed entered the new, uncharted waters through which Djokovic will lead us, and we can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

However, even as his huge fan, I cannot say that's likely to happen. It's unlikely. It is possible however, and that possibility makes it very exciting.

AM - totally true. Novak is nowhere near Rafa when it comes to clay.

"Nadal is favored to win FO. "

Yeah, he is. But trust me ixvnyc, Nadal won't say that. I'm sure he'll say that Djoker is the favorite, yadda yadda yadda! LOL!

"But one thing we do know, Nadal's confidence is a million times higher when he plays on clay versus not. But like I said, it will all depend on what happens between now and the FO."

You are assuming that Nadal's level of confidence will decide if he can beat Djokovic in the FO final or not. I think that's a wrong assumption.

It's quite possible that he could lose no matter how confident he is or how well he plays (by which I mean: how well he executes the game he always play, not if he suddenly starts playing some different style that would work better than what he has been doing so far).

I think Nadal is favored to win, but if Djokovic brings his best execution, stamina, determination, and confidence (not so easy to summon up all of that at one, all important match), I think Nadal will lose no matter his own level of confidence.

AM

Nole wiped the clay floor with Rafa all ast year?! Why be so sure?

I don't think that Nadal will relinquish his tremendous chance to beat Bjorn Borgs record without a great battle.

Perhaps Novak might find it more difficult than he realizes to win the FO.

That is simply not true. Nadal and Federer still have a better shot at winning Roland Garros than Djokovic as both are still better clay court players than Djokovic.

The fact remains that Federer at his best is (was) better than Djokovic at his best and he still lost 5 times (4 finals) to Nadal at Roland Garros. Before anyone dismisses that as simply a match up problem for Federer but not for Djokovic, let's take into account that Nadal is the greatest clay court player in history with an out of this world 93% winning percentage on clay and a 98% winning percentage at Roland Garros. Federer, not Djokovic, was, and still is, the second best on clay.

Nadal, not Djokovic, is the best ever on clay. Full stop (period for you, Pete).

So, since Federer has been to 4 Roland Garros finals and Djokovic has never even made it to the final I still give the edge to Federer. Since Nadal is the best ever on clay I still give him the edge over Djokovic.

Djokovic can win Roland Garros, it is possible no doubt, but he is does not "go into the tournament (Roland Garros) with a better chance to win it than any erstwhile Grand Slammer since Bjorn Borg." Nadal first and Federer second do.

Nole is nowhere near Rafa on clay? Achievement-wise, certainly. But current game? Nole certainly more than held his own last spring. :) I'm not sure what has changed since then. I think Rafa will find a way to beat him, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

Pete you said that if it wasnt for Rafa then we would be talking about "Can Djokovic join Federer as one of just four men to have completed a calendar-year Grand Slam?" if it wasnt for Rafa i think Federer would have equaled Laver's record and got the calender year slam 2 times (2006,2007)

I was at RG last year and Rafa wasnt playing anywhere as good as he did there in the past and he still won.

Rafa gave a MasterClass exhibtion in his win at RG in 2008.D.

He took the clay game to another level.I sat back and was Stunned

As I said before I never thought that anyone would be as good as Borg on the clay.Borg is my idol.I have had the pleasure of seeing Borg Live.

Rafa's incredible top spin on clay is a 'sight for sore eye'

The surface at RG just plays into his game to perfection.

Thats why Rafa has a incredible record at Monte Carlo

The surface at Monte Carlo is siumilar to that of Roland Garos.

The way Nole has been playing lately, and wining at any game, at any cost, I cannot see Nadal or Federer beating him in any event this year....I mean, Federer is getting older, not playing his best, and Nadal, what are the odds, 7 times lost against Novak, I just cannot see it.sorry..........

Novak will emerge as the winner on all the tournaments this year, wait and see..............

