*** The Milos Raonic Will Never Win A Grand Slam Thread ***

cant see any post after beating up murray us open champion.

defeat by nishikori means nothing tbh.

there is plenty of slams to grab... nishi will share one or two with milos

Hammered in straight sets by Muller indoors

he got absolutely mullered in the tie break

he's way too inconsistent, but when he finds that form (once in a blue moon) I have to admit, he's a beast

He is getting worse...dont get me started with that nalbandian like backhand

Yesterday lost a set to Chardy and now lost in straight sets to old man Querrey

Wonder how long we can continue to make a fortune against this guy until market wakes up to him being a poor version of Isner

No surprise to see this mug cause no problems again

OP knew.

Taken apart with absolute ease by Federer at the AO and was same story against Murray at the previous Grand Slam. Lost to mug Sam Querrey at Wimbledon. Raonic is up to 15 in the world and will always be a threat on quick playing hard courts because of his serve. Will he win a Slam, most likely not as the court speeds at the majors have been slowed down and once he gets in to a rally he's made to look decidedly average.

Mug cant even get through to face the big boys in these events let alone a grand slam

hello c0ck19

Hello mug , whos a bigger mug you or Raonic in a rally ?

Mar 13, 2013 -- 9:15PM, Babelicious19 wrote:

Hello mug , whos a bigger mug you or Raonic in a rally ?

wtf lmao

When you look up the word mug in the dictionary, next to it there's a picture of Milos Raonic.

can we have a "Dmitrov will win a slam before Raonic" fred please?

should be fun

Mug cant win a set in a best of 5 on clay v Anderson


Rafa and Novak shaking in boots at this guys potential

c0cks19

can u stay around and tip some winners for us please

The surface he believes is his best and he gets beat in straight sets by a dutch mug who cant even make the top 50

James Ward has a better chance of winning a grand slam than this mug

stringerbell     22 Feb 11 14:08 
bless you, you obviously read tennis players about as well as jimmy saville

stringerbell 22 Feb 11 17:26 Joined: 18 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 9,194 | Blogger: stringerbell's blog
jesus christ the stuff on here, unbelievable, he was playing his 2nd slam, he's only 20 and he still got to the last 16 and took ferrer to a tight four setter, when the spaniard was playing superbly. of course he's not fit enough yet...but if you cant see how good this kid is, how he has ice in his veins, how he has the most astounding weapons, then hey, good luck. to say he should be 400 fr wimbledon when he is already beating top ten players in his first year on the pro circuit, well i'm afraid it's just moronic. doesnt taker nostrodamus to predict this thread will make you look a total tit when bumped in future
Rate reply:
| report block user

well.... they can still move slam to san jose. you are all to harsh on milos he is down in form atm etc but he can still improve his game if hew will work hard of course it wont bring him slams but still it can happen depends if he can improve and other things as well

yup, he will NEVER get close. maybe a US Open in 2020?!?

The surface he believes is his best

did he think Wimbledon was an indoor hard court

2011 Wimbledon, all the shrewdies were happy with their 100/1

then he got crocked 2 games in vs Muller

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:28AM, philip glass wrote:

I am happy with my 100/1 ew for Wimbledon. Could be seeded by then.

The surface he believes is his best and he gets beat in straight sets by a dutch mug who cant even make the top 50 ExcitedGrinGrinGrin

agreed. the guy is an utter mug

at the same age Murray had been in a slam final and won back to back MS1000 events

this guy has no chance

annoying that we could only lay 1.4 today

it seems like the hype for this mug is over and people are beginning to realise he's useless

Another great win by laying this mug at stupidly low prices

As long as the other guy can hit a ball over a net then this mug is in trouble

I think we need to start another thread about him being out the top 50 soon

Raonic will win a grand slam

Radwanska wont win!

in the interests of fairness

He just about scraped past Pospisil in a 1000

i dont know what kind of changes he and Ljubicic had made, but one interesting thing i noticed - for example in San Jose, he won the tournament earlier this year without droping a set, and he averaged roughly 15 aces per match...in Montreal, he played the deciding set for the third time yesterday, and in those 3 matches he averaged roughly 10 aces per match, which is really not impressive...if he and Ivan are intentionally putting less weight on the serve, that's all fine if he can still get more unreturned serves or returned serves that are sitters just to put away, is just as good as aces but im not quite sure he is doing that now. Apart from the first two rounds where he only allowed one break point vs Chardy and 0 vs Youzhny, his serve became more and more vulnerable as the tournament continued.

