Roland Garros - The 'pre' thread

[lydian]

First topic message reminder :

Thread to discuss the top to bottom guys chances, prep, ranking pts, news, comparisons, etc.

Summary of everyone’s predictions so far...

Henman Bill
Djokovic 52 %
Nadal 20 %
Murray 10%
Wawrinka 4 %
Nishikori 4 %
Federer 4 %
Others 6% (18% non top 3)

Born slippy
Djokovic 70%
Nadal ?%
Murray ?%
Other ?%

It Must Be Love
Djokovic 73%
Nadal ?%
Murray ?%
Others ?%

Belovedluckyboy
Djokovic 40%
Nadal 30%
Murray 25%
Others 5%

Nore Staat
Djokovic 60 %
Nadal 20 %
Wawrinka 8 %
Murray 8 %
Rest of field 4 % (12% non top 3)

Banbrotam
Djokovic 35%
Nadal 30%
Murray 30%
Others 5%

socal
Djokovic 50%
Nadal 20%
Murray 15%
Wawrinka 5%
Others 10% (25% non top 3)

Lydian
Djokovic 40%
Nadal 25%
Murray 25%
Others 10%

Mad for Chelsea
Djokovic 45%
Nadal 22.5%
Murray 22.5%
Nishikori 4.5%
Wawrinka 4.5%
Others 1% (10% non top 3)

HMM
Djokovic 40%
Nadal 20%
Murray 30%
Others 10%

Guest 82
Djokovic 40%
Nadal 25%
Murray 30%
Others 5%

Barrystar
Djokovic 45%
Nadal 25%
Murray 25%
Others 5%

Summerblues
Djokovic 50%
Nadal 25%
Murray 15%
Others 10%


Averages so far: - posted in OP above also.
Djokovic 49%
Nadal 24%
Murray 20%
Others ~10%

[Haddie-nuff]

Does anyone know when the draw takes place ??

[CaledonianCraig]

Does anyone know when the draw takes place ??

Thursday I do believe.

[Haddie-nuff]

Does anyone know when the draw takes place ??

Thursday I do believe.

Thanx CC

[socal1976]

You know what is driving me crazy all these arrogant Nadal fans claiming Nadal is going to have a "comfortable" win at RG, its so OTT and smug in my book.

OH wait there are no Nadal fans claiming that, just like there are no Djokovic fans claiming he would have a "comfortable" win. Well since we are entitled to make up our own facts and lie about people with no punishment or recourse, let me get in on the bandwagon. Is Momma Bear Quixote done fighting her imaginary Dragons of "smug" Djokovic fans predicting "comfortable" RG wins?

[JuliusHMarx]

Let it go.
All relevant points on the matter have been stated and noted. No need for repetition.
The other thread is in the past, and this will not escalate on this thread.

[socal1976]

Let it go.
All relevant points on the matter have been stated and noted. No need for repetition.
The other thread is in the past, and this will not escalate on this thread.

So what you are saying is someone can make up a bold face lie to smear me and other Djokovic fans, not retract said lie, and that you will go about locking threads to lead block for her deceit? Sorry Julius, I think people know that everyone is entitled to their own opinions they aren't entitled to make up their own facts.

The person in question lied and said, Djokovic fans were more confident than he is and predicting "comfortable" wins and therefore acting "smug". Not one Djokovic fan did that, I demand a retraction or at least the ability to set the record straight. I don't expect that person to be big enough to retract and apologize, therefore I take it upon myself to not allow distortions of either myself or my positions as a natural right.

[JuliusHMarx]

Yes, but you have already stated your case, and set the record straight on the other thread. There is no need to state it again or refer to it here.

[socal1976]

Why do you feel as moderator you should censor the discussion that I find quite pertinent? You are the moderator not the editor for a magazine with control over valid tennis topics. If someone chooses to interject a dishonest smear into a thread and you aren't going to punish them they should be allowed to be rebutted vociferously. Especially, by the actual victim of the dishonest smear. No Djokovic fan on that thread claimed that he would get a "comfortable" RG win, and this lie was put out their to paint Djokovic fans, (mainly me) in a negative light. If you don't want the big dog to bite your backside then don't taunt and display it for him within reach of his jaws at least.

[It Must Be Love]

As I said, on this forum Djokovic fans have not been smug at all, in fact they've been tremendously humble.

Let's move on now though, other things to talk about.

[Born Slippy]

Haddie appears not to understand IMBL is a Rafa fan. Simple miscommunication. No lying. Let it go Socal.

[It Must Be Love]

I've always felt I've been too ambiguous as to who I support, unfortunately this has been proved right.

[It Must Be Love]

Anyway..

