Federer Too Focused On Winning French? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer Too Focused On Winning French?

LleytonMonfils
12-30-2008, 06:37 PM
I don't have an opinion either way on the subject but I thought it might be able to spark interesting conversation. I was reading an article about Federer earlier today and it mentioned that Roger had allowed others such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc. to catch up to him on other surfaces because Roger has really made it a focus to win Roland Garros. Not sure if I'm wording it the right way so it makes sense to all, but does anyone think this could be a factor in Federer "coming back to earth" a little bit on hardcourt and grass?

reggie1
12-30-2008, 06:45 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if he was a little "obsessed" with it. I remeber Ivan Lendl in the 80's was obsessed with winning Wimbledon and even though he got to the final, he never quite managed it. I wasn't a big Lendl fan but really felt quite sorry for him where Wimbly was concerned. I would love to see Fed win R.G. I have a quite a fondness for him even though I usually support underdogs. I want him to get his Wimbly crown back next year. I like Rafa too but Fed looked broken after his Wimbledon loss this year and it was sad to see imo.

FedFan_2007
12-30-2008, 06:51 PM
In fact Lendl got to 2 consecutive Wimbledon finals, losing to Becker and Cash(1986-1987).

zeleni
12-30-2008, 07:10 PM
I think he cares only about Grand Slams in general, not about any of them particulary.

reggie1
12-30-2008, 07:10 PM
In fact Lendl got to 2 consecutive Wimbledon finals, losing to Becker and Cash(1986-1987).

I thought he did, I remember the Cash one vividly, my first tennis crush! :o Cash not Lendl!

LleytonMonfils
12-30-2008, 07:19 PM
I think he cares only about Grand Slams in general, not about any of them particulary.


I would be the same way, but if Roger never wins RG he may go down as the greatest ever, but those who argue against him will point at his inability to win that Grand Slam. You have to think it is eating away at him somehow.

reggie1
12-30-2008, 07:27 PM
I would be the same way, but if Roger never wins RG he may go down as the greatest ever, but those who argue against him will point at his inability to win that Grand Slam. You have to think it is eating away at him somehow.

It must do, when he's achieved everything else, RG will be "the one that got away" :sad:

nanoman
12-30-2008, 07:30 PM
No, I actually think he doesn't care enough about the French.

Actually, Fed is too focused about his image, his popularity around the world, people's awareness of him, etc. and that's why we are seeing him swimming across oceans to play pointless exhibitions, at the cost of his health.

Dougie
12-30-2008, 07:30 PM
I think there is some truth to that. But who can blame the guy, he knows that no matter if he breaks Peteīs record, in order to go down in history as the unquestionable GOAT, he needs to win the RG. Iīm sure heīd be willing to trade a couple of Wimbledon titles for one french, if he had the chance.

Sunset of Age
12-30-2008, 07:37 PM
It must do, when he's achieved everything else, RG will be "the one that got away" :sad:

Well, as for some of the other players regularly mentioned in the GOAT-discussion, Borg never got the USO, Lendl never got Wimbly, Sampras never got RG (not even ever managed to make the final, whereas Fed made three + a semi-final so far ;))... so it won't matter all too much imho if Feddie never makes it.

I guess he WAS indeed obsessed about it the past few years, getting so very close, but in the end, succumbing against the guy who might well be the Clay Court GOAT :worship: - even Federer might well have acknowledged that it's time to face Reality by now. In all, not *that* much of a disgrace I think. If he lost to all kinds of 'clowns' in all those attempts of his, that would've been a rather different matter. I have the suspicion he's already put it behind himself. :angel:

All that matters now to Roger is breaking Sampras' record of 14 slams I think, whichever those will be. :)

LleytonMonfils
12-30-2008, 07:40 PM
Well, as for some of the other players regularly mentioned in the GOAT-discussion, Borg never got the USO, Lendl never got Wimbly, Sampras never got RG (not even ever managed to make the final, whereas Fed made three + a semi-final so far ;))... so it won't matter all too much imho if Feddie never makes it.