Raonic plays an unbelievable power game at San Jose. Tommy Haas said he'd never seen someone come out and hit the ball so hard. I wouldn't take Raonic's numbers from San Jose and expect him to live up to them elsewhere, because if he could play like that year round (or even just on other hard courts) he would be in the top 4 by now.

That said, his serve does seems less of a weapon lately, and it would be interesting to know the reason (s).

Aug 10, 2013 -- 8:04PM, smb360 wrote:

He just about scraped past Pospisil in a 1000

...or he made a Masters 1000 Final

better than anything he's done before

ttt

thanks for ruining the comp, milos.

No surprise to see this mug failed to even get close to grand slam success once again

Comes up against someone half decent and he just gets sent home

To make it even better , we got odds against on the half decent player

1.01 landed

we got odds against on the half decent player

That's a bit dumb, really, because Raonic went down to 1.05ish and it took about four hours for the coin-toss situation to actually materialise. Up until that point, being on Raonic was a favourable position to be in, as he was either leading or near his SP for the vast majority of the match.

Raonic could be 1.01 against Wozniacki and the mug would still **** it up

Mug failed again

yup this will run and run.... norfolk and chance of a GS title

No surprise to see the mug couldnt even win a set when finally faced one of the big boys

Ridiculously short for wimbledon considering how much of a mug the guy is

He couldn't win a raffle. Only wins on fast indoor courts because he's tall and has a deadly serve.

The mug just lost to a local ball boy in straight sets and hes still shorter than Dimitrov , Tsongaa etc in the wimbledon outright

he got deep in rg have not much experience in quick transitioning between those two surfaces,and his backhand side seems very vulnerable especially when he sticking to baseline exchanges.still need to find his game on grass be more offensive and learn how to defend in-court position instead of backing off but he has lot of elements in his naive yet game he can force in future,also mug is very ambitious and slowly but constantly developing not having any major injuries, so i wouldnt be so cheerful that he will not eventually position himself as slam challenger. he can sometimes surprise with the level of improvement when u talk about raw base of his game, not flashy but solid as top four players in core. on this base he can develop in years to came with his attitude and clear goal to be contender,as his ranking type of surge showing he will always be there with good seeding.this type of player cant dominate all arounders like muz novak nadal birdman consistently but he can have spells where be tough to beat, adding  his improvement direction puls decline and clear lack of replacement for current leaders may as well take him to slam titles.lesser mugs than reisnick won slams in past and current era of best players ever will come to the end soon

To be fair i think i would have had a good run at RG14 if i had a draw of Kyrgios , Vesely , Simon and Granollers

ah for old time's sake

I think he will, not yet, because Djoker is already in the final, but you cannot deny his improvement.

agreed, the way his net play has improved makes you think Wimbledon is possible but he has not seemed to like the skiddy lower bounce in the past so the fast hard maybe his best shot.

all together now.....


THE OP KNEW

Until he gets rid of that gay sleeve, I remain unconvinced.

ttt

and the sleeve is gone

He'll just have to wait until Murray gets injured now...what a state for tennis though

Milosz improvement is constant and his attitude to develop brings him closer and closer to win big titles.i doubt he could ever become dominant player in terms of consistent wins but he will get these chances frequently to challenge for slams.mureay will destroy him imo but he will only learn from it for future, perhaps easier chances to bag slam

had a lumpy bet on kerber to bt venus and raoinic to bt federrer in their respective semi-final matches.............i thought mcenroes post match interview was interesting..........he was very fair and respectfull to fed but he said "raonic found another gear in the 4th set in i didnt know he possesed i dont think he knew himself but he stepped his game forward to a new level" i think murray would be more comfortable facing fed then raconic...........i think this final is represented of the roddick vs fed final where fed launched himself on the tennis world stage..........i backed raonic at 8s before the fed match outright and think the prices are about right........
another big plus for raonic is having mcenroe in his corner.ive only got the higest of respect for john mc and tactically think hell be able to dissect any wealnesses in murrays game.
this is sport and nobody is unbeatable as djo found out against querry we,ll see who the mug is at 5.00 oclock sunday