This was my post to Summerblues on another forum, challenging him on the belief that Djokovic had around 45% chance of winning:

Let's go through it:
Odds on losing:
Before the QF- 2%
QF- Nishikori 3%, Nadal 10%, Berdych 1%, Tsonga 2% (Average= 4%)
SF- Nadal 10%, Nishikori 3%, Stan 5% (Average= 6%)
F- Murray 20%, Nadal 10% (Average 15%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 73%

Obviously it's actually a bit more complicated than that, as there are more players and you could factor in weighted average- but I feel this is pretty reliable estimate.
Where do you disagree with me to such an extent that you get 45% and I get 73%?? Nadal hasn't won a set against him in all 6 matches since he declined in 2015, Murray has lost last 4 Slam matches and has terrible recent record (apart from Rome where Djokovic went to 3 against Nishi cos he injured his ankle and then didn't have any rest for the final so was exhausted), Nishi doesn't frankly have the consistency (only won a set as Djokovic was injured for a bit), Stan surely can't pull off another miracle, Federer is really struggling, Kyrgios is much better suited to grass... etc etc
I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I think your figure is just way off.

[socal1976]

Haddie appears not to understand IMBL is a Rafa fan. Simple miscommunication. No lying. Let it go Socal.

Are you telling me that Haddie was unaware IMBL is a Nadal fan? If I don't believe this assumption, which I don't, then its a lie period. She got caught in a bold faced lie to smear me and other Djokovic fans. There was no mistake. She knows who is or isn't a Djokovic fan, she posted on this website long before you and even me. So please I don't buy that assumption that she is unaware of IMBL's affiliation this isn't her first rodeo on this site. And since that assumption of lack of knowledge falls apart, then the only correct answer is that she lied, she did it to smear, and she got caught. Despite you and Julius' best attempts to whitewash this smear I will NOT LET IT GO.

[socal1976]

I've always felt I've been too ambiguous as to who I support, unfortunately this has been proved right.

Yeah, Haddie was unaware you are a Nadal fan? Now you are all whitewashing, do you seriously believe Haddie was unaware of your affiliation? Don't bs me IMBL, just tell the truth. Do you think Haddie was unaware of you affiliation or that she lied to smear me?

[JuliusHMarx]

This isn't going as well as I'd hoped.

Everyone knows IMBL is a Rafa fan, and that sometimes we have to take IMBL's posts with a pinch of salt.

But you've had you're right of reply - more than once. So there is nothing more to be said without repeating yourself and totally de-railing the thread, which is not necessary.

[socal1976]

Just don't feed me a line of BS, (no pun intended BS) that she made a mistake and didn't know IMBL was a Nadal fan. Funny she was told about this "mistake" lol! multiple times but never said I made mistake, this post hoc justification Born Slippy and IMBL made up for her as a convenient face saving way to talk Haddie out of the bed she made for herself. She lied, she did smear me, and she got the predictable response from to her grotesque conduct.

Now that I have time to spell out her deceit and correct the record, I have nothing else to say on the topic and because I am nice and forgiving person I will move on. UNLESS ANY OF YOU HAVE ANYO OTHER BS EXCUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT DOESN'T EVEN PASS THE SMELL TEST, THEN ILL BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT TILL THE COWS COME HOME.

[It Must Be Love]

I've always felt I've been too ambiguous as to who I support, unfortunately this has been proved right.

Yeah, Haddie was unaware you are a Nadal fan? Now you are all whitewashing, do you seriously believe Haddie was unaware of your affiliation? Don't bs me IMBL, just tell the truth. Do you think Haddie was unaware of you affiliation or that she lied to smear me?

Haha Socal I was kidding, I have a few worries on this forum, but people not thinking I'm a Nadal fan is not one of them

Anyway honestly let's move on, I support what you're saying, but let's draw a line under it and move on.

[socal1976]

I've always felt I've been too ambiguous as to who I support, unfortunately this has been proved right.

Yeah, Haddie was unaware you are a Nadal fan? Now you are all whitewashing, do you seriously believe Haddie was unaware of your affiliation? Don't bs me IMBL, just tell the truth. Do you think Haddie was unaware of you affiliation or that she lied to smear me?

Haha Socal I was kidding, I have a few worries on this forum, but people not thinking I'm a Nadal fan is not one of them

Anyway honestly let's move on, I support what you're saying, but let's draw a line under it and move on.

Ok, since you are crucial contributor to this site and you acknowledge the truth, I know you were trying to be nice and quiet the controversy so no hard feelings on my part in anyway, therefore consider the line drawn under it.

But I would like people to understand I don't like to be smeared dishonestly and I will not just believe convenient fictions like the poster in question was unaware of your pro-Nadal proclivities, especially since I told them that fact over and over again. To quote my favorite western "The Outlaw Josie Wales":"Senator we got a saying where I come from, don't pssiss down my back and tell me its raining."

