I agree. Fed can win. Heck, he could win the Open, the Olympics and WTF still. It's just my opinion however that Fed's level this year is not actually streets above his nearest competitors. After all, his lead in the Race is hardly decisive. As for Novak not being dominant, I'm struggling to think of a comparison of Fed losing sets to Mahut, Goffin and Benny in slams to the sets Novak lost - at least Tsonga, Seppi etc. are much higher ranked. That's my reason for thinking Novak should be more consistent.
I'm not saying Federer can't win - I just think it's very unlikely he can be winning as many titles as he did in his prime. I'd be surprised if some of the big prizes weren't taken by others - that's all. Wimbledon might give him confidence but to me it won't be decisive in determining his year ahead. After all, he had a heartbreaking US Open loss last year and then still went ahead to sweep the later tournaments. Anyway, yes it's a POV.
I'll say he wins two more titles - don't think one will be the US Open.
In his prime the guy was winning 3 of 4 slams and taking 3 or 4 Masters per year. So really, no one here is saying he is going to do that this year, with 60% of the year gone, he mathematically cannot anyway.
The US SF last year may well have been a blessing in disguise, it seems to have lead him into some sort of introspection, something tells me its because of the manner in which he lost that match he went on such a tear indoors, not despite. Also, I simply dont get this USO drought crap. Yeah he last won it 4 years ago, So what? He won RG after that, but does that mean he is likelier to win French Open than US Open? In the last two years, Fed's worst slam was Wimbledon and look what happened in 2012. For a 17-time slam champion, it really doesnt matter if he last won one of his best slams 3-4 years ago. US Open is his second best slam, maybe even a case to be made as his best considering he has been close the last 8 straight years really (given he had 2 MPs in the last 2 semis to have made in 8 straight finals). I am not saying he will win the title for sure, but he is the easy 2nd favourite behind Nole for the title, and at his age and on the most neutral surface out there, that is pretty ridiculous.
I dont get why you seem so....nearly offended even if some Fed fans are dreaming way too much. They (We, rather) havent had this opportunity for over 2 years and people were saying this time would never come. This is simply speculative and I agree that most Federer fans in this thread are predicting way off but do you really need to quote and argue with every second one?
Originally Posted by Ash86
And my POV is that just because Fed won Wimbledon, doesn't mean his season is now going to be dramatically different than if he had lost in the final.
This however is BS and you know it.
Should Fed and Murray meet in the final I'd call it 50-50. It's Murray's favourite surface...There'll be zero pressure on him in New York. In a way it would be fitting that he beats someone who has schooled him in three slam finals in the past. As for Rogi, well the pressure of not having won there since 2008 could be the difference.
Of course the assumption is that he avoids being upset early on as he has managed to do in the last 2 slams. Will that continue ? Who knows
You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it but really, Roger has no pressure whatsoever at the US Open. He has won that title a freaking 5 times and has nothing to prove there. And there is no Slam pressure on him either because he has won that 17th to shut up his detractors.
And Federer hasnt had an "early upset" in a slam since an eternity. And this eternity is more than 4 years