I guess he WAS indeed obsessed about it the past few years, getting so very close, but in the end, succumbing against the guy who might well be the Clay Court GOAT :worship: - even Federer might well have acknowledged that it's time to face reality by now. In all, not *that* much of a disgrace I think. If he lost to all kinds of 'clowns' in all those attempts of his, that would've been a rather different matter. I have the suspicion he's already put it behind himself. :angel:

All that matters now to Roger is breaking Sampras' record of 14 slams I think, whichever those will be. :)

If all was perfect in Roger's world he would get Wimbledon back this year, and beat Nadal at RG next year. Although I think the only way for Federer to win RG is if someone were to upset Rafa earlier in the tournament. I just want to see someone push Nadal on clay!

biological
12-30-2008, 07:42 PM
Oh I would love him to win RG :inlove: I think it'd mean so much to him.

reggie1
12-30-2008, 07:45 PM
Who would be a good propsepct to beat Nadal on clay early on in R.G?

Dougie
12-30-2008, 07:46 PM
Well, as for some of the other players regularly mentioned in the GOAT-discussion, Borg never got the USO, Lendl never got Wimbly, Sampras never got RG (not even ever managed to make the final, whereas Fed made three + a semi-final so far ;))... so it won't matter all too much imho if Feddie never makes it.

I guess he WAS indeed obsessed about it the past few years, getting so very close, but in the end, succumbing against the guy who might well be the Clay Court GOAT :worship: - even Federer might well have acknowledged that it's time to face Reality by now. In all, not *that* much of a disgrace I think. If he lost to all kinds of 'clowns' in all those attempts of his, that would've been a rather different matter. I have the suspicion he's already put it behind himself. :angel:

All that matters now to Roger is breaking Sampras' record of 14 slams I think, whichever those will be. :)

The thing with Borg, Lendl and Sampras is that which of them is the greatest will always be a matter of opinion. Fed knows that if he wants to pass all of them without a question, he needs the RG. He already is in the same league than all the above mentioned players.
But like you said, heīs been kind of unfortunate to have Nadal in the same era as himself. Even if he never wins RG, his career is not a disgrace by any means, but Iīm sure itīs a bit of an obsession for him.

Sunset of Age
12-30-2008, 07:47 PM
If all was perfect in Roger's world he would get Wimbledon back this year, and beat Nadal at RG next year. Although I think the only way for Federer to win RG is if someone were to upset Rafa earlier in the tournament. I just want to see someone push Nadal on clay!

The World isn't Perfect, alas - not even Roger's, as wonderful as it already is to him! I hope he will indeed manage to reclaim Wimbledon (the way some posters seem to have written him off already really surprises me, do they not remember how close the 2008-final was?) - but to win RG? Nope, too much of a tall order, if Rafa is around in good (not even best!) form. No Chance in Hell. :o

And if anyone would !miraculously! manage to upset Rafa before the RG-final, ending up with Roger winning it, I guess we'd see plenty of posts claiming that that title would be 'tainted'.

So funny to see nobody seems to remember Agassi's run to the RG title in that regard. ;)

Sunset of Age
12-30-2008, 07:52 PM
The thing with Borg, Lendl and Sampras is that which of them is the greatest will always be a matter of opinion. Fed knows that if he wants to pass all of them without a question, he needs the RG. He already is in the same league than all the above mentioned players.
But like you said, he´s been kind of unfortunate to have Nadal in the same era as himself. Even if he never wins RG, his career is not a disgrace by any means, but I´m sure it´s a bit of an obsession for him.

Fully agree with you - indeed, Fed is a high candidate for the GOAT-discussion already, but it would be undisputed if he would be able to pick up just ONE RG-title... :yeah:... :sad:

It should be noted, however, that as much as Rafa has been Roger's 'pain in the A$$' for claiming the undisputed GOAT-title, so is/was Roger for Rafa - Rafa would have been the undisputed #1 for THREE YEARS (perhaps even four?) already if it weren't for Roger. Even more admirable to see these two being so full of respect to each other, in full knowledge that either one of them 'damaged' the other's career to a rather large extent. :worship:

nisha
12-30-2008, 07:52 PM
which article were you reading intially?, i find the notion that he "allowed others to catch up with him" funny and bs.

ps. i think hes now aware he probably cant win the French, and now has his eyes on breaking Sampras's record, lets hope he doesnt get too hung up on that either!

LleytonMonfils
12-30-2008, 07:56 PM
which article were you reading intially?, i find the notion that he "allowed others to catch up with him" funny and bs.

ps. i think hes now aware he probably cant win the French, and now has his eyes on breaking Sampras's record, lets hope he doesnt get too hung up on that either!

