Among these achievements, what is the one that makes think Federer: "keep going" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Among these achievements, what is the one that makes think Federer: "keep going"

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 01:31 PM
Sometimes I wonder how Rog is keeping such a high level of motivation in every circumstances, given the small number of real rivals around. And I think he keeps focused on breaking some records... the real competition is with the greatest IMO. What do you think ? ;)

WyveN
02-28-2005, 01:40 PM
Dont think he is chasing records just yet, that happens more towards the later stages of your career if you are relatively close.
Think Roger is more focused on short term goals for example 3rd Wimbledon & staying #1 although hopefully RG is on that list to ;)

lsy
02-28-2005, 01:43 PM
mdhubert, Roge just have all these close matches which could have gone either way, and there you go talking about him having no real rivals? :lol: and don't forget they're only "Roger Rabbit" (I prefer this than Mickey Mouse :p ) events we're talking about so far :tape:

I honestly don't think Rogi is looking at any of those as a benchmark, not when he's hardly close yet but sure he's trying to make his best career out of his maximum potential...I hope.

Puschkin
02-28-2005, 01:43 PM
Sometimes I wonder how Rog is keeping such a high level of motivation in every circumstances, given the small number of real rivals around. And I think he keeps focused on breaking some records... the real competition is with the greatest IMO. What do you think ? ;)


It is an excellent question, but I think the right answer is not among those proposed.

"When I come to a tournament, I am here to win it; I am here to do well and not just to participate,” (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=1287741#post1287741)

I think this is the answer, it's not about records, or not primarily.

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 01:52 PM
mdhubert, Roge just have all these close matches which could have gone either way, and there you go talking about him having no real rivals? :lol:

Just a quote from ATP website to answer to you:
"Beginning with his undefeated run [in finals] to the Tennis Masters Cup title in 2003, Federer has amassed a stunning 99-7 match record."
If that guy has real rivals out there, they are not on this planet for the time being. Maybe Safin... in a good day. :worship: :worship:

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 02:05 PM
It is an excellent question, but I think the right answer is not among those proposed.

"When I come to a tournament, I am here to win it; I am here to do well and not just to participate,” (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=1287741#post1287741)

I think this is the answer, it's not about records, or not primarily.
yes he's a true winner, no doubt about it...
for me he has set goals to himself that are beyond just "winning". If you're a pro I think "winning" is the minimum objective. His plan is really to surpass the greatest, he knows he's in a league of his own, and to keep a sufficient level of motivation jwhen he enters tournaments like Doha or Bangkok, or even Roland Garros where he doesn't feel that comfortable, he sets long term objectives refering to the greatest...

WyveN
02-28-2005, 02:10 PM
His plan is really to surpass the greatest, he knows he's in a league of his own, and to keep a sufficient level of motivation jwhen he enters tournaments like Doha or Bangkok, or even Roland Garros where he doesn't feel that comfortable, he sets long term objectives refering to the greatest...


If that was the case he would be tanking tournaments like Dubai instead of fighting through tiebreaks. If your chasing something like most slam titles, when your 10 slams behind it puts way to much pressure on yourself, Roger has said as much in interviews.

lsy
02-28-2005, 02:12 PM
Just a quote from ATP website to answer to you:
"Beginning with his undefeated run [in finals] to the Tennis Masters Cup title in 2003, Federer has amassed a stunning 99-7 match record."
If that guy has real rivals out there, they are not on this planet on the time being. Maybe Safin... in a good day. :worship: :worship:

I know I know about his amazing records since last year till now. All I'm saying is it's not like he's cruising in every tournament that he has nothing to worry about current competitors and need past great players records as motivation at this moment.

I agree with WyveN, he would probably only really think of those you'd listed when he had come close, certainly not now. But I do think he wants to stay no.1 for as long as he can ;)

RonE
02-28-2005, 02:15 PM
If that was the case he would be tanking tournaments like Dubai instead of fighting through tiebreaks. If your chasing something like most slam titles, when your 10 slams behind it puts way to much pressure on yourself, Roger has said as much in interviews.

