Who Has the Highest Chance of Winning a Grand Slam..... (olympic, won)

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Timing2012

Within the next 2.5 years, if not the one I've listed, who then? Ferrer? Someone close to outside the top 10?

I don't have a crystal ball. I just said it's unlikely to be any of the names you mentioned and stated the reasons for that belief.

Ferrer is also old and will never win a major. He's the 21st Century equivalent of Michael Chang (though Chang did win one when he was 17).

[Timing2012]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I don't have a crystal ball. I just said it's unlikely to be any of the names you mentioned and stated the reasons for that belief.

Ferrer is also old and will never win a major. He's the 21st Century equivalent of Michael Chang (though Chang did win one when he was 17).

What you're saying is that only the Big 4 will win majors for the next few years.

[paull805]

I think so. Another 4 years at least.

[Timing2012]

Originally Posted by paull805

I think so. Another 4 years at least.

Four years?

What you're saying is that no one other the the big four will win a grand slam untill all four of them are at least 30 years old?

Com'on now!

[paull805]

Yes.

And why do you ask questions if all you do is disagree with the answers? And its not like you give educated arguments.

It's all ''What you don't agree with me?"

[CHIP72]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I don't have a crystal ball. I just said it's unlikely to be any of the names you mentioned and stated the reasons for that belief.

Ferrer is also old and will never win a major. He's the 21st Century equivalent of Michael Chang (though Chang did win one when he was 17).

Chang was a better player in his era than Ferrer is in his; Chang appeared in 2 other Grand Slam finals besides the 1989 French Open, whereas Ferrer has never appeared in a Grand Slam final.

[Timing2012]

Originally Posted by paull805

Yes.

And why do you ask questions if all you do is disagree with the answers? And its not like you give educated arguments.

It's all ''What you don't agree with me?"

Why are you mad? Is it because Murray has zero chance of winning the French Open?

[paull805]

Great answer.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by CHIP72

Chang was a better player in his era than Ferrer is in his; Chang appeared in 2 other Grand Slam finals besides the 1989 French Open, whereas Ferrer has never appeared in a Grand Slam final.

I don't think that makes Chang a better player. Ferrer has never been in a Grand Slam Final because there have been three guys (two of which are in the running for GOAT) basically dominating the Tour for the past 8 years.

Ferrer and Chang are similar in that they're both scrappy, consistent and hard-working players that lack a big weapon to really threaten the top players. That's why I made the comparison.

[Timing2012]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I don't think that makes Chang a better player. Ferrer has never been in a Grand Slam Final because there have been three guys (two of which are in the running for GOAT) basically dominating the Tour for the past 8 years.

Ferrer and Chang are similar in that they're both scrappy, consistent and hard-working players that lack a big weapon to really threaten the top players. That's why I made the comparison.

Ha ha.....I like how you totally disrespect Murray.

I think Murray is the 21st Century version of Chang.