By allowing to catch up means Federer may have devoted more time to developing a clay game to beat Federer, just like Nadal has worked so hard to improve his game on grass. Roger could've been so focused on that elusive Grand Slam that he has allowed his level of play on other surfaces to drop, or his preparation isn't as thorough as it once was. It's obvious the gap between Federer and everyone else has been closed to an extent.

HattonWBA
12-30-2008, 08:07 PM
I dont really think he is, although i would be in the same position, in my opinion he is the greatest player to have ever played tennis, however this would seal it in my opinion and i hope he does win it, although unlikely with clay beast rafa around

MrChopin
12-30-2008, 10:50 PM
I just want to see someone push Nadal on clay!

For recent examples, download Hamburg '08 semi or final.

By allowing to catch up means Federer may have devoted more time to developing a clay game to beat Federer, just like Nadal has worked so hard to improve his game on grass. Roger could've been so focused on that elusive Grand Slam that he has allowed his level of play on other surfaces to drop, or his preparation isn't as thorough as it once was. It's obvious the gap between Federer and everyone else has been closed to an extent.

Only Nadal has extended him on grass in the last two years, and his dominance over his '08 draw indicates that the gap has not been closed there. Nadal's similar dominance over his own draw would indicate that it is a matter of Nadal improving (or, for the less enthused, an issue of grass doctoring), not an issue of Fed's level dropping, though '08 was a consistently lower form of Fed's game than we've seen in years.

I think the same is true on hard, and when Fed even plays "well," he can still dominate. The Basel final should be watched by everyone claiming his game is gone, he would be lucky to win more than one slam, that the field has caught up, and all other apocalyptic '08 runoff.

yonexforever
12-30-2008, 11:04 PM
I think he has in the past 2 seasons... the way he seems DETERMINED to beat Nadal at the French playing from the backcourt, as almost to prove to Nadal and everyone else his topspin backhand will stand up.

If Roger would SLICE his backhand more and ATTACK behind it on clay(now all surfaces), he would stand a better chance.

Is Roger fit enough for that strategy?.......... NO, not last time I saw him!
Is Roger stubborn?.......That's part of what makes him the champion he is.

Am I an expert?..............Hell No... just an a-hole with an opinion, and everyone has one of them!

biological
12-30-2008, 11:06 PM
For recent examples, download Hamburg '08 semi or final.



Only Nadal has extended him on grass in the last two years, and his dominance over his '08 draw indicates that the gap has not been closed there. Nadal's similar dominance over his own draw would indicate that it is a matter of Nadal improving (or, for the less enthused, an issue of grass doctoring), not an issue of Fed's level dropping, though '08 was a consistently lower form of Fed's game than we've seen in years.

I think the same is true on hard, and when Fed even plays "well," he can still dominate. The Basel final should be watched by everyone claiming his game is gone, he would be lucky to win more than one slam, that the field has caught up, and all other apocalyptic '08 runoff.

Totally agree - great post :yeah:

Sunset of Age
12-30-2008, 11:15 PM
I think the same is true on hard, and when Fed even plays "well," he can still dominate. The Basel final should be watched by everyone claiming his game is gone, he would be lucky to win more than one slam, that the field has caught up, and all other apocalyptic '08 runoff.

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

To the ones writing off Federer: be prepared for a Major Disappointment. ;)

biological
12-30-2008, 11:18 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

To the ones writing off Federer: be prepared for a Major Disappointment. ;)

I'm feeling very optimistic all of a sudden today. I have the feeling that 2009 will be a kickass year for Roger.

If I've just jinxed him then please feel free to kick me into 2010.

Pfloyd
12-30-2008, 11:20 PM
But the question is, will Federer improve much next year?

I think he has one more shot at the French.

He still has very good chances at getting AO's and US Open's. He can also win Wimbledon, but Nadal is now his equal there, even though the slowing of the grass has helped Nadal.

finishingmove
12-30-2008, 11:26 PM
federer will never win the french, that's pretty clear, and unfortunate for him and his fans.

Mechlan
12-30-2008, 11:43 PM
federer will never win the french, that's pretty clear, and unfortunate for him and his fans.