Interesting views bustino - wondering if the 'first major final' issue will be a big factor though? Nerves affecting his serve for example would be disaster for him and Murray would crush him then...

i think that murray would certainly have been "more comfortable facing fed than raonic" after a 2nd 5 setter for fed that's for sure.
in general i think he will be happy enough with raonic. in fact if you had told him pre tournie he would be in the final and not playing djoker i'm sure he would have taken that.
i'm not dismissing raonic's chances tho, he's got a lot of weapons and seems to be moving better than he ever used to.
there is a good case to say the right players are in the final having been queens club finalists too. the form players on grass.

I can''t see Murray winning another Wimbledon.... Roanic will be the star today his time has come.

Could 'the sleeve' have been Raonic's fatal weakness?

I always said that Hewitt would never win Wimbledon until he got rid of that hideous 'baseball-cap-back-to-front' look. Lo and behold, in 2002 he turns up with a short haircut and no cap and promptly wins the event.

I KNEW.

bring back the sleeve

Maybe if he wears the sleeve over his left leg instead it might be the key?

I'm convinced that sleeve holds the key to many of life's unfathomable mysteries.

There's no actual guarantee Raonic wins a grand slam anyway, even now. I mean he is 25 and has a pretty terrible match up with the far and away 2 best players in the game right now. Depends how long you think Djokovic and Murray will be around, but you'd think 2 years at the absolute minimum, and by then you don't know what youngsters will be coming through.

He has a chance that he will win a grand slam, but it's far from nailed on. Excellent baseliners are always going to give him a lot of trouble, especially on slower surfaces as Raonic is never going to be absolutely elite from the baseline. Whether any excellent baseliner will actually be around in 3-4 years I guess is debatable.

i suspect he may well win one, probably on a hard court.

As I said above, just needs Murray to get injured now....

Yes but how likely is it for the foreseeable future you go through a grand slam without having to play Djokovic or Murray? Highly unlikely.

yep you'd have to think there will be very few slams in the next 2 years you won't have to beat both of them to win a title. djokovic hardly ever fails to reach a final let alone a semi and murray would probably be expected to reach 6 out of 8 semi finals

even as they both approach 30 they show little sign of slowing down and if anything the gap between them and the rest is getting wider. don't think murray has had over 10000 ranking points before

The gap between them and the rest getting bigger is more because Federer and Nadal's decline. There has been a huge gap between between them and the rest for ages, just with Federer and Nadal struggling for a variety of reasons their paths to the final are even more open then they used to be say 5 years ago.

Think Murray will go number one soon

Djoko could drop off big time now I reckon- he seemed exhausted after he got knocked out of wimbledon and seemed to want a long break from tennis

Is Raonic only 25? he'll def win a grand slam then

Krgios will break through soon too

historically it's very difficult to win grand slams over the age of 30 - the open era record is just 2 by andre agassi - but you have to think novak djokovic will beat that and if he doesn't andy murray might given the lack of serious opposition to them at the moment. they've got 3 slams next year after they turn 30 for a start

Federer won Wimbledon after he was 30.

There has been loads of winners over the age of 30 Federer, Connors, Korda, Sampras, Gomez, Newcombe, Agassi, Laver, Ashe and Gimeno. Ken Rosewall was 37 when he won the OZ Open in 1972.

Just seen Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver both won 4 grand slams in their 30's.

25 isn't that young really. I mean Djokovic, Murray have at least another 2 years at the top most likely, and that's quite a conservative estimate. He could find himself 28-29 by the time the big opportunities are appearing, by which time how good will Kyrgios, Zverev be? There's always been a big danger that the era after the big 4 era would get totally bypassed.

Tbh though I think by around 2020 the days of dominance will be over, and no-one will be dominating, and you will be left with grand slams open to be won by a lot of players.

On the winning grand slams over 30 it should be remembered the average age of players has massively shifted upwards the last 10 years. Players conditioning is simply such that winning over 30 will come more common. The old days 30 is probably the equivalent of around 32-33 now.