I think that, given that all three of Murray, Nadal, and Federer have taken Djokovic to 7-5 in the fifth set, that they are getting closer to cracking the code. I think that Djokovic is most dangerous in 5 set matches, whereas I predict he'll have a harder time defending all of his best-of-three-sets Masters titles. Prediction: Djokovic will win 3 majors this year and the Olympics but will slip up on one somewhere down the line. If Nadal can come that close on hardcourt in Melbourne, I think he can break his losing streak against Djokovic on the clay courts this spring (although it may be at Rome or Madrid rather than Roland Garros).

As for the women's side... in order to dominate, Azarenka has to do something she's not done before: make it through the season without retiring in the middle of several tournaments. On the court, if she's healthy, she's certainly one of the favorites. But given her history of retiring and the fact that Kvitova is dangerous, and Sharapova is playing her best in years, and Clijsters and Serena are still lurking in the shadows, I think a realistic goal for Azarenka is for her to try and keep Kvitova from taking #1 away from her.

It's a big tribute to Djokovic with even considering the possibility for him to win all.

So, I was curios to find out when was the last time Novak lost a match that came "down to the wire" (being defined as winning at least 5 games in the decider before losing the match).

The answer is:
At Cincy in August 2010, when he lost 7:5 in the 3rd to Federer.

The other matches he lost in deciders since are:
Basel 2010, 6:1 in the third to Fed.
Basel 2011, 6:0 in the third to Nishikori
WTF 2011, 6:3 in the third to Tipsy

How many deciders did he win then (since that Cincy 2010)? 20
Of those, how many were after his opponent got to the 5th game in the decider? 8

So, since Cincy 2010, the decider record: 20:3
The "down to the wire" record is (drumroll): 8:0!

OK, fine, but who are these people Novak beat 8:0 when it came "down to the wire"? Well, here is the list (to the tune of your favorite "heroic" theme):

Fed at USO 2010
Nadal at Miami 2011
Murray at Rome 2011
Fed at USO 2011
Malisse at Basel 2011 (the only one not in Top 10)
Berdych at WTF 2011
Murray at AO 2012
Nadal at AO at 2012

That my friends, is how much "getting close to beating Novak" means:

ZERO.

May I add Novak has to defend a lot of points this year

In saying that Rafa made the finals at RG,Wimby and the USO he too has points to defend

Rafa did make points this year at the AO cause he made the final.

Peter Bodo....you need to replace the 'd' in your surname with a 'z'....will suit you better! You are so anti-Rafa....how do they even allow you to write about this wonderful sport of mine? Do me a favour and go hang yourself...the world will be a much better place without you!

I forgot my point:

If you want to beat Novak, better finish the job early.

NBD,

May I remind you that if Pete did not write his reports on this site, then we too would not be able to post here either.

If you want to beat Novak you must serve really well.Like Federer on his good days,like Roddick on his good days,like Tsonga on his good days.

I think we are all forgetting there are other players in the mix for GS titles this year

I was impressed with Murray at the AO and yes he came close in defeating Novak in the s/final.

Murray can also beat Novak,Rafa and Roger in 3 sets as we have already seen.I think Lendl is a great coach for Murry.

I also feel Murray has a great game on the grass.Look out for him at Wimby this year.If we all remember that s/final he had with Rafa last year at Wimby? he was close to making the final.

The chances of Novak winning a Calendar Year Grand Slam are indeed pretty low, but he could win Roland Garros and hold the 4 Grand Slam titles at the same time. That would be an incredible achievement. Unlikely? Yes. But possible.

My objection is with this phrase, Peter:
"...the draw gods might continue to protect Djokovic..."

Really? In what universe have the draw gods protected Djokovic? Since 2007 he always landed in Roger's half, with one or two exceptions: at Roland Garros, of course! LOL Novak really had it tough, it was as if the draw gods really wanted a Fedal final and made Novak face the toughest possible opponent.