Never say never. ;)

Anything can happen in sport. But his chances are pretty damn slim unless the stars align perfectly for him.

FedererSlam
12-30-2008, 11:45 PM
I still beleive that JesusFed can beat Nadal at RG...The 08 final Roger wasn't 100% fit and it just all went wrong whilst Rafa was teeing on everything...the 06/07 were generally closer and Rogi had chances...

Sunset of Age
12-30-2008, 11:45 PM
I'm feeling very optimistic all of a sudden today. I have the feeling that 2009 will be a kickass year for Roger.

If I've just jinxed him then please feel free to kick me into 2010.

I'd like to join in with that! :D

biological
12-31-2008, 12:01 AM
I still beleive that JesusFed can beat Nadal at RG...The 08 final Roger wasn't 100% fit and it just all went wrong whilst Rafa was teeing on everything...the 06/07 were generally closer and Rogi had chances...

My feelings exactly :rocker2: C'mon Roger, prove us right...

I'd like to join in with that! :D

:angel:

malisha
12-31-2008, 12:03 AM
not just French...he wont win any Slams with his pathetic game...:D

calvinhobbes
12-31-2008, 12:30 AM
Roger has been No.2 on clay for nearly 5 years, and to a certain extent seemed to close the gap against Nadal in Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2007. He sadly missed what seemed a fairly good opportunity in Rome 2008. The gap seemed wider than ever in RG 2008, and everything pointed to a setback in the following months. However, the true champions maintain themselves always watching and expecting their opportunity. And this opportunity could undoubtly present itself in the next two years, in which Nadalīs play could be oversaturated by pressure and physical stress, and Roger could emerge steadyly from his present down. At some point, these two curves could meet. Maybe by june. It wouldnīt be a miracle.

calvinhobbes
12-31-2008, 12:32 AM
federer will never win the french, that's pretty clear, and unfortunate for him and his fans.

PLEASE, NEVER SAY NEVER.

alfonsojose
12-31-2008, 12:46 AM
He's to busy being GilleteFed :p

biological
12-31-2008, 12:55 AM
Roger has been No.2 on clay for nearly 5 years, and to a certain extent seemed to close the gap against Nadal in Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2007. He sadly missed what seemed a fairly good opportunity in Rome 2008. The gap seemed wider than ever in RG 2008, and everything pointed to a setback in the following months. However, the true champions maintain themselves always watching and expecting their opportunity. And this opportunity could undoubtly present itself in the next two years, in which Nadalīs play could be oversaturated by pressure and physical stress, and Roger could emerge steadyly from his present down. At some point, these two curves could meet. Maybe by june. It wouldnīt be a miracle.

I like this kinda thinking :yeah:


He's to busy being GilleteFed :p

That's cold, man.

:lol:

Sunset of Age
12-31-2008, 12:57 AM
I like this kinda thinking :yeah:

I like it too, but not counting on it. :angel: ;)

biological
12-31-2008, 01:00 AM
I like it too, but not counting on it. :angel: ;)

I've decided to be positive. I'm going to assume that Roger will lose a maximum of ten matches next year. You see, he's such a nice guy, he won't want to disappoint me as a fan and so will rise to the challenge.

It's all about psychology. :p

finishingmove
12-31-2008, 01:03 AM
PLEASE, NEVER SAY NEVER.

but u said it twice.

in caps.

ORGASMATRON
12-31-2008, 02:13 AM
I don't have an opinion either way on the subject but I thought it might be able to spark interesting conversation. I was reading an article about Federer earlier today and it mentioned that Roger had allowed others such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc. to catch up to him on other surfaces because Roger has really made it a focus to win Roland Garros. Not sure if I'm wording it the right way so it makes sense to all, but does anyone think this could be a factor in Federer "coming back to earth" a little bit on hardcourt and grass?

Nah i dont think Roger is that focused on the french. Of course he would love to win it but i think he is smarter then you think! All i can tell you is that its not a black or white situation.

ORGASMATRON
12-31-2008, 02:17 AM
not just French...he wont win any Slams with his pathetic game...:D

Ok buddy i think you need to get some rest.

