Talk About Tennis 2.0

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:36 pm I think Thiem has 4 more slams in him.

As I find him sleep-inducing, I do hope he keeps them inside him

Who's most likely to reach 5 Slams on either tour? I think it's Osaka and the competition is not even close.

I think it will be more than one of the currently active players but I if I had to choose one, I'd also put my money on Osaka.

Sure, Osaka. Only two away and far from her peak.
Kerber, with three Slams, is also the one closest. But very hard to see her getting one more, lest two.
Garbi? I really wonder how she recovers from those two blown MP. And she is 27 already.
The decade is just starting. Barring absolute insanity, one decade will be 40 slams. Nobody reaching five means at least 10 winners in this decade*. So somebody will, or we will see the absolute most even era in tennis.
Take out the big three, and how many Slam winners are there THAT HAVE NOT RETIRED? Murray, Stan, Delpo, Cilic and Thiem. I doubt any reaches 5.
On the women's? Serena and Venus out and you have: Kerber, Osaka, Halep, Garbi, Swiatek, Kenin, Sloane, Andrescuu, Kvitova, Barty, Vika, Sveta, Ostapenko and Stosur.
Nobody getting five will mean a lot of those last in the women's list, and on the ATP people like Karatsev, Felix, Dennis et al breaking through for a couple of weeks, over and over.

One could just look at previous eras. There is usually 5-8 Slams won by the best player of a given era. The current era with 15+ is of course and exception.

Exactly. And the longevity of this group is exceptional. Serena winning on Saturday will mean a span of almost 22 years, and wins in 4 different decades. Regardless of how you count decades.

PMac tried to institute a program for young US players to learn to play on clay when he was in charge of player development for the USTA but he the US tennis establishment fought him tooth and nail. Maybe it would be different now.

Wich American women are really good on clay?

Two of the three best American women played earlier. The USTA will never forgive itself for deciding Osaka wasn't worth their time.

Gilbert was talking about US men. Women's tennis is always an afterthought in the US.

I think what could make the women's game all the more interesting is that, while it is more than conceivable that Naomi can own the Aussie and US Opens for years, with ongoing good health and desire- how she will end up doing at Roland Garros and Wimbledon remains a mystery. Obviously, there is nowhere near enough info concerning how Osaka's career will end up being at Wimbledon and Roland Garros. And, heck, if self-proclaimed "Cow on Ice" on clay Sharapova can find a way to win two Roland Garros titles- anything is possible. But, Naomi has been a non-factor so far at the French. And, the best match I've seen of hers at Wimbledon was when she lost to Venus in 2017. So, there's room for a number of WTA players to win at those two Slams, at least for now.

While I agree that playing on clay is useful, getting American kids to play on clay to become better is a myth.
Look at France. A very large tennis population, all of whom play on clay. How many great champions are coming out of France? The last one was Mauresmo, and it has been a while now. If clay were the solution then France, Spain and Italy would have been perennial producers of champions. Italy is now looking at a very good crop but let's remember they have produced nothing in have a century. Adriano Pannatta was their last slam champion and that was basically in the Pleistocene. Spain, for all their "Armada" talk, has not produced anybody since Nadal. Lots of good players, but from GOOD to SLAM CHAMPION (which is what the USA wants) there is a big difference.
My $0.02: the reality is that in American, tennis is an elitist sport. The comparison that needs to be drawn is Argentina, where clay is the surface of choice but there is only a small segment of the population that can afford to play tennis. In America, the group sports take the best athletes and only a small segment sticks with tennis.
Why are American women doing well? Because there are no other sports that can compete with the financial rewards that tennis can offer women. For women in the USA, tennis is a great opportunity. So they take it. Boys in the USA are looking at Mahones and Lebron instead.

I think there is also a great deal of pure randomness as far as producing Slam winners is concerned. Tennis hasn't become any more or less elitist since 90-ties and the golden generation of Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier. Look at Canada - produced nothing ever and now great talents on both sides.

I forgot who of the L. American commentators said if: good players are made. Champions are born. Look at your Switzerland. Three damn great players in a span of 20 years (Roger, Stan and Martina). Nothing before, nothing after. Germany: Becker, Stich, Graf and now Kerber. very little before, very little after. Even Serbia is a bit of a mirage. Djokovic and Ivanovic as Slam champions, and then a lot of very good players but no other Slam champions.
Australia's drought is also worth considering.
What you say. The next great champion may come out of nowhere. Randomly.

I was just thinking that in at least one aspect Serena will likely be like many of us. You really, really want something, work very hard to get it, but in the end have to accept that it's not going to happen. In her case it would be those 24 Slams.