Not only that, at the present time, I think Murray is a bigger threat to Novak than Roger. Am I the only one who thinks that? Even last year, Murray almost beat Novak on clay in Rome, when the crowd was very supportive of Novak. That was more impressive than Roger's win at Roland Garros, because in Paris there were many external factors which proved too much for Nole to handle: the streak, the tantalising #1 ranking, the 5 days off, the darkness, the hostile crowd...

This time in Australia, Novak wasn't lucky with the draw. I think Novak would have had an easier time against Roger than against Andy. The last time Roger beat Novak in Australia was in 2007.

So, as a Nole fan, I'm really hoping Roger gets drawn in Nole's half and Andy in Rafa's for Roland Garros (The possibility of Roger getting the #2 ranking before Roland Garros and of Nole facing Rafa in the semis is too awful to even consider... LOL).

Novak is closer to winning 4 Grand Slams in a row than any player has been since I staarted watching tennis, many many years ago. :)

Lynne

My point here is he's been so negative of Rafa of late....looks like he's been waiting for Rafa's downfall....only the idiot needs to realise (that except for Nole, Rafa still had a gr8 2011 and has started 2012 well! Its just a matter of time before Nole cracks and remember Rafa is right there behind him to take his chance!

Congratulations, Pete, you dropped a bomb here! It's interesting that many commentators here and even more official ones at the sportspages seam to take Novak's success somehow relaxed and relative. But imagine if 2011 season was done by some other player like Delpo or Murray! I bet it would be hailed as a miracle, as a birth of the new messiah. For what Nole has done in the era of Fedal is simply incredible. So, if anyone can make a calendar slam, it's him!

However carefully I check my posts, there's always a mistake.

*started

Griff,

Roddick and Tsonga have yet to come close to a win against Novak 2.0 (and Roddick has much more concerning things to worry about). So, I think the recepie is pretty much this:

1. You have to have one of the best serving days of your life
2. You have to be Roger Federer

Another thing I forgot to say I was live at Rome last year when Murray played Novak in the s/final

Again the match was on Murrays racquet?

Murray has improved his clay game to me

Good signs all round for Murray

He also has a good game on the hardcourts...as we have all seen.

MODERATOR... there is someone posting as me starting with the 4:14pm post Whoever you are, you have to pick another moniker. And you can't impersonate another poster!!

May I add I will never write off Federer in any GS tournament.

While I don't disagree with you on that score, it's just nice if we can make a point without insulting someone.

"Novak will emerge as the winner on all the tournaments this year, wait and see.............."

Good lord... spoken like a true KAD.

Alexis

lol!

Lynne

Just to let you know I posted the towel off to you on late Tuesday afternoon from Sydney.

ixvnyc, you are right that when it comes to a close match, it doesn't really matter if you were close, if you lose. HOWEVER, in many of those close matches, it wasn't necessarily Djoker who made a winner and won the match, it was the other guy making an error. In the USO semi, if Fed hits an ace on MP like he did at the FO, Djoker doesn't get a chance to come up with a great return. And in the AO final, Djoker was nowhere near that BH pass that Rafa missed. 9-times-out-10, Rafa makes that shot and Djoker has no chance.

The point is, these close matches won't always go Djoker's way.

Oh, thank you, AM ... are you quite better now ?

Alexis

Well said.I am glad that you have your eyes clear? as some others here have not:)

I was live at the final at the AO

Lynne

Much better now thanks.

Of the people who have accomplished a Calendar Grand Slam, only one person did it during the open era AND when the Australian Open was played by everyone, even when Laver did it in 69 and Court in 70 the AO was still a highy understated event and a full draw couldn't even be produced.

The fact remains that as technology has improved, the differences between the types of courts has changed dramatically as well, so it becomes harder for a grass courter to win on clay and vice versa. Plus, the sport is much more popular and gaining the attention of some of the largest countries (hello China!!!)

The point...the field on both mens and womens side is so deep at this point, it seems almost impossible that anyone will ever win all four in a calendar year ever again...however, I do not deny the fact that Nole has the ability, confidence, and dare I say EGO to win it all!!!