Ozone
12-31-2008, 02:17 AM
Roger says he makes 2 goals every year.
1) Win Wimbledon
2) Finish #1
I don't think he's concerned with French. HE WOULD HAVE 3 OR 4 FRENCH OPEN TITLES IF IT WASN'T FOR A GUY NAMED NADAL!! YOU CAN TAKE AWAY SOME TITLES FOR BORG AND OTHER GUYS BACK IN THE DAY IF THEY HAD NADAL ON CLAY TO PLAY! TOUGH LUCK FOR ROGER!

Ozone
12-31-2008, 02:18 AM
I think Roger is to concerned about Mirka. When the **** is he going to get married??

Sunset of Age
12-31-2008, 02:20 AM
Ok buddy i think you need to get some rest.

Nah, maybe that poster needs some urgent Wake Up call. I'd advice Caffeine in very high doses. One that makes one bounce.

Sunset of Age
12-31-2008, 02:23 AM
I think Roger is to concerned about Mirka. When the **** is he going to get married??

He's an intelligent guy - not before his thirties, as anyone who's been there might be able to admit. :angel:

HarryMan
12-31-2008, 02:54 AM
Federer - Nadal matches ever being close at RG? :spit:

No, winning one set against him doesnt make the matches close at all, in fact the winner was never in doubt in all the 4 years.

t0x
12-31-2008, 09:28 AM
I think Roger has tried VERY hard to win RG. But sadly, it looks like it won't happen for him. It's gotta be on his mind... he knows he's got a game that could win the French and prove beyond any doubt he's the GOAT, but Rafa is around at the same time. That's just life though...

His game has changed a bit because of clay as well... his forehand has lost a lot of pop (become a bit more loopy), and he seems a lot more of a percentage player these days. Just look at some of his matches last year compared to say 04. I respect him a lot for trying everything in his power - who knows? Maybe he'll surprise me (and a lot of others) in the next year or two.

manuel84
12-31-2008, 09:30 AM
I don't think so. His main goal for 2009 is to reclaim Wimbledon.

malisha
12-31-2008, 10:04 AM
nah...just enjoy mug funboys hoping Fed to win RG...mug was never even close when he was on top of his game:D

Kolya
12-31-2008, 10:15 AM
If Federer is going to win RG it will depend on Nadal rather than his form.

Federer can reach the final quite comfortably, but he needs Nadal to be off his game or injured.

Bilbo
12-31-2008, 10:18 AM
his emotions after losing all the finals at RG have shown me that he isn't too much interested like winning wimbledon for example. first of all he has to change his attitude.

rwn
12-31-2008, 01:23 PM
his emotions after losing all the finals at RG have shown me that he isn't too much interested like winning wimbledon for example. first of all he has to change his attitude.

Playing against someone like Medvedev might help a lot ....

FSRteam
12-31-2008, 02:44 PM
I think he cares only about Grand Slams in general, not about any of them particulary.

Well, not quite true as Wimby is clearly THE ONE he does care about above the others... he always said that he would rather win another Wimbledon crown than RG...

FSRteam
12-31-2008, 02:45 PM
I would be the same way, but if Roger never wins RG he may go down as the greatest ever, but those who argue against him will point at his inability to win that Grand Slam. You have to think it is eating away at him somehow.

Or rather his inability to beat rafa on clay...

FSRteam
12-31-2008, 02:48 PM
I think there is some truth to that. But who can blame the guy, he knows that no matter if he breaks Peteīs record, in order to go down in history as the unquestionable GOAT, he needs to win the RG. Iīm sure heīd be willing to trade a couple of Wimbledon titles for one french, if he had the chance.

Nope, he said the opposite so many times and when you see how he reacted after the wimby loss this year compared to the 3 RG final losses, I don't think he would trade any wimby crown(s) for one RG trophy...

oranges
12-31-2008, 03:20 PM
Or rather his inability to beat rafa on clay...

Or Guga ;)

Dougie
12-31-2008, 07:34 PM
Nope, he said the opposite so many times and when you see how he reacted after the wimby loss this year compared to the 3 RG final losses, I don't think he would trade any wimby crown(s) for one RG trophy...

Of course he would never say something like that out loud. But I think his reaction after Wimby final was more because he knew he lost in his own living room, where he was still the undisputed king until then. I think thatīs what hurt him the most.