Case closed. Conviction Affirmed.

[socal1976]

PS come on IMBL Djokovic chance of winning 73%, you are doing comedy there right? Lydian says 40 percent, I say 50 percent you are almost 1.5 times as confident as I am and close to twice as confident as Lydian for the Djokovic cause.

[banbrotam]

With Stats you have to go with relevant past results and then take into account apparent recent form.  With Roland Garros you have to go with past recent Slam performance (up to 7 best of 5 set matches spread over two weeks), then past Roland Garros form, then more recent Master's tournaments (up to 5 best of 3 set matches over a one week period), and also take into account their points rankings, and take into account head to head performances over the past few years.  Adding in gut instinct in what is going to happen has to take a low priority in estimating probabilities.

Taking all this into account (and assuming Federer is unfit) my probabilities are:
Djokovic: 60 %
Nadal: 20 %
Wawrinka 8 %
Murray: 8 %
Rest of field: 4 %

I think I'd rather go with

Murray's improved serve
Murray winning 3 out of the last 6 clay court events he's entered
Murray beating Djoko in the most recent Masters
Djoko, looking as unsure as he has since Boris arrived
The nervousness Djoko has in reaching his ultimate goal. Last year's defeat is bound to have some mental scares
Murray's lack of mental scars, despite the numerous Nole defeats, i.e. see their Madrid match.

One other significant difference is that Murray was very annoyed with the recent Nadal defeat, which to me shows he now expects to beating him, even on clay. He's never had this confidence

Frankly, Andy has a great opportunity. I put his chances at 30% with Rafa, with Novak 35%. I also think because very few give him a serious chance, he feels no pressure, which of course could work wonders. (This of course will reverse at SW19, particularly if he's doesn't win here)

I think some are totally underestimating the pressure Novak has

Of course, the draw and the weather will be a big factor

[socal1976]

Ok Banbro is the low end of Djokovic's chances at 35 percent, I think that is a bit unfair to Novak. I mean being as dominant as he has been you would think he deserves a better than just a five percent better chance of winning it than the other two favorites.

My top three breakdown

Novak-50percent
Nadal-20 percent
Andy-15 percent
Stan-5 percent
field-10 percent

[It Must Be Love]

PS come on IMBL Djokovic chance of winning 73%, you are doing comedy there right? Lydian says 40 percent, I say 50 percent you are almost 1.5 times as confident as I am and close to twice as confident as Lydian for the Djokovic cause.

I didn't want to reach that figure, I just did it round by round with what I saw as the match-up percentages; and did an estimate calculation.

[It Must Be Love]

Ok, since you are crucial contributor to this site and you acknowledge the truth, I know you were trying to be nice and quiet the controversy so no hard feelings on my part in anyway, therefore consider the line drawn under it.

But I would like people to understand I don't like to be smeared dishonestly and I will not just believe convenient fictions like the poster in question was unaware of your pro-Nadal proclivities, especially since I told them that fact over and over again. To quote my favorite western "The Outlaw Josie Wales":"Senator we got a saying where I come from, don't pssiss down my back and tell me its raining."

Case closed. Conviction Affirmed.

SoCal you may be my favourite poster on the site, but the prize to the number 1 most humble Djokovic fan goes to HM Murdock for his famous words in 2014 after the French Open: 'Djokovic will not win another Grand Slam.' It was so humble I nearly fell off my chair.

[banbrotam]

Ok Banbro is the low end of Djokovic's chances at 35 percent, I think that is a bit unfair to Novak. I mean being as dominant as he has been you would think he deserves a better than just a five percent better chance of winning it than the other two favorites.

My top three breakdown

Novak-50percent
Nadal-20 percent
Andy-15 percent
Stan-5 percent
field-10 percent

Two weeks ago, I agree. Incredibly a cloud, which is of Novak's making after bagels, sore ankles and nervy bad tempered final appearances, hangs over him. That coupled with Andy's return to his form of last Spring

No surprise if he wins. But neither would a Murray win, either

[socal1976]

Ok, since you are crucial contributor to this site and you acknowledge the truth, I know you were trying to be nice and quiet the controversy so no hard feelings on my part in anyway, therefore consider the line drawn under it.

But I would like people to understand I don't like to be smeared dishonestly and I will not just believe convenient fictions like the poster in question was unaware of your pro-Nadal proclivities, especially since I told them that fact over and over again. To quote my favorite western "The Outlaw Josie Wales":"Senator we got a saying where I come from, don't pssiss down my back and tell me its raining."

Case closed. Conviction Affirmed.