Calendar Grand Slam? Well, anything is possible but it is better to have these discussions after player X has won AO, RG and Wimbledon, but where is the fun on that right?

@ixvnyc,

Look, Djokovic is a great player, had a phenomenal 2011 and has started 2012 really well but, as difficult as this may seem to you right now (as your gloating demonstrates), no one is invincible, not even Djokovic.

Remember this: Djokovic has played 8 seasons (excluding 2012) and has a winning record in 6 of them. Of these 6 years he has lost AT LEAST 17 times every year except for last. That is 17 losses every year; not 6, not 8 not 10, not even 15, but a minimum of 17 every year (18-19-17-19-17).

Sure, you will claim, that was the old Djokovic, the new Djokovic would never lose 17 times year. Perhaps not, but he is not going to continue having seasons like last year's forever either. It is not going to happen.

Bottom line is that, chances are Djokovic continues to play very well and win, but not as emphatically as last year. No one is invincible and nothing last forever. Remember that when you are tempted to gloat and dismiss every other player. It may serve you well (simply some friendly advise).

Jake, it's true that with the depth of field, it is a tough ask to win a calendar slam. But the fact is, three guys have come very close the last several years... Roger 3x and Rafa and Djoker 1x each have won three of the four. Heck, if Soderling would have done his Rafa-kill in a different year, Fed may very well have the calendar slam. Yes.. luck does come into play! :)

Honestly, with the surfaces so homogenized now, it actually seems like it might be easier to do rather than back in the day when three of the majors were on incredibly fast grass and one on slow clay.

*It should read (18-19-17-19-18)

The 'Calendar Slam' hype is so dumb it's incredible. Probably an American creation, they prefer raw statistics over logic.

Considering the TWO WEEKS of vacation between two seasons and the 52-week ranking system the moment someone captures and holds all 4 titles gets the Grand Slam, end of story.

What difference does it make holding all four in May or in December? None. Just like when you get the no1 ranking, it doesn't matter when you do it, you'll become no1. DUH?

Abraxas... good post. I've often said to gloating KADs, "what goes around comes around". It's better to remember that because your guy won't always be invincible and dominant.

Bone, unfortunately, that is not true. The Grand Slam is when you hold all four majors in the same year. Otherwise it's a Tiger Slam or a Serena Slam. Is holding the #1 ranking any time cool? Of course, but the Year End #1 is given more prestige. It just is.

Huh, I thought Serena was the last person to win a calendar year Grand Slam, but is it only considered "calendar year" if he/she wins the US Open?

Woopsies, had a lapse in thought there, but is it only considered a calendar year Grand Slam if he/she wins the Australian Open first?

Nikki,
Yes to AO being the first one as we know that Serena was the last player to hold all 4 Slams at once.

"Honestly, with the surfaces so homogenized now, it actually seems like it might be easier to do rather than back in the day when three of the majors were on incredibly fast grass and one on slow clay."

Alexis, I don't get your argument. It seems the opposite to me. On of the most common knocks on Laver's accomplishment is the fact that he won 3 of the 4 majors on grass. If you are a very good grass player that is certainly more feasible that winning 4 majors on 3 different surfaces, should you simply say "hard courts," or 4 different surfaces, if you notice the two different hard court surfaces: Plexicushion and Deco Turf.

Further, it is simply not true that the speed of today's majors surfaces is similar. It is a myth. In spite of the yearly claims this decade that Wimbledon's grass is slower, the fact remains that Wimbledon has not change its grass since 2001. Deco Turf, which has not been changed at the U.S. Open since 1978, is substantially faster than Plaxicushion, Australian Open's surface since 2008. Clay, naturally, remains much slower than the other three.

Hence, it seems to me that, other things been equal, the various surfaces today would make winning the four majors a much more difficult achievement than when Laver won them (no nock on Laver, though).