FedFan_2007
12-31-2008, 10:34 PM
Federer should be more immediately focused on regaining above average form or he'll get bounced out of the Australian Open by the 4R. While turning 27 doesn't mean winning slams is done. Lendl, Agassi, Sampras all won multiple slams after turning 27. However in this current era of amazing talents(Nadal, Murray, Nole, Simon, Tsonga, Gulbis) it might prove impossible for Federer.

LleytonMonfils
01-01-2009, 03:15 AM
Federer should be more immediately focused on regaining above average form or he'll get bounced out of the Australian Open by the 4R. While turning 27 doesn't mean winning slams is done. Lendl, Agassi, Sampras all won multiple slams after turning 27. However in this current era of amazing talents(Nadal, Murray, Nole, Simon, Tsonga, Gulbis) it might prove impossible for Federer.

That's why we should appreciate everything the man has done thus far. His reign may not be over yet, but he's on the back 9 of his career. I was just thinking the other day how lucky I am to live in the time of guys like Roger Federer & Tiger Woods. Both will go down as the GOAT in their respective sports. As tennis fans we should cherish what Federer has done love or hate. Who knows, he may have won his last slam. Can you imagine a tennis world without Federer or a golf world without Woods? Scary!

FedFan_2007
01-01-2009, 03:23 AM
That's why we should appreciate everything the man has done thus far. His reign may not be over yet, but he's on the back 9 of his career. I was just thinking the other day how lucky I am to live in the time of guys like Roger Federer & Tiger Woods. Both will go down as the GOAT in their respective sports. As tennis fans we should cherish what Federer has done love or hate. Who knows, he may have won his last slam. Can you imagine a tennis world without Federer or a golf world without Woods? Scary!

Difference is Tiger at 32 is just getting warmed up in his career and Federer is like you said "on the back 9" and fading. Tiger will continue to add majors to his resume w/o any doubts, but it's a huge doubt whether Federer can even win 1 more slam.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-01-2009, 03:53 AM
Federer should be more immediately focused on regaining above average form or he'll get bounced out of the Australian Open by the 4R. While turning 27 doesn't mean winning slams is done. Lendl, Agassi, Sampras all won multiple slams after turning 27. However in this current era of amazing talents(Nadal, Murray, Nole, Simon, Tsonga, Gulbis) it might prove impossible for Federer.

Drugs are bad.

Ali wannabe is a ball bashing joke. Gulbis is a overrated pansy like Del Pony.

Federer will get to the quarters in the Grand Slams in 2009 (no further) unless the admin and crowd cheats for him.

US Open semis showed how many animalistic classless Fedtards are running around.

FedFan_2007
01-01-2009, 03:56 AM
Drugs are bad.

Ali wannabe is a ball bashing joke. Gulbis is a overrated pansy like Del Pony.

Federer will get to the quarters in the Grand Slams in 2009 (no further) unless the admin and crowd cheats for him.

US Open semis showed how many animalistic classless Fedtards are running around.

For once I have to agree with RFK, average finish for Federer in the slams is QFs. Then in 2010 - 3r/4r. 2011 - 2r/3rd. 2012 - retirement.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-01-2009, 04:05 AM
For once I have to agree with RFK, average finish for Federer in the slams is QFs. Then in 2010 - 3r/4r. 2011 - 2r/3rd. 2012 - retirement.

Agreed.

He might get a fluky semi in 09 but thats about it.

If he faces Rafa, Nole, Murray, Spartan Simon he is done. Too old and weak now. Sad in a way but old idiots must be brutally eliminated for the good of a sport.

FedFan_2007
01-01-2009, 04:10 AM
Agreed.

He might get a fluky semi in 09 but thats about it.

If he faces Rafa, Nole, Murray, Spartan Simon he is done. Too old and weak now. Sad in a way but old idiots must be brutally eliminated for the good of a sport.

Old and weak? More like fit & strong, but not strong enough for the new balls.

ORGASMATRON
01-01-2009, 11:18 AM
Agreed.

He might get a fluky semi in 09 but thats about it.

If he faces Rafa, Nole, Murray, Spartan Simon he is done. Too old and weak now. Sad in a way but old idiots must be brutally eliminated for the good of a sport.

Roger=Rafa killa(13 grand slams and 5 more to come, Rafa one more slam if he is lucky:lol:)

Sunset of Age
01-01-2009, 04:08 PM
For once I have to agree with RFK, average finish for Federer in the slams is QFs. Then in 2010 - 3r/4r. 2011 - 2r/3rd. 2012 - retirement.

