It seems weird to have odds that in percentage wise wouldn't sum up to 1. Is there a reason to give odds 6/4 instead of 3/2?

this is a point to support nadal>fed right?

Bobby Riggs

lol you don't give up do you?

Aussie- Murray
French-Nadal
Wimbledon-Federer
US Open-Nadal

They don't add up to 1 because thats how the bookies make money. There is no commission. 6/4 is just some silly tradition I think. Like 100/30 is a common fractional value you will see quoted. No idea why.

Federer is the solid favorite right now imo but who knows what will happen.

my predictions:

aussie-federer
rgarros- nadal
wimbeldon-federer
usopen- federer

I think this is the most likely scenario.

The most likely? Really?

No, not really, I dont follow tennis that much but aparently Nadal is favorite so I change my predictions to : Nadal, Nadal, Federer, Nadal , im feeling brave tonight.

Wonder how many people predicting will stick their neck out and predict any winner that isn't Nadal or Federer. I am going to guess the odd one will give a title to Murray, Djokovic, maybe even a returning Del Potro. It will be the minority though. Some people might even want to predict Nadal to win all 4 but then something will stop them and they will give Fed a token.

Murray is pretty good and I expect he'll pick up a slam or two at some point, at the moment I'd lean toward Djokovic or a returned del Potro if I'm picking somebody outside of Nadal/Fed to win majors. Between those guys and Soderling I think you've got pretty close to 100% of the expected slams for the next year accounted for. EDIT: Was typing this up as Ra_Z_Boy was posting, obviously thinking along similar lines.

I think Nadal will win the French and Wimbledon, and I think he has an excellent chance of picking up one of the others. Picking Nadal for all 4 (I don't think that's likely but it's more likely than any other specific scenario) seems boring, so I'll go with 3 for Nadal and 1 for Djokovic, with the Aussie being a more probable win for Djokovic.

Aus - Djokovic
French - Nadal
Wimbledon - Nadal
US - Nadal

Despite not picking him to win a specific major, I think Federer has the second best expectation in terms of majors won, mostly because I think he has a better chance at the French if Rafa slips than a lot of the rest of this crew.

Massively more likely to win Wimbledon than the others too imo.

I'm less sure about this at this point - Berdych? - but it's certainly possible.

I think its better to guess the overall amount of grand slams won by each player.

Nadal 2
Federer 1
Others 1

given how much nadal dominated at the us open, why can't he do the same at the aussie and win all 4? lol 7 seven in a row.

Tsonga should get his fat ass of his couch and start training properly asap
he almost looks as fat as rooney

Well, in the last 6 years there have been only 3 slams not won by Nadal or Federer:
Safin with the Aussie in 2005. Djokovic with the Aussie in 2008 and Del Potro with the Us Open in 2009. If we go back 7 years, then we add one more Gaston Gaudio with the French (Nadal was too young to play).
While Federer is not as good as he was before, he is still really good. And Rafa is about as good as Federer was in the 2004-2007 era.

I think the expected value of (Nadal + Federer) is a bit above 3 slams. The probability of them winning all four slams should be over 30%.
The French and Wimbledon are locks for them. They have better than 60% chance on each of the other two.

I don't see anything wrong with calling all four slams for either Rafa or Roger.

AO - Djokovic
RG - Djokovic
W - Djokovic
US - Djokovic

No. This is completely absurd. The better reason is that Paddy sucks **** at what they do.

Its cool. I'd be favored over Rod Laver. Thremp > Laver

Sweet christ. Stop using voodoo math. lol "lox". Why would you ever call something for the dog as well? Under this bit of jackassery its 4-0 Nadal ezpz.

Fwiw, nadal was a pretty heavy favorite to win the French last year. Something like -260 if I remember right. I think the question on who's betterin their peak comes down to how you feel about different surfaces. If you feel that al tourneys are created equal and hard-court prowess is more important than ability on other surfaces in proportion to how many more tournaments are played on hardcourts, then federer's the GOAT in every sense of the word. Career, prime, future projections, etc. If on the other hand, you feel that hard-court ability, grass-court ability, and clay-court ability are all equal measures of a tennis player, then I think nadal has the best prime and is > 50% (although nowhere near a lock) to finish with a better career than fed.

if people honestly think that the 2005 wimbledon field was anywhere near as tough as the 2010 wimbledon field and the difference is simply prime Fed just THAT dominant than there really isn't any discussion as you probably weren't paying close enough attention

also its gonna be hard for rafa to "dominate" years like fed did as (aside from the fact that fields are way deeper), hes trying to play less tournies to be able to have a longer career

yes, this is "points for fed" and the reason i believe he will go down with the GOAT career, but theres just so much evidence that fed really isn't that much worse than he was in his "peak" and really the difference is its harder to dominate bc there are more awesome players

which makes the fact that its arguable rafa dominated these last 3 majors like fed never did in easier fields more impressive

Show your work yo. I'm interested in how you handwave away all the important aspects with a cursory. "Its self-evident"

Paddy wants to make money. Cashy gave good reasons why it would make sense for them not to try to give the precise odds.

In the comment you wrote how Nadal was favorite over Federer in every slam. Sounds like a vote for Nadal > Federer, at least in the current year.


Sure, I am making up numbers, but I really think that the expected value of Nadal + Federer slams next year is a bit above 3. I think it is more likely for them to get 3 than 4, but I think it is more likely for them to get 4 than 2. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume they will get all four.
Your statement "Under this bit of jackassery its 4-0 Nadal ezpz." has little connection to my post. Obviously Nadal + Federer winning all four is quite more likely than Nadal winning all four on his own. It is not just more likely, it is way more likely.
For a little reason why, let's just plug in some numbers to see why Nadal+Federer winning all four is way more likely than Nadal winning all four.
Assume the probabilities of winning for Nadal are AO: 1/3 (what Paddy predicts), FO: 3/4 (what they predicted this year where it was uncertain if he would be good enough to play), Wimbledon: 2/5, US: 1/3. Then the odds of him winning all four would be 6/180 = 3/90 = 1/30.
Assume the probabilities of Fed are AO: 1/4, FO: 1/4, Wimbledon: 1/3: US: 1/4.
Then the odds of Nadal + Fed are: (7/12)(1)(11/15)(7/12) = 539/2160 = .249 about 1/4. You can see that 1/4 is way way higher than 1/30. In fact 7.5 times higher.
Now, I don't claim that those probabilities are correct. But the point was just to show how the probabilities change drastically once you include both of them as possible winners. It is not just double, it is 7 times higher in that particular example.

Next time you say "under the same reasoning", maybe you should actually figure out what the original reasoning was.

Im quite surprised people are putting Federer down to win Wimbledon next year. Yes he dominated for years but I think its quite clear that the other players have caught up to him and in some cases past him

I don't know. I still think he is up there and has a good shot. He wasn't fully fit this year and won it last year.