Nikki, it's only a calendar year Slam if all four are won consecutively, in the same calendar year. Ergo, only the winners of the AO in any given year have a chance to record a GS - hence the scarcity of Slammers and the enormous prestige of the accomplishment.

Alexis, I don't get your argument... but, maybe it is just me. I mean to say that I am genuinely open to your argumentation if you disagree with mine. As I explained, it just seems the opposite to me right now. Maybe you have a different and valid take.

i finally had the ability to watch a bit of the Fed nads AO semifinal, and I was shocked how SLOW it was, the ball looked like a fluffy pumpkin, such a huge contrast to London indoors ...

Alexis, at least some media are waking up to the obvious truth about men's tennis now, its war, not tennis, everyone can hit the ball, who can stay out there the longest, concentrate the hardest, and run the longest?

Alexis: tennis is a year-around sport. Just because over the years many gave the calendar extra significance, holding all 4 in May worth just the same... because... you hold all 4! :D See, it's easy!

2 + 2 is not 5 at the end of the year no matter how many champagne you had. It's the same old 4. :D

Abraxas, there is NO way the WImby grass in 2001 in the same as 2011, i dont know where that is coming from, but i wouldnt trust Wimby's press office as much as I would just watching the matches, you can SEE its obviously slower... watch Sampras and Pat Rafter and say, Nadal and Berdych, and tell me its the same surface...

my point in all this is WHY such a uniform decision to slow down the game, year after year, who is deciding Miami and Indian Wells need to play like quicksand? the point is, if you watch DJoker beat Nadal in Rome, or beat him at Wimbledon, there isnt much difference in the points or strategy...

Fernando says that Nole barely beat Rafa on HC in OZ.If he were somehow beat The Humble Bull on our beloved Clay at the French Open, the earth would spin off of it axis. Cannot happen.

I am Fernando

My Dear Tim

You can blame the officials at Wimby for slowing down the grass

They did plant new seeds in the grass at Wimby

Love the Marat quote though as he said in his pressor when he defeated Novak at Wimby in the 2nd rd I beleive in 2008

Marat with a straight face said..........

'I would like to thank the officials for slowing down the grass for me'

Classic Marat.D.

Bone,

Winning all 4 majors is, undoubtedly, a great accomplishment. Nevertheless, only the player who wins all 4 majors in one calendar year wins the Grand Slam. That is simply the way it is, and there is no way to argue around it, regardless of anybody's mathematical abilities.

Oh my I am having another Fernando Moment

Like is that at all possible no?

Fernando You Rock My World.D.

Fernando,you made me believe last time only to see my Nadou baby spanked big time...

hum,ever heard of "once bitten, twice shy"?I don't know how much weight I could put now on the "I'm Fernando",lol!

lol good one Marg, but the question to Wimby, Indian Wells and Miami and others, is... WHY?

Abraxas: if you hold all 4 titles, you hold all 4 titles, period. There's no 5th. :) Once you get all 4 in a row it's over, you made the Grand Slam and it's defending time! :) 'Calendar Slam' may depend on which civilization's calendar we use, holding all 4 is beyond civilizations and calendars however. I think one is missing, oh wait no, all 4 are here.

Fernando: the closest Rafa got to beat Djokovic recently was on hard court. The farthest however was on clay, so don't get high hopes on Humbull pulling it off. It has to be someone else.

Time,

I am sorry but the evidence says otherwise. Wimbledon has not changed its grass since 2001. This is factual (unless we are willing to entertain conspiracies' theories, but I am not prone to doing that).

"you can SEE its obviously slower... watch Sampras and Pat Rafter and say, Nadal and Berdych, and tell me its the same surface..."

I am with you and would add that Nadal versus Djokovic would have been even more contrasting point still. Yet, that proves only that a match between two of the most recognizable serve and volley players: Sampras and Rafter, appears a lot faster than a match between two of the most recognizable back court players: Nadal and Djokovic simply because... well, because it is a lot faster!