Agreed.

He might get a fluky semi in 09 but thats about it.

If he faces Rafa, Nole, Murray, Spartan Simon he is done. Too old and weak now. Sad in a way but old idiots must be brutally eliminated for the good of a sport.

I see you two have finally found each other. It had to happen one day! :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

Foxy
01-01-2009, 04:14 PM
Roger=Rafa killa(13 grand slams and 5 more to come, Rafa one more slam if he is lucky:lol:)

Basel and Halle are not considered as GS yet! :silly:

oranges
01-01-2009, 04:24 PM
I see you two have finally found each other. It had to happen one day! :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

:lol:

cobalt60
01-01-2009, 04:27 PM
I don't have an opinion either way on the subject but I thought it might be able to spark interesting conversation. I was reading an article about Federer earlier today and it mentioned that Roger had allowed others such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc. to catch up to him on other surfaces because Roger has really made it a focus to win Roland Garros. Not sure if I'm wording it the right way so it makes sense to all, but does anyone think this could be a factor in Federer "coming back to earth" a little bit on hardcourt and grass?

Do you have a link to the article? I would have an opinion if I knew who wrote it and when it was written. Thanks.

Fired Up!
01-01-2009, 07:23 PM
Well, it's everybody's dream to win 4 GS + Olympic gold, and fed has done 4/5 of it, so naturally he wants to win RG also. :shrug: He's clearly #2 on clay, but I don't see him beating Nadal if he's not injured or something. :(

ORGASMATRON
01-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Basel and Halle are not considered as GS yet! :silly:

Yes but they are considered Roger's property yet :angel:

ORGASMATRON
01-01-2009, 08:03 PM
The thing with Borg, Lendl and Sampras is that which of them is the greatest will always be a matter of opinion. Fed knows that if he wants to pass all of them without a question, he needs the RG. He already is in the same league than all the above mentioned players.
But like you said, he´s been kind of unfortunate to have Nadal in the same era as himself. Even if he never wins RG, his career is not a disgrace by any means, but I´m sure it´s a bit of an obsession for him.

:lol: Of course his career is no disgrace his won 13 slams so far! Of the players you mentioned Pete is obviously the best. And Roger is clearly better then Pete since

1)He beat Pete
2)He can actually play on clay
3)He's going to break Pete's slam record

=Roger is the GOAT

FedFan_2007
01-01-2009, 09:35 PM
People will say that once Nadal/Murray/Nole got into their prime starting 2008 Roger has only won 1 slam, meaning the first 12 were "clown era" and "new balls not in prime yet".

ORGASMATRON
01-01-2009, 09:46 PM
People will say that once Nadal/Murray/Nole got into their prime starting 2008 Roger has only won 1 slam, meaning the first 12 were "clown era" and "new balls not in prime yet".

People who say that are :retard:

Dougie
01-02-2009, 04:27 AM
:lol: Of course his career is no disgrace his won 13 slams so far! Of the players you mentioned Pete is obviously the best. And Roger is clearly better then Pete since

1)He beat Pete
2)He can actually play on clay
3)He's going to break Pete's slam record

=Roger is the GOAT

By this I was referring to a previous post in this thread, of course his career is no disgrace, thats obvious.
About your arguments:

1) They never met when both were in their prime, Pete was already going down by that time
2)This is subjective until he wins the RG, within 10 years nobody will remember how many other clay tournaments he won, just like nobody remembers it with Sampras.
3) He hasnīt broken it yet.

Personally I think Federer is more of a complete player then Sampras, and I also consider him to be better than Pete. But this is a subjective matter, every argument has a counter-argument that is equally valid, until Roger wins RG (or, when compared to Sampras, breaks his record, but then there will always be people who say Laver and Borg, for example, were better).

FedFan_2007
01-02-2009, 04:34 AM
By this I was referring to a previous post in this thread, of course his career is no disgrace, thats obvious.
About your arguments:

1) They never met when both were in their prime, Pete was already going down by that time
2)This is subjective until he wins the RG, within 10 years nobody will remember how many other clay tournaments he won, just like nobody remembers it with Sampras.
3) He hasnīt broken it yet.