Exactly- I don't think Pete Sampras when he was 23 was thinking about breaking Emerson's grand slam record. Only after he won #10 and #11 did the though start to filter into his mind.

Action Jackson
02-28-2005, 02:21 PM
What a load of crap that playing for records is that important.

Roger has to enjoy the game and go about being the best tennis player he can be and he is very successful at that.

If he continues to enjoy tennis and improving then the achievements will come.

Roger has to peak 4 times a year and they are the most important times, and if he wins these events regularly, he'll have his own legacy and might set some records, but that is the farthest thing from his mind.

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 02:21 PM
If that was the case he would be tanking tournaments like Dubai instead of fighting through tiebreaks. If your chasing something like most slam titles, when your 10 slams behind it puts way to much pressure on yourself, Roger has said as much in interviews.
I think he is a kind of "cannibale" like the Belgian Eddy Merckx in cycling was in the 70's : he wants to win everything: small tournies, GS, winning streaks records, rankings, etc. That's pretty rare when you look at Pete who wanted to win slams, Agassi who's done the Career slam but won most of his titles on hard, or Borg who didn't play Australian Open.
I thinks the 3 players that can be compared to Roger are Laver, Connors and Lendl, with that "I want them all" mentality. Pretty scary to think how rare it is. And contrary to Connors and Lendl, Fed has a fabulous magician talent. Conclusion: the closest reference is Rod Laver IMO... ;)

Puschkin
02-28-2005, 02:23 PM
, and to keep a sufficient level of motivation jwhen he enters tournaments like Doha or Bangkok, or even Roland Garros where he doesn't feel that comfortable, he sets long term objectives refering to the greatest...


But that is exaclty the point: beating the records you mentioned would not force him to give it all in Rotterdam or Dubai and that's why I feel the ultimate motivation is winning, every single match, it is as simple as that.

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 02:28 PM
What a load of crap that playing for records is that important.
I think for Federer they ARE important, just look at the brilliant year he's starting after his small slam in 2004, while Connors and Wilander had pretty disapointing ones after they did it. I know he doesn't think about it constantly, especially when facing 2 MP's against JCF in Dubai, he has emergencies to deal with, but I think it's interesting to talk about long run goals, as the players never mention them. Injuries can occur, but very talented players might have some long term goals, some dreams, call them as you want...

Action Jackson
02-28-2005, 02:31 PM
Federer hasn't won 7 Slams yet has he?

If someone is playing for records and not just concentrating on being the best player they can and doing what it takes to win, then what is the point.

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 02:44 PM
Federer hasn't won 7 Slams yet has he?

If someone is playing for records and not just concentrating on being the best player they can and doing what it takes to win, then what is the point.
So how do you explain Wilander went from 3 slams in 88 to 0 slam in 89, while he surely did "what it took to win" in 89... just lack of motivation, easily understandable.
But not in Fed's case. Why ? Because besides willing to win, he's having a long term approach and a sky-high level of work-ethic, reinforced by past examples. I don't say he takes his fix every morning on a picture of Rod Laver, but he has a few achievements in the back of his mind, 7 Wimbies I'm 100% sure. And it's not journalist bullshit to talk about long-term, it's just going a bit beyond the "he just wants to win" analysis... ;)

Puschkin
02-28-2005, 02:53 PM
Because besides willing to win, he's having a long term approach and a sky-high level of work-ethic...


What we agree upon is the will to win. I also agree on the amount of work put in and on a continuing determination to work hard. I don't agree on the long-term approach, I even think that it would be detrimental, if he set himself such high goals as you proposed.

One new aspect which should not be underrated. He must love and enjoy what he is doing, well not necessarily on matchpoint against him, but by and large, I feel that Roger loves tennis.

Action Jackson
02-28-2005, 03:00 PM
So how do you explain Wilander went from 3 slams in 88 to 0 slam in 89, while he surely did "what it took to win" in 89... just lack of motivation, easily understandable.

Considering Wilander actually didn't treat tennis as his job, he has a different personality to Federer. He was never the greatest player of his generation unlike Federer is now, that's the essential difference.