SoCal you may be my favourite poster on the site, but the prize to the number 1 most humble Djokovic fan goes to HM Murdock for his famous words in 2014 after the French Open: 'Djokovic will not win another Grand Slam.' It was so humble I nearly fell off my chair.

Yeah, I remember that, Murdock has been telling us now for like the last 10 slams that this one is Novak's last slam. But sh!!!!! don't jinx him, his terrible tennis picks are like us Djokovic fan's lucky rabbits foot. I am going to be terrorized if one day Murdock actually picks Novak to win a tournament.

[socal1976]

Ok Banbro is the low end of Djokovic's chances at 35 percent, I think that is a bit unfair to Novak. I mean being as dominant as he has been you would think he deserves a better than just a five percent better chance of winning it than the other two favorites.

My top three breakdown

Novak-50percent
Nadal-20 percent
Andy-15 percent
Stan-5 percent
field-10 percent

Two weeks ago, I agree. Incredibly a cloud, which is of Novak's making after bagels, sore ankles and nervy bad tempered final appearances, hangs over him. That coupled with Andy's return to his form of last Spring

No surprise if he wins. But neither would a Murray win, either

I do hear a lot of people making that argument nowadays Banbro. I think the bagel and surprise loss early in Monaco would be more worrying if it wasn't such a normal response. He really doesn't give flying toss about these warm ups, he is chomping at the bit to get to main course and therefore he was distracted and frustrated at his own distraction. Its exactly how I would react if I had a week before a big match at some lesser event. Think about it as a team playing in the Champions League Final being a little scratchy in a couple of less important and pivotal league matches before the cup final. As opposed to some longer term worrying trend that is how I read the recent events you have chronicled like bagels and testy temper.

[socal1976]

PS come on IMBL Djokovic chance of winning 73%, you are doing comedy there right? Lydian says 40 percent, I say 50 percent you are almost 1.5 times as confident as I am and close to twice as confident as Lydian for the Djokovic cause.

I didn't want to reach that figure, I just did it round by round with what I saw as the match-up percentages; and did an estimate calculation.

Me thinks you may have been a bit generous to Novak in how heavy of a favorite he would be in any particular matchup. Of course you need to at least know the draw to get more accurate. So far you are the top estimate with Djoko having a 73 percent chance and Banbro rates him on the low end at 35 percent. Is anyone lower than 35 on Djoko's chances to win?

[YvonneT]

I like the Tennis Abstract site for historic stats, but it also has some interesting stuff on forecast/ probability etc.

These are their forecasts as at R64 for Monte Carlo (http://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2016ATPMonteCarlo.html), Madrid (http://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2016ATPMadrid.html) and Rome (http://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2016ATPRome.html) - you need to click on "R64" if you follow the links for the detail.

Monte Carlo
Djokovic 36.3%
Wawrinka 18.6%
Federer 14.2%
Murray 11.3%
Nadal 7.5%
(Nishikori didn't play)

Madrid
Djokovic 36%
Wawrinka 18.9%
Murray 12.8%
Nadal 12.7%
Nishikori 3.6%
(Federer didn't play)

Rome
Djokovic 31.6%
Wawrinka 23.5%
Murray 12.3%
Federer 12%
Nadal 6%
Nishikori 3.6%
(NB Pouille's chances to make SF was 1.2%!)

The methodology is explained below the forecasts in the links.

Anyway, that's all numbers-based and doesn't seem to match all our gut feel about Wawrinka for example (it must still attach a high value to his wins on clay last year). Djokovic obviously got the tough draw in Rome, but really not so much in Madrid and Monte Carlo, but still was nowhere near 50%. Interestingly, we now know that Djokovic won 33% of the tournaments! The BO5 format favours the better player of course, but does it make that much difference?

Personally, my gut feel is Djokovic will manage to get through the 7 matches he needs - probably not smoothly, but he'll keep himself together enough. If he doesn't, I feel it will be a tag team effort like in Rome or like last year, where a series of matches each knocks him a bit physically and ups that mental pressure - but got to wait for the draw to really see how that looks.

[YvonneT]

Does the fact that Djokovic will be going for non-calendar year slam make any difference to the pressure? It was mentioned lot in 2012, but hardly at all this year. I don't think it makes a significant difference to him actually. Strangely, it makes a difference to how I feel about rooting for him - normally I'm pretty neutral in his matches, but in previous years, I have wanted to see him win RG to get the career slam. But the non-calendar year slam needs to be really tough, so I'll probably be rooting for every opponent to play the match of their lives and also rooting for Djokovic to get through it (unless he's playing Murray, Monfils or Tsonga in which case he's welcome to play like he did on Sunday).

Since he failed to win Rome, RG will also where Djokovic will pass the $100M prize money, but I'll don't think that'll factor into the pressure at all somehow!