Their used to be a sort of rule that was thought in tennis that if you hadn't won by 24 you were never going to win. But that's totally gone these days where it seems players almost peak in their late 20s now. I mean I highly doubt Raonic is at his peak currently at 25. Someone like Wawrinka is a better player at 31 than he was at 25. He was winning grand slams at 30, he wasn't even top 10 at 26-27.

If you looked at Wawrinka's results before turning 28 you would never think on paper here is a grand slam champion, let and out multi-grand slam champion. You would probably thinking perennial 10-20 ranked player. He had a grand total of 2 grand slam QF's before 28, 1 masters final, and 2 masters semi-finals. Had won 3 titles, all of which were 250s.

After 28, in just over 3 years he's made 4 grand slam QF's, 4 grand slam SF's and won 2 grand slams.

yep certainly an older man's game these days. you've had murray, wawrinka and cilic as first time slam winners at 25 and over in the last few years

between 1990 and 2010 there was only about 5 - gomez, korda, ivanisevic, costa, johansson - all real shock winners and with the exception of ivanisevic were never seen as likely slam winners

When Murray was coming up, I remember them talking about how normally if you don't win a grand slam by 24 you don't win one. Of course it's all forgotten now as it clearly doesn't apply to today's game.

25 is certainly young nowadays.bringing older players achievements in line with age is just plain stupid.
First 25 is generally ****g young.is the age when body just starting to have sustainable  strength in long endurance sessions but also in terms of quickness , speed , reaction, eye hand coordination is probably sharper tgan younger age.every sport which combining quickness with strength time around 30 is best time in terms if achievement.
Obviously in past in tennis it was bit different but now is the time to reflect why it was like that . definitely not because phisical predispositions,i would guess more about comercial side of the game combined with lifestyle.decent money early for young player star then maybe more elsewhere and focus shift away from playing just earninf money elsewhere

Touring around world is mega expensive, now with good price money perhaps gives more motivation as lifestyle than previously

Jul 12, 2016 -- 5:42PM, n88uk wrote:

When Murray was coming up, I remember them talking about how normally if you don't win a grand slam by 24 you don't win one. Of course it's all forgotten now as it clearly doesn't apply to today's game.

murray was a very late developer really. when you look at nadal at 19 & murray at 19 there may as well have been about a 4 year age gap in terms of physique. of course nadal now appears be physically breaking down earlier too, although i'm sure that has more to do with the way he plays.
i think i read murray actually grew another couple of inches between 19 & 20 which is not unheard of but quite unusual. it also meant he had to limit any weight training until he'd stopped growing. he still looked pretty scrawny until about 24 when he bulked up and started looking like a man for the first time.
raonic has only recently filled out that big frame of his too.

Nadal was a physical freak. That was very rare, and will become far rarer in the modern game with how physically demanding it now is to be physically ready of the big time at 19 like Nadal was.

Look at Zverev, he is 19, and just from looking at him you can see see he's not physically ready for the big time with how skinny his legs are.

Del Potro is another example of someone who filled out reasonably young. He was quite skinny at around 18, but filled out quite a lot by the time he was winning the US Open at 20.

Raonic had clear base in service and sound, powerful forehand, that itself brough his succes to top20 , everything else he can improve, like backand side plus mentality, experience he gets a lot of just because of his base strenght giving him more matches on top level,pushing him forward, he has great attitude.players like murray with agility,touch ,techniques allowing them make shots from any positions, speed, balance etc have different ceiling for improvement.age gaves player like murray not only time to develope even more consistentcy with hitting ball hut also achieve phisical strength. Player like raonic will not improve his agility, speed, touch that much from teenager period like player who has these, needing to improve general strength endurance power like murray.every player has different atributes and is mix of such,some of these weaknesses can be worked on much more easily than other parts.age is only bracket for career time to develop things

Ferrer for the comeback...!

Muster was almost 28 when winning his only slam at RG '95

Not a fan of Raonic but genuinely think he can more than one grandslams. He was very close to winning one this year and he can only improve from here.

Raonic will win a slam, and it will be the staring point of Tennis's decline as it will mean the top 4 are all gone and all that's left are mugs. Raonic is the best of the mugs.

Gigs@AndrewGigacz
After nearly a decade of grand slam tennis "MILOS RAONIC — CANADA" is still an anagram of "I CAN DO A SLAM — OR CAN I?"