But not in Fed's case. Why ? Because besides willing to win, he's having a long term approach and a sky-high level of work-ethic, reinforced by past examples. I don't say he takes his fix every morning on a picture of Rod Laver, but he has a few achievements in the back of his mind, 7 Wimbies I'm 100% sure. And it's not journalist bullshit to talk about long-term, it's just going a bit beyond the "he just wants to win" analysis... ;)

Actually from all your boasting is almost enough for me not to want Federer win any Slams this year. If he wins one what will your excuses be for the other three he fails to win?

It's rubbish as nothing is permanent, he is the best player now, he won't always be and all he can do is his best and if whatever happens happens.

It's bullshit and if he doesn't think about peaking at the Slams, then all this talk is garbage and speculation.

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 03:07 PM
Considering Actually from all your boasting
It's rubbish
It's bullshit .
Thanks for your friendly answers on this interesting topic, which is Federer's motivation, but maybe you're more into "Berasategui's win in Acapulco in 1990" (ok, it didn't happen, calm down) or whatever interesting discussion, thanks for your participation anyway... ;)

Action Jackson
02-28-2005, 03:36 PM
My answers suited the question posed.

If you read the rest of the comments then I answered it seriously. It's paper talk and rubbish about going for records. Roger has to enjoy the game first and foremost and if he does that then his tennis will do the rest.

I don't like arrogant fans of any players especially ones I like and you come across like that in this case and then taking the piss out of Ljubicic who has lost 3 finals to Federer, very good work.

SUKTUEN
02-28-2005, 03:43 PM
I think is Sampras: 14 Slams (7 W, 5 USO, 2 AO) :wavey:

Doris Loeffel
02-28-2005, 03:55 PM
Agree GWH
Hee needs to enjoy his job first before thinking about breaking records - and fortunately he does enjoy his job most of the time especially playing other top players. He's always playing his best tennis againt them and exept of that one match (which unfortunately was a pretty dam importent one) he won them all lately. His game against unknown players or "awarage" players is often not at the same level.
I bet he would have prefered to play Safin in the Dubai final instead of Ivan again - and would have played on an other level.
Sure he want's to win every single match anyways but I do get the feeling that he enjoyes matches against certain players much more and therefore plays a compleat different and therefore much more entertaining game than during some "routine" matches.
Even though he says he's taking one match after an other an not focusing on records I don't believe him. I'm sure in the Dubai final he had is winning streak in mind - his total of tournament wins - and he definately hates loosing (well who doesn't ;) ) so I guess that's what keeps him going in though situations.
Sure he might not be deadend focused on the mentioned records but he for sure thinks about them in one way and an other and deep down he might have set some goals from himself as his very own motivation programm.

TheMightyFed
02-28-2005, 07:03 PM
My answers suited the question posed.

If you read the rest of the comments then I answered it seriously. It's paper talk and rubbish about going for records. Roger has to enjoy the game first and foremost and if he does that then his tennis will do the rest.

I don't like arrogant fans of any players especially ones I like and you come across like that in this case and then taking the piss out of Ljubicic who has lost 3 finals to Federer, very good work.
Is humour part of your world ?
Arrogance is for sure, that's maybe why you see it everywhere...
Lubjicic has great results, Hewitt as well, but it's just that I'm impressed by the fact that these players, plus Roddick in 2004, could have outsanding results, but just have very good results because of ONE man that is thwarting their plans... that would bother me if I was them, but from outside I find it pretty funny to watch them beating everyone except him... what should I do, crying ?
But sure, he must enjoy the game and focus on his matches and willing to win and bla blah blah... am I arrogant when I'm saying that it is common sense ? Less than saying like you that it is "bullshit", "crap" and so on... ;)

fightclubber
02-28-2005, 10:55 PM
I think being number 1. But not for 6 years as Sampras. I did not followed Sampras career, but a friend that did, said it was a different moment , different players and competition....
Anyway, I do belive Rogi wants to be number 1, thats why he skipped DAVIS CUP, right?
Besides that I think he think in short terms, example, now defend IW title. Then, if he can, Try to win Miami.
Defend the titles will be great, but will be too hard, too. I HOPE he'll be able but, guys, lets think Roger has to defend 6 or 7 more titles than the rest of the players, IF im not wrong.
So his mind must be set up in keep healthy, try to defend the number 1 title , defend his titles, try not to loose ;) (I agreed with Doris, i think she said HE HATES TO LOOSE, Roger said that! :p ) and why not try to one a grand slam. HUNGER of victory, I call, if this is the right expression in english... after AO defete, he is HUNGRY for a G Slam. Hope this helps
My small 2 cents ,
silvy:)