Personally I think Federer is more of a complete player then Sampras, and I also consider him to be better than Pete. But this is a subjective matter, every argument has a counter-argument that is equally valid, until Roger wins RG (or, when compared to Sampras, breaks his record, but then there will always be people who say Laver and Borg, for example, were better).

Which people will not notice Federer's obvious superiority to Pete on clay? Casual fans who only follow the slams - screw em. People who follow tennis will know about Roger's 3 FO finals to Pete's 0 as well as his 4 Hamburgs and other clay titles. Also people will remember that he happened to play against the greatest ever on clay.

Dougie
01-02-2009, 04:54 AM
Which people will not notice Federer's obvious superiority to Pete on clay? Casual fans who only follow the slams - screw em. People who follow tennis will know about Roger's 3 FO finals to Pete's 0 as well as his 4 Hamburgs and other clay titles. Also people will remember that he happened to play against the greatest ever on clay.

We are all aware of Rogerīs statistics now. But in 20 years not that many will remember his Hamburg titles. A lot more will remember his RG finals, and the fact that he lost them. Very few will remember Peteīs clay stats at all, so in the distant future not that many will be even able to compare Pete and Roger on clay. To cut it short, only winners will be remembered, and Roger is not a RG winner. Heīs been unfortunate to face Nadal, but that doesnīt make him "a moral winner", or anything like that.
As for the casual fans who only follow the slams- They are exactly those who determine greatness. Take Muhammad Ali, Tiger Woods etc. Those are athletes that everyone knows and knows what they have done, even if they no nothing about boxing or golf. Donīt underestimate the opinion of the casual fans.
Once again, like I said, in my opinion Roger is better than Pete, but comparing them ( now or in the future) is not that simple until one of them does something remarkable that the other one was simply unable to do. In this case for Roger itīs either winning RG or breaking Peteīs GS record.

Marine
01-02-2009, 09:20 PM
I'd say he's not focused ENOUGH on winning RG. Like Sampras before, he's focused, obsessed by Wimbledon, and uses to repeat only wimby counts for him. I'm always upset to see how much both champions have learnt to hate the french open. :sad:
For me, to underestimate RG is a way to forget their frustration.

ORGASMATRON
01-03-2009, 02:42 AM
We are all aware of Rogerīs statistics now. But in 20 years not that many will remember his Hamburg titles. A lot more will remember his RG finals, and the fact that he lost them. Very few will remember Peteīs clay stats at all, so in the distant future not that many will be even able to compare Pete and Roger on clay. To cut it short, only winners will be remembered, and Roger is not a RG winner. Heīs been unfortunate to face Nadal, but that doesnīt make him "a moral winner", or anything like that.
As for the casual fans who only follow the slams- They are exactly those who determine greatness. Take Muhammad Ali, Tiger Woods etc. Those are athletes that everyone knows and knows what they have done, even if they no nothing about boxing or golf. Donīt underestimate the opinion of the casual fans.
Once again, like I said, in my opinion Roger is better than Pete, but comparing them ( now or in the future) is not that simple until one of them does something remarkable that the other one was simply unable to do. In this case for Roger itīs either winning RG or breaking Peteīs GS record.

I dont really see the point of this post, of course Roger will break Pete's slam record :lol:

Dougie
01-03-2009, 08:08 AM
I dont really see the point of this post, of course Roger will break Pete's slam record :lol:

Probably he will. But I donīt really see the point in talking about it like itīs already happened.

FSRteam
01-03-2009, 12:51 PM
Drugs are bad.

Ali wannabe is a ball bashing joke. Gulbis is a overrated pansy like Del Pony.

Federer will get to the quarters in the Grand Slams in 2009 (no further) unless the admin and crowd cheats for him.

US Open semis showed how many animalistic classless Fedtards are running around.

Well, then stop taking some...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlE1qrqqU0Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO6lalt5f6M

Boris Franz Ecker
01-03-2009, 04:23 PM
no.

It's just wishful thinking of some poor fans that Federer becomes obsessed with this French thing. Will never happen.
His main goal should always be the Wimbledon title.
He wants to win the French as an addon.

FairWeatherFan
01-03-2009, 10:02 PM
Federer has always said that he is more concerned with winning Wimbledon than the French and I think that is a genuine sentiment on his part. Federer knows what winning the French would do for his place in the game but the tournament simply occupies a lesser place in his heart than Wimbledon.