[YvonneT]

The draw is on Friday morning by the way, according to the Telegraph. I did try checking the RG website, but it's as useless as last year unfortunately.

[Guest]

I am going to support IMBL in saying that 73% is within the bounds of probability based on an assessment of the past few years of stats.

Lets maximise the stats:
Has won four of the last five grand slams:  80%
Has won five of the last seven grand slams: 71%

Roland Garros:  Last five years of results:
three finals & 2 semi-final.
let's look at how he lost:
2011:  Semi-Final loses to Roger Federer in four sets.
2012:  Final loses to Rafael Nadal in four sets.  Beats Federer in three sets in semi-final.
2103: Semi-Final loses to Rafael Nadal in five sets.  Last set 7-9.
2014: Final loses to Rafael Nadal in four sets.
2015: Final loses to Wawrinka in four sets.  Beats Murray in Semi-final.  Beats Nadal in three sets in quarter finals.

Hence the only players he has been beaten by in the past five years at Roland Garros are Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Stan Wawrinka.

Now Roger Federer is clearly over the hill in relative terms and the last time they met at Roland Garros (2012) Djokovic beat him in three sets.  The last four times they have met each other at grand slams Djokovic won.

Rafael Nadal is clearly no longer at his best and has picked up permanent physical scars as a result of a long hard gruelling career.  The last time he met Djokovic on clay he was thrashed in three sets (only last year).   The last seven times Djokovic has player Nadal he has won without dropping a set.

Wawrinka last beat Djokovic at Roland Garros but has since lost to Djokovic in the past two matches, and his form in general has dropped off a precipice.

So overall: all the people Djokovic lost to at Roland Garros no longer carry the same threat as they did due to age (Federer, Wawrinka) and physical aging due to a gruelling career (Nadal).  Djokovic has beaten both Federer and Nadal the last time he met them at Roland Garros in straight sets, while Wawrinka's form of the last two years has taken a nose drive.

So I estimate his chances just based on his performance at Roland Garros, the physical aging of his main threats, and his recent head to heads as around 60% as a minimum.

[socal1976]

I like the Tennis Abstract site for historic stats, but it also has some interesting stuff on forecast/ probability etc.

These are their forecasts as at R64 for Monte Carlo (http://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2016ATPMonteCarlo.html), Madrid (http://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2016ATPMadrid.html) and Rome (http://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2016ATPRome.html) - you need to click on "R64" if you follow the links for the detail.

Monte Carlo
Djokovic 36.3%
Wawrinka 18.6%
Federer 14.2%
Murray 11.3%
Nadal 7.5%
(Nishikori didn't play)

Madrid
Djokovic 36%
Wawrinka 18.9%
Murray 12.8%
Nadal 12.7%
Nishikori 3.6%
(Federer didn't play)

Rome
Djokovic 31.6%
Wawrinka 23.5%
Murray 12.3%
Federer 12%
Nadal 6%
Nishikori 3.6%
(NB Pouille's chances to make SF was 1.2%!)

The methodology is explained below the forecasts in the links.

Anyway, that's all numbers-based and doesn't seem to match all our gut feel about Wawrinka for example (it must still attach a high value to his wins on clay last year). Djokovic obviously got the tough draw in Rome, but really not so much in Madrid and Monte Carlo, but still was nowhere near 50%. Interestingly, we now know that Djokovic won 33% of the tournaments! The BO5 format favours the better player of course, but does it make that much difference?

Personally, my gut feel is Djokovic will manage to get through the 7 matches he needs - probably not smoothly, but he'll keep himself together enough. If he doesn't, I feel it will be a tag team effort like in Rome or like last year, where a series of matches each knocks him a bit physically and ups that mental pressure - but got to wait for the draw to really see how that looks.

Great post it is interesting I hadn't seen this breakdown. As this analysis shows so much of it comes down to how tough the draw is or isn't. Scheduling is also a big deal in this tournament. All of sudden one player could finish his round and then a second player gets rained out and has to play 4 or 5 days in a row, which is what happened last year. It feels to me like you say about gut feeling that he is a better than a 30 something shot to win this. Like you say that is Djokovic's big Achilles weakness that he gets one or two tough matches and simply loses because his tank runs dry if he has a run of tough matches due to the draw.

Personally, I can only see Thiem, Nadal, Nish, Murray, Wawrinka, maybe Goffin as potential banana skins for Novak at this tournament. Can't see anyone other than one of these guys knocking him out. So if a draw is literred with a number of these guys in a row then the odds will tilt heavily against Novak.

[socal1976]

I am going to support IMBL in saying that 73% is within the bounds of probability based on an assessment of the past few years of stats.