WyveN
02-28-2005, 11:36 PM
I think for Federer they ARE important, just look at the brilliant year he's starting after his small slam in 2004

Federers year is hardly brilliant so far, it is consistent but until he wins some TMS/slams it will be seen as average at best compared to 2004.

Action Jackson
03-01-2005, 04:45 AM
Is humour part of your world ?

No, I read transcripts about cases in the International Criminal Court in the Hague for Slobo Milosevic that is fun stuff.

Arrogance is for sure, that's maybe why you see it everywhere...
Lubjicic has great results, Hewitt as well, but it's just that I'm impressed by the fact that these players, plus Roddick in 2004, could have outsanding results, but just have very good results because of ONE man that is thwarting their plans... that would bother me if I was them, but from outside I find it pretty funny to watch them beating everyone except him... what should I do, crying ?

Where were you when he was getting beaten by Nalbandian consistently? Why would it bother them, it's up to them to get better as that is the standard. I'll always have a place for you in my heart when Federer gets beaten and the excuses you will come up with to justify it.

But sure, he must enjoy the game and focus on his matches and willing to win and bla blah blah... am I arrogant when I'm saying that it is common sense ? Less than saying like you that it is "bullshit", "crap" and so on... ;)

Well the question you posed was bullshit and the justifications were as well. The way you make it out, it's a crime if Roger loses a match.

It comes to nothing if he doesn't win Slams consistently.

SUKTUEN
03-01-2005, 04:49 AM
I think Roger will win US OPEN AND WIMBY AGAIN~~

TheMightyFed
03-01-2005, 05:48 AM
The way you make it out, it's a crime if Roger loses a match.
You're kidding ? It's not because I think he's competing with the greats that I'm considering he's invincible. On the contrary: he needs to lose to regenerate his motivation, because he hates to lose as mentioned above, this is a central element of his motivation...
When Nalby was beating him he was building his game and progressed regularly, so it's not a consistent argument. Inevitably he will start losing, like Agassi, but I still love Agassi, even more since he's getting older and has to struggle with himself to put his game together... I think you judge me as the casual fan without assessing my knowledge level of the guy, you put people in categories very quickly it seems... ;)

Daniel
03-01-2005, 07:16 AM
I think he just wants to win as many major as he can.

rwn
03-01-2005, 09:05 AM
Roger Federer simply wants to win every tournament that he plays and stay no.1 as long as he can. If he can break records that's fantastic, but I don't think that's on his mind too much.

RonE
03-01-2005, 09:17 AM
As long as his mind stays in the "now" and not wander too far ahead he will continue to have success. By that I mean not think ahead to the next grand slam, but think about the tournament he is playing in at a given time, and think about a certain match at a given time. The moment he starts thinking too far ahead his tennis will not be as effective. That is not to say he shouldn't do things to improve his game so that he will be a better long-term competitor but he shouldn't start thinking "oh, I MUST win Wimbledon this year" or "I hope I don't lose early at RG" etc. So far he has been able to do that for the most part and therein lies the success.

I remember he talked about his loss to Horna at the French in 2003 and he said that after losing the first set he was already thinking to himself "Damn it, I need three more sets to win". And then he was thinking "even if I win this is only the first round I still need to win my 2nd, 3rd match..." That mentality was what led to his defeat that day instead of just taking it one game at a time and fighting for every point.

I think the best way for him to keep motivated is to just take it one day at a time, break every tournament down into little bits. Otherwise if you think about the whole picture too often it can overwhelm you sometimes.