It is the faster game the players like Sampras and Rafter used to play that appears to make the surface "look" faster than today when, in fact, it is not (since 2001).

Yes, the the game was, no doubt, faster. The surface remains the same.

"It has to be someone else,"
Amennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

I can live with that,whoever it is be my Gladiator! and my prayors starting from this post today is if Nadal is to loose to NOLE in Roland Garros may Nadal never reach the final!,as much as I still haven't cared too much about the loosing streakagainst DJOKO, I know I'll be utterly upset to see Nadal loose to NOLE in last Sunday of Roland Garros,so yes,I rather the easy way out,beat someone else is the final!pretty please!

"Another thing I forgot to say I was live at Rome last year when Murray played Novak in the s/final
Again the match was on Murrays racquet?"

I hope you were there the next day for the final too. I also hope you saw what tired Novak did to Nadal on the slow clay of Rome. However, despite all that eyewitnessing you had audacity to write in your 4:01 pm post:
"Novak has a long way to go to be in the same breath as Rafa on the clay."

I would never be so delusional to say something like "Rafa is not at the same class like Novak" and still think that Rafa is a slight favourite for FO 2012, but am sane enough to observe that Novak's clay game of spring 2011 would be enough to give him very decent and realistic chance of winning the FO 2012. And after that, Wimby and USO - why not!!!

Bone,

I say this politely: you are arguing a ridiculous point in a forum of tennis connoisseurs. It doesn't matter how much you twist it around, it will remain false. You might be better served leaving it there. Should you choose to continue, you might want to remember Mark Twain (and I still say this respectfully):

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

* Tim, I meant to write Tim not Time. Sorry.

Anyone enjoying the irony of the 6:20 post
in light of the 6:18 one? No? Me neither.

I see all the 'nice posters' come out

Thank goodness for the Scroll Button

Moving On

Tim

Didnt someone mention that the slowing down was to give all players 'a equal chance no?

Oh but that's exactly I'm saying: it's completely idiotic to argue that holding all 4 slams on a cold December morning is superior to holding all of them on a warm July afternoon. Yes, you are many with the calendar argument. But no, it's not more "real" if the 4th is the US Open than if it's "just Wimbledon". :)

Here's the men's rankings. Now does it appear like a calendar thing?
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

I think chances of Novak winning Calendar Slam this year are pretty low, especially with Olympics in the picture, and I'm sure he's not going to treat it like Roddick, it's important for him to represent his country at Olympics. I think it's possible for him to get "Novak Slam", he would concentrate on RG this year, definitely.

I would love to see him win RG this year, especially if he beats Rafa for the title... *ducks from AM*

We'll see how it'll play out, interesting year ahead.

Can't see Calendar Slam happening for women, Vika is not that stable, I would think. i would like Maria to get RG, I know a long shot, but I would love her to complete the "set" :-)
I think Kim and Serena will be eager to make some noise at the next Slam, if they'll be healthy. After Maria I would like to see Petra win RG

Banana Peel,

I see the humor in it myself. But, a typo, and publicly recognizing that small mistake to be respectful of someone's name (or moniker) is not exactly what Mark Twain had in mind. is it?

By the way, why is it "Le Nocturne de Plume" and not "Le Plume Nocturne." I am genuinely curious.

Abraxas,

I'm sure Bone is perfectly capable of responding to you, but your very dynamic/agressive 6:18 post in which you quoted Mark Twain reminded me of something I've read from a great writer Kurt Vonnegut who passed away just a few years ago:

“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.”

Maybe Wimbledon says they have not changed the grass since 2001, but there is no doubt that the game is playing slower in the years since 2001. Maybe it's the balls or whatever, but it is definitely slower.

@Abraxas. I agree that on paper it might seem like it would be easier to win 4 majors when 3 of the 4 are on the same surface (grass) like in Laver's day. But when you think about it, the difference between how fast the grass was then and how slow the clay was IS huge. How many people had the fast court serve/volley game to win on grass and then turn around and be just as successful on slow clay? Obviously it wasn't easy or we would have had a few more guys get 3 out of the 4 majors.

