This will be the hardest Wimbledon men's tourney to predict since, what, 1992?  Sampras was the clear favorite in '93 and every other year through 2001, when Federer upset him. Hewitt was the clear favorite in 2002 --people forget how good he was on grass in the vacuum between Sampras' best days and Federer's emergence. Federer was the consensus pick in 2003 and almost every year since then, with Nadal entering the picture as a legitmimate contender to win in 2008 and Djokovic looking like the clear favorite (to me, anway) two years ago. 

This time, any of the big four can win it. Here's the case for each. 

Djokovic

He is the number one player in the world, was a bizarre trip into the net away from being a point away from a 5-3 lead in the 5th set on Rafa at Roland Garros and should be hungry to win his first non-Australian slam since the U.S. Open in 2011. He's serving great, returning great and moving great. It's all about focus. For whatever reason, he hasn't seemed as motivated at Wimbledon as the other contenders except for 2011. 

Murray 

He is really good on grass, a surfact that enhances his variety and forces him to be aggressive. He enters with the confidence of having destroyed the field at the Olympics last year and as a slam winner for the first time. He doesn't buckle under the pressure of being a Brit at Wimbledon. Although he's won only one of 10 sets against Nadal at Wimbledon, he's whipped Federer and Djokovic the last time he played them on grass. 

Nadal

He's made the final of every tournament he's played this year, plus he reached the final of Wimbledon every time he entered it from 2006 through 2011. His passng shots are sick. His serve is tougher to handle on grass than any other surface. If he can get past the first week, when the slick surface clearly affects him (he'd come close to losing early in four separate years before Rosol finally got him last year), he will be awfully tough to beat. He has owned Murray here in the past because of the difference in the quality of their forehands. He's in Federer's head. 

Federer

The dude won here last year and has won it seven of the last 10 years. When he's won Halle, he's gone on to win Wimbledon four of five times. He has reached the quarterfinals of every major since the French Open in 2004, so we're really only talking about him being able to win three matches. His serve is still lethal on grass. He knows how to get to net better than any other top player, although his volley sometimes betrays him. 

That would be the order I would rank the big four, with no one else having any chance to win. But I admit it's hard to figure how Djokovic will react to his crushingly disappointing loss to Nadal at Roland Garros. You really can make a legitimate case for Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Federer. I think this tournament will be be very telling about the next two years. If Murray wins, no one will doubt his legitimacy any more. If Nadal wins, he will enter the legitimate conversation as a candidate for GOAT. To this point his slam titles have been too clay-centric. If Djokovic wins, the Novak Djokovic era as best player in tennis will extend through a third year. If Federer wins, he will get that much closer to ending the debate about GOAT. Most of the metrics support his case already, but there's that ugly head-to-head record with Nadal.

The two weeks of play before Wimbledon have revealed little. Federer needed to win Halle, but a pair of close three-set wins against Haas and Youzhny left some questions. Nadal and Djokovic did not play. Murray proved his injury would be no factor, but I figured that was true already. 

Actually, Youzhny has been the biggest revelation. He crushed Kohlschreiber and Gasquet, two excellent players on grass, before losing to Federer in the Halle final. His consistency at Wimbledon is incredible, and he finally reached the quarterfinals last year. He can't beat any of the big four, but with the right draw, he should get to the quarters again. 

Haas, Tsonga and Berdych are the only players capable of crashing the semis without going through the  Ferrer hole (the semifinalist might end up being Ferrer if he avoids drawing Nadal in the quarters). Haas has the best game for grass to do it, but he tends to get tired in five-set matches. Tsonga has the serve and power, but am I the only one out there who laughs off the notion of Roger Rasheed being a great coach? Based on what evidence?  I haven't seen any difference in Tsonga's mental approach with Rasheed than when he was coachless. Berdych is simply not a good enough athlete. Everything has to go perfectly with his ball striking, and it's hard to do that consistently. 



 

Last edited by funches (6/20/2013 4:42 pm)