Puschkin
03-01-2005, 10:21 AM
Even though he says he's taking one match after an other an not focusing on records I don't believe him. I'm sure in the Dubai final he had is winning streak in mind - his total of tournament wins - and he definately hates loosing (well who doesn't ;) ) so I guess that's what keeps him going in though situations.
Sure he might not be deadend focused on the mentioned records but he for sure thinks about them in one way and an other and deep down he might have set some goals from himself as his very own motivation programm.

Having clear objectives, i.e. to win each individual match and having "his very own motivation programme" is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Having dreams and having, let alone pursuing a strategy is something different. Roger might have his dreams (we will never know and it's smart fom him to keep them for himself) but his strategy to achieve it - if there is one -seems to be to win each individual match.

Dirk
03-01-2005, 11:47 AM
Man such heat in a Roger forum. The guy loves tennis and loves to improve. His mindset is right now to win every event he enters. I think it's a very good one but I worry about him burning out winning events that are beneath him instead of focusing on the big ones. He is smart with his schedule so I think he will avoid that.

Puschkin
03-01-2005, 12:00 PM
Man such heat in a Roger forum.


I like this form of heat and the good discussion coming with it, much better than calling players "cute" ;)

SUKTUEN
03-01-2005, 03:52 PM
Wimby is Roger's favourt~~ :hearts:

RogiFan88
03-01-2005, 03:53 PM
As long as his mind stays in the "now" and not wander too far ahead he will continue to have success. By that I mean not think ahead to the next grand slam, but think about the tournament he is playing in at a given time, and think about a certain match at a given time. The moment he starts thinking too far ahead his tennis will not be as effective. That is not to say he shouldn't do things to improve his game so that he will be a better long-term competitor but he shouldn't start thinking "oh, I MUST win Wimbledon this year" or "I hope I don't lose early at RG" etc. So far he has been able to do that for the most part and therein lies the success.

I remember he talked about his loss to Horna at the French in 2003 and he said that after losing the first set he was already thinking to himself "Damn it, I need three more sets to win". And then he was thinking "even if I win this is only the first round I still need to win my 2nd, 3rd match..." That mentality was what led to his defeat that day instead of just taking it one game at a time and fighting for every point.

I think the best way for him to keep motivated is to just take it one day at a time, break every tournament down into little bits. Otherwise if you think about the whole picture too often it can overwhelm you sometimes.

I agree w you Ron. It's important for Rogi and any player to concentrate and focus on the point at hand and not get ahead of himself. That doesn't mean that a player, incl Rogi, can't have goals and plans, incl a game plan. Everything has to be kept in perspective, that's all. Everyone s have sth to aspire to, to motivate them to keep going, to progress, to succeed, whatever that may be.

I myself think that sometimes top players focus too much on records and this can distance them fr the match or the tournament.

I for one, think that no player of this era will ever match or exceed the records of Sampras, Lendl, or other past champs. This is a different era w different circumstances. If one has to compare, one s compare players of the same era.

Just go out every match w the goal of winning it and the points, the h-t-h, th W-L and the records may come.

I like it when a player has his personal goals to achieve.

Look at Juanqui, for ex. He is frustrated, desperate to get back to the top but is languishing around 100... he still wants to get back to #1, etc. But he w do better just to play each match, one at a time, and forget everything else. He basically has to start fr scratch... it seems an impossible task, but he w be spared more anguish if he concentrated on the "now" as Ron put it. He could have done better in Rotterdam and at least maintained his then lowly ranking but he didn't and look at him now. He blew his chance to beat Rogi and possible move ahead in the Dubai draw but ended up w 1 race pt = 10 ranking pts??! Anyway, I'm digressing far too much...

OOPS, wrong # of pts there... too lazy to look it up... :rolleyes:

SUKTUEN
03-01-2005, 04:05 PM
:worship: :worship: :worship:

Dirk
03-01-2005, 04:48 PM
Yes Pushkin this is a good discussion.

federer_roar
03-02-2005, 01:30 AM
Roger Federer simply wants to win every tournament that he plays and stay no.1 as long as he can. If he can break records that's fantastic, but I don't think that's on his mind too much.

I totally agree. Breaking records is end product. The motivation comes from the pure desire of winning.