Lets maximise the stats:
Has won four of the last five grand slams:  80%
Has won five of the last seven grand slams: 71%

Roland Garros:  Last five years of results:
three finals & 2 semi-final.
let's look at how he lost:
2011:  Semi-Final loses to Roger Federer in four sets.
2012:  Final loses to Rafael Nadal in four sets.  Beats Federer in three sets in semi-final.
2103: Semi-Final loses to Rafael Nadal in five sets.  Last set 7-9.
2014: Final loses to Rafael Nadal in four sets.
2015: Final loses to Wawrinka in four sets.  Beats Murray in Semi-final.  Beats Nadal in three sets in quarter finals.

Interesting analysis, Nore yes it has taken an inspired Fed, Wawrinka, and Nadal to keep Djokovic from the title in recent years and all these guys seems to be poorer than they have been and less able to resist. Wawrinka is still the same punchers chance and can he land enough blows, so maybe he is the exception. But is Nadal capable of the effort it took in 2012-2014? Could Fed pull off a 2011? Probably less likely. Yet, one could say that Murray is a bigger threat and that Nishikori or the field in general might be a bigger threat than what they had been in previous years. That is why I still think that both you and IMBL's optimistic predictions are a bit too optimistic.

[socal1976]

Does the fact that Djokovic will be going for non-calendar year slam make any difference to the pressure? It was mentioned lot in 2012, but hardly at all this year. I don't think it makes a significant difference to him actually. Strangely, it makes a difference to how I feel about rooting for him - normally I'm pretty neutral in his matches, but in previous years, I have wanted to see him win RG to get the career slam. But the non-calendar year slam needs to be really tough, so I'll probably be rooting for every opponent to play the match of their lives and also rooting for Djokovic to get through it (unless he's playing Murray, Monfils or Tsonga in which case he's welcome to play like he did on Sunday).

Since he failed to win Rome, RG will also where Djokovic will pass the $100M prize money, but I'll don't think that'll factor into the pressure at all somehow!

I think oddly that the possibility of the Novak slam will add pressure, lets face it winning 4 in a row and holding all 4 pieces of the crown at once something that Nadal and Federer never were able to achieve, something who his idol Sampras was never able to achieve; therefore I think it does add pressure to it. People aren't talking about but you can bet your bottom dollar Novak would love to have that achievement over everyone on the GOAT list not named Laver. Somewhere in the back of his mind he will be thinking about it and so will his biggest rivals.

[Guest]

These are probabilities not statistics.  But I am guided by the statistics.  Statistics are fixed and relate to past results.

Probabilities are just that - estimates of likelihood of a future outcome.  So IMBL saying 73% seems on the high side but there is past data to support it as being reasonable.  Now lets say in reality Djokovic loses to Murray in the semi-final - then IMBL can say he was right - because he predicted a 73% chance rather than a 100% chance.  IMBL would only be wrong if he predicted a 100% chance that Djokovic would win.

So we just need to be careful when saying this probability seems a bit high and this a bit low.  The criticism has to be based on the supporting argument and reasoned assumptions that the future will be reflected by the past.  Except we can do a little better than that using models of how we expect tennis players will perform as a function of age and experience.

Personally I think we can talk about probability ranges: for a Djokovic win I would go with 55 - 75%.  I have to make Djokovic more than a simple 50-50 given his recent Grand Slam performances and the fact that the people that have beaten him in the past at Roland Garros have all physically aged, and been consistently beaten by Djokovic in recent times.

[summerblues]

IMBL would only be wrong if he predicted a 100% chance that Djokovic would win.

You mean: "IMBL would only be proven wrong...".

[summerblues]

Anyway..

This was my post to Summerblues on another forum, challenging him on the belief that Djokovic had around 45% chance of winning:

Let's go through it:
Odds on losing:
Before the QF- 2%
QF- Nishikori 3%, Nadal 10%, Berdych 1%, Tsonga 2% (Average= 4%)
SF- Nadal 10%, Nishikori 3%, Stan 5% (Average= 6%)
F- Murray 20%, Nadal 10% (Average 15%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 73%

I would not give him anywhere near these odds in individual matches.

Nadal 10%?  This is clay, RG, and Rafa is playing better than last year.  Last year Novak was miles better than Rafa and yet he almost threw up all over himself in the first set just on account of being nervous.

Nishi 3%?  Nishi does not have much of a chance, but he will win more than 1-in-33 against Nole.  Man, he beat him even in a slam before.

Stan 5%?  The last five times they met in the slams, they are 3:2 for Nole and all the three wins were 5-setters.

All of these probabilities look way too low even under normal circumstances, plus Nole will be feeling the pressure.  All kinds of things happen under pressure.  I have seen an otherwise great player touch the net on overhead - just on account of collapsing under pressure.

