Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have a tough time betting on Andy to win. I agree the window is slightly more open for him this year as oppose to years past, but I just can't see him putting it all together. Don't get me wrong, I would be very happy if he did, but I wouldn't bet on it...
Despite that Ferrer is in ranked number 4 and a top 5 player for a long time when all the top 4 were healthy, people still have more faith in at least three other players, other than the top 4, than Ferrer.
Ferrer lacks that one big weapon - namely the serve - that would be required to win Wimbledon.
Despite that Ferrer is in ranked number 4 and a top 5 player for a long time when all the top 4 were healthy, people still have more faith in at least three other players, other than the top 4, than Ferrer.
Justifiably so. All grinding, no real weapons that could threat a Nadal, Federer, Djokovic or Murray. He's been able to grind his way to the top 5, grind his way to a Grand Slam final (mainly thanks to a kind draw and Tsonga's inconsistence), but it's not likely he can grind his way to a Grand Slam title unless all of the 4 greats are out by the final, at the same time as other players with weapons (like Dimitrov or Tomic) don't have a breakthrough.
Ferrer lacks that one big weapon - namely the serve - that would be required to win Wimbledon.
It's not his serve per se that's really lacking. It's just his overall lack of power. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice already without a rocket serve. In fact, Ferrer has actually hit more aces than Nadal this season (122 vs. 104) and has only played two more matches. Djokovic doesn't have a super impressive serve either.
I know Andys has no chance! Current Wimbledon runner up, Olympic and US open champion. Not a chance in hell!
Runner up is not that big deal.
Olympic is just a best of three sets. There were countless of those in the past year. Nadal who was absent 7 months in the past year, won like four of those.
US Open was last year and there were TWO Grand Slams after that.
Olympic is just a best of three sets. There were countless of those in the past year. Nadal who was absent 7 months in the past year, won like four of those.
US Open was last year and there were TWO Grand Slams after that.
The Final was the best of five sets. It only took Murray three sets, however.
Olympic is just a best of three sets. There were countless of those in the past year. Nadal who was absent 7 months in the past year, won like four of those.
US Open was last year and there were TWO Grand Slams after that.
Runner Up is still a big deal, and as someone who remembers his coach Ivan Lendl very well, Lendl was steeled by those defeats to become an 8 Grand Slam winner. (Although he could not win on grass, Murray can).
I think people forget just how well Murray played against Djokovic to get his slam. He definitely has it in him to win multiple slams, any tennis fan should admit that. You don't need to like him but ther are no denying his capabilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