So yes, today we have basically four different surfaces HOWEVER, all four of those surfaces are on the slow side. Grass used to be fast, but not anymore. I don't even think it still bounces all that low. The USO has been the fastest major for a few years now, but look how slow it played this year. I don't know... look how homogenized the game is now. You don't have to adjust your game all that much for each major. So, in that respect, I don't see it as being any tougher than before.

Any true tennis fan that has a brain may I add:)

Thinks that Rafa isnt the Greatest Clay Player and his records are there before anyone to see and check mind you

Well its a sad day in tennis indeed.

Novak is a fav player of mine and I have said soo many times on this post how happy I am he is playing to his full potential.D.

However Nothing In Tennis Is Ever A Given Period.

One has to go back and see in our game.

Most Novak posters are fair though as always we do get those who wear 'rose coloured glasses" and I say that openly with fans of Rafa and Roger.

I cannot and will not stand for any poster that comes on here and down grades champion players like Roger and Rafa

Novak has a long way to go to be in the same class as these 2 champion players.

In saying that Novak is in a solid position this year.Though its a long year.

May I also add if he does win the calender slam I will be one of the first people to congrautlate him.

I refuse to think small when it comes to Novak Djokovic. Lots of people thought he'd somehow be disappointed when the streak was halted last year. And absolutely nobody gave him a chance at Wimbledon, on what was considered his "worst" surface. He went 17-1 on the dirt last year, and 7-0 on grass, I'll admit I'm sleepy and can't recall the number of the outdoor hard court wins to losses (66-1?).

The idea of him completing a rare Grand Slam doesn't became far less "unimaginable" after Rome last year. And given Rafa's inability to beat him in the last 18 months, would it really be all that shocking if he were the guy who beat Nadal on court Chatrier?

oops, that 66-1 is way off. someone correct me.

Tesla,

Thanks. I guess we now have two strong and humorous quotes from two American writers. Kurt Vonnegut was good, indeed. Most people like "breakfast of Champions" best. I prefer "cat's cradle."

I still think that Samuel Langhorne Clemens was the better writer, though. He was an absolute genius and and endless stream of magnificent quotes.

Who knows, maybe both of them liked tennis, as well.

@Tesla, obviously AM's remarks about Novak not being said in the same breath as Rafa on clay is meant to be career-wise. Yes, Novak beat Rafa twice on clay last year, but Rafa has been the man-to-beat on clay for years. Novak would have to beat Rafa consistently on clay for several years including a few RG titles to change that. Obviously Novak's current streak against Rafa certainly implies that he could trouble Rafa this clay season and at RG, but even if he did... it won't trump Rafa's "Clay King" title unless he does it consistenly for quite a while.

We will see,Rafa really looked like his old self in that AO final,we can surely count he'll be even better on clay.

If, If, If, Federer and Nadal go out in the first round...Who wants to bet ?

Alexis

Of course I did thank you

Though that poster just comes on here to "stir and ignite'

I just use my scroll button when I see that poster's name on this site

Let's make this easy, people, and simply say that anyone who has won all four of the Grand Slam titles at ANY T(IME in their career -- a la Agassi, Federer or Nadal -- can be said to "hold" those titles and be a "defender of those titles.

Pretty ridiculous idea, no?

Yes, to have won the "Grand Slam" of tennis, one must win all four majors in the same calendar year. yes, the calendar that we in the U.S. use (I cannot its name and am too lazy and rushed to find it).

Abraxas,

Agree with you on Mark. As a trivia, did you know that out of very few close friends I had, Mark Twain was the closest one?

Feel free to go to my Wikipedia page and see a photo of Mark playing in my lab. Just disregard a slight innacuracy about the year of my death. Obviously, that is not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

It's a great big full moon tonight, lol.