[Belovedluckyboy]

I agree with SB here in that others' odds are way too low. 73% for Djoko? Maybe last year before the QF with Rafa, thereafter almost 100% until a certain Swiss denied him the title.

I think 40% is about right, Rafa at 30% and Murray at 25%, the others at 5%.

[Henman Bill]

Let's go through it:
Odds on losing:
Before the QF- 2%
QF- Nishikori 3%, Nadal 10%, Berdych 1%, Tsonga 2% (Average= 4%)
SF- Nadal 10%, Nishikori 3%, Stan 5% (Average= 6%)
F- Murray 20%, Nadal 10% (Average 15%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 73%

Every single one of your % is too low.
Nadal 10% - maybe 30% - it's the 9 time champion vs the 0 time champion.
Murray - 20% maybe 30% now because he just beat him on clay.
Nishikori - has beat Djokovic in a slam and looked like some good results on clay this year, so 3% is too low
Stan - 5% is too low - he has a great slam record against Djokovic, beat him last year
2% before the QF is also too low, I'd have that at more like 8% (more like 2% per match) - take the long view here, just because in recent years Djokovic hasn't early exited for a long time - sooner or later it happens, Federer had his Stakhovsky moment, Nadal his Rosol and so on. 2% per match because there's probably 0.5% or 1% chance of just an injury or some major personal issue or illness effecting. 2% would also include a portion for the chance that he may have to pull out of a match due to injury or illness or personal issue before starting.

Also, your maths is wrong, you need to multiply the % not add them so that they compound and so your calculated chance of winning should be 75% rather than 73%. Doesn't make much difference here, so maybe a bit pedantic, but worth keeping in mind.

Let me have a go and repost.

[Henman Bill]

Before the QF- 8%
QF- Nishikori 10%, Nadal 30%, Berdych 2%, Tsonga 3%, Other 3% (Average= 10%)
SF- Nadal 30%, Nishikori 10%, Stan 15%, Other 10% (Average= 16%)
F- Murray 30%, Nadal 30%, Other 15% (Average 25%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 0.92x0.9x0.84x0.75 = 52%.

I think your calculation assumes the worst for Djokovic on his opponents, someone may make a surprise run, and would be an easier opponent; see "Other" in my calculation. If you factor that in it would actually make his chances slightly better.

[socal1976]

Before the QF- 8%
QF- Nishikori 10%, Nadal 30%, Berdych 2%, Tsonga 3%, Other 3% (Average= 10%)
SF- Nadal 30%, Nishikori 10%, Stan 15%, Other 10% (Average= 16%)
F- Murray 30%, Nadal 30%, Other 15% (Average 25%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 0.92x0.9x0.84x0.75 = 52%.

I think your calculation assumes the worst for Djokovic on his opponents, someone may make a surprise run, and would be an easier opponent; see "Other" in my calculation. If you factor that in it would actually make his chances slightly better.

Funny you did all the calculations of probabilities and you got basically to what I got by eyeballing it. Interestingly, my 50 percent seems to be about the consensus pick of bookmakers as well as Nore indicated. Yeah no way is Djokovic more than that as a favorite, at least not by much. As others have pointed out a lot can go wrong and even 50 might be generous. I think people will get a better feel for it when the draw comes out, I have my money on Novak get a terrible draw, it almost is a yearly tradition. Terrible draw, plus terrible scheduling, plus terrible crowd; the trifecta if you will.

[CaledonianCraig]

IMBL would only be wrong if he predicted a 100% chance that Djokovic would win.

You mean: "IMBL would only be proven wrong...".

Well did he not do that by saying Djokovic was unbeatable or words to those effect? 73% is not unbeatable.

[Haddie-nuff]

Well if you want to go full circle CC he said Djokovic would win "comfortably" I, and I am sure most others, would assume that it was not 73% in that case .. that's not exactly comfortable
..

[CaledonianCraig]

Well I will draw a line under that.

On Sky the other day they were referring to player's form going by this and last aeason's clay court form. Going on win percentages of their matches played.in total they said Murray was top followed closely by Nadal and the Djokovic. I dont know if anyone here can validate that statement.

[Born Slippy]

Before the QF- 8%
QF- Nishikori 10%, Nadal 30%, Berdych 2%, Tsonga 3%, Other 3% (Average= 10%)
SF- Nadal 30%, Nishikori 10%, Stan 15%, Other 10% (Average= 16%)
F- Murray 30%, Nadal 30%, Other 15% (Average 25%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 0.92x0.9x0.84x0.75 = 52%.

I think your calculation assumes the worst for Djokovic on his opponents, someone may make a surprise run, and would be an easier opponent; see "Other" in my calculation. If you factor that in it would actually make his chances slightly better.

Some of these seem way too high to me. Novak's not lost before the QF of a slam in 7 years, yet you say he will lose before then 1 in 12 goes? No way is Rafa a 1 in 3 shot against him. He's lost the last 15 straight sets! Murray is also too high in my view.

I think I would say:

Before the QF: 3%
QF- Nishikori 9%, Nadal 15%, Berdych 2%, Tsonga 2%, Other 2% (Average= 6%)
SF- Nadal 15%, Nishikori 9%, Stan 15%, Other 3% (Average= 10.25%)
F- Murray 20%, Nadal 15%, Other 10% (Average 15%)
Djokovic Chance of winning: 0.97x0.94x0.8975x0.85 = 69.5%

[HM Murdock]

the prize to the number 1 most humble Djokovic fan goes to HM Murdock for his famous words in 2014 after the French Open: 'Djokovic will not win another Grand Slam.' It was so humble I nearly fell off my chair.

Yeah, I remember that, Murdock has been telling us now for like the last 10 slams that this one is Novak's last slam. But sh!!!!! don't jinx him, his terrible tennis picks are like us Djokovic fan's lucky rabbits foot. I am going to be terrorized if one day Murdock actually picks Novak to win a tournament.

I'd like to defend myself but sometimes a prediction is so wrong that you just have accept the mocking.

Sad to say, but Socal is probably right. There was only one slam last year for which I predicted a Djokovic win. I'm sure we can all guess which one that was...

This time round, I'm refusing to make a prediction. I presume this means that the universe will be able to continue on its natural course, rather than having to make a diversion to humiliate me and my skills of prediction.

[banbrotam]

Some of these seem way too high to me. Novak's not lost before the QF of a slam in 7 years, yet you say he will lose before then 1 in 12 goes? No way is Rafa a 1 in 3 shot against him. He's lost the last 15 straight sets! Murray is also too high in my view

Only if you assume Novak's past confidence / dominance is the same as it always was.

Some of us simply don't think it is. His form in the past couple of weeks hasn't been at his normal level. He's been more tetchy than normal, the 'slippery court' moan was intense even for Novak (for a minute I thought he might have pulled out). Opinion, that he's been like this before and he's bounced  back are valid until you remember that he blew it last year and RG is clearly very important to him

The top 4 (as in the serial event winners) all respect each other. Novak will be concerned that Murray now had the confidence to win the thing he badly wants - worse it puts Andy in a far better 'unique winning' situation as he just needs the AO to do the Golden Slam. Of course we will argue that there is no legacy like winning 11 slams, but Novak badly wants the FO and the Olympics - that means we can't really use previous build ups as a good guide - it's a special year. All bets are off

Fact is Murray has arguably been the best clay courter of the last year. I don't agree with this, but it's a valid discussion. That is a huge step forward for Andy's status going into RG. He's never looked as good. Madrid last year could easily be explained away and some of us agreed with the caveats. But if Novak is his dominating normal self, then he would have beaten Andy at Rome as the court and the conditions were great for Novak - which is why he'd won it so many times before

Novak is the favourite, but he's not the huge favourite that he has been in the last couple of slams

[Born Slippy]

Well I will draw a line under that.

On Sky the other day  they were referring to player's form going by this and last aeason's clay court form. Going on win percentages of their matches played.in total they said Murray was top followed closely by Nadal and the Djokovic. I dont know if anyone here can validate that statement.

Both Andy and Novak have lost twice in the last two years. Andy has played more matches so his win % is definitely higher than Novak.

Rafa has lost 7 matches I think. Given that, I struggle to see how he could have a higher win % than Novak. He would need to have 3.5 times the number of wins to match him and whilst he has more matches I would be surprised if it was that many more!

[HM Murdock]

I'd say that form nearly always trumps pedigree.

Last year's results and career results will have little bearing on the next couple of weeks (with the possible exception of any mental baggage they may have given a player).

Murray is the player currently in the best form, which means he has a very realistic chance at winning.

[Born Slippy]

Well I will draw a line under that.

On Sky the other day  they were referring to player's form going by this and last aeason's clay court form. Going on win percentages of their matches played.in total they said Murray was top followed closely by Nadal and the Djokovic. I dont know if anyone here can validate that statement.

Both Andy and Novak have lost twice in the last two years. Andy has played more matches so his win % is definitely higher than Novak.

Rafa has lost 7 matches I think. Given that, I struggle to see how he could have a higher win % than Novak. He would need to have 3.5 times the number of wins to match him and whilst he has more matches I would  be surprised if it was that many more!

Looked into this properly. Records are:

Murray (27-3) : 90%
Novak (25-3) : 89.3%
Rafa (45-10) : 81.8%

[Sponsored content]