Mrs. B
03-02-2005, 07:20 AM
he's enjoying his tennis now. he's no. one. he's young. as long as he's healthy, he should have enough motivation to play and try to win as many matches as he can during his career. try not to give too much pressure on himself then the records will come... ;)

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 07:42 AM
You're kidding ? It's not because I think he's competing with the greats that I'm considering he's invincible. On the contrary: he needs to lose to regenerate his motivation, because he hates to lose as mentioned above, this is a central element of his motivation...

Well you don't get to #1 and winning 3 Slams in year by talent alone.

When Nalby was beating him he was building his game and progressed regularly, so it's not a consistent argument.

So it never occured to you that Nalbandian does have a game that Roger has trouble with and does know him very well from their days at juniors. So in effect your disrespecting Nalbandian's game, even Roger has improved a lot and they haven't played for a few years and the AO match was Roger's toughest match at any Slams that he won at in 2004.

Inevitably he will start losing, like Agassi, but I still love Agassi, even more since he's getting older and has to struggle with himself to put his game together... I think you judge me as the casual fan without assessing my knowledge level of the guy, you put people in categories very quickly it seems... ;)

Actually a lot of the time you make very good points and will say so and have in the past. But the question did put me off because as I and nearly everyone has said it's not about the records and they aren't important concerning Roger's tennis.

As for categories I don't categorise people it's too easy. I take what is said on merit and yes you seem to me a bit of a gloryhunter following the big name players ( don't like Roddick which is good), and that's your choice and I am cool with that. Just like I hate all hard hitters allegedly it works for some people and not others.

Facts are the records are unimportant if Roger takes care of business then the achievements will come and that is not being boring, that is being practical.

TheMightyFed
03-02-2005, 10:06 AM
Man such heat in a Roger forum. The guy loves tennis and loves to improve. His mindset is right now to win every event he enters. I think it's a very good one but I worry about him burning out winning events that are beneath him instead of focusing on the big ones. He is smart with his schedule so I think he will avoid that.
A bit of heat and controversy is always good, especially in the case of Federer. The guy just wants to win, but I wonder how he keeps on winning it ALL... after all he could tank here and there to remain fit and injury-free for bigger events, and run with appearance fees, like many big names did... but he prefers struggling in first rounds of small events just after a win in the previous tournament... his victory in Gstaad last year was insane: after a win in 2-weeks-hard-field-big-media Wimbledon, he managed to win this clay tournament, do some sponsor stuff and all... I thought: is he a machine ?
It's fascinating. And to GWH, I'm not a "glory hunter", I'm more attracted by this guy than say Karlovic, but I have good reasons for that. And Hewitt, Roddick are not among may faves, while Nalbandian is... ;)

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 10:18 AM
He was under contract to play in Gstaad and that contract ends this season and whether he plays again or not is unknown. The fact he has never won a title at home before 2004 would be more than enough motivation to play through obvious tiredness.

md, you don't have to like every big player to be a "glory hunter" that is obvious. I could use the football analogies but I won't in this case. That's your choice, just because it seems you like these types of player doesn't make you less of a fan, just a particular type of fan.

SUKTUEN
03-02-2005, 02:30 PM
Hope Roger can be the next Sampaus~~~

TheMightyFed
03-02-2005, 03:43 PM
Hope Roger can be the next Sampaus~~~
He will surpass Sampras, I tell ya, it's gonna be a hell of a job to keep winning 1 slam a year for 13 years or so, but he's gonna make it, and on all surfaces ! Glory to Fed, glory to the great time we add ahead of us ! Glory to his beautiful and complete and inventive game (did you see the dropshot return against Agassi ?) ! Glory to his nice, international and smiley personality ! Glory to his fans, casual, physically-attracted or long-time tennis specialists ! Glory to the fun he gives us consistently, everywhere in the world ! Let's celebrate him, even if he slips down to number 100, even if dominates, even if he's arrogant in interviews ! Sorry GWH, I couldn't help !! ;) :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Puschkin
03-02-2005, 05:28 PM
He was under contract to play in Gstaad and that contract ends this season and whether he plays again or not is unknown.

I am rather sure that he won't play Gstaad this year, it would be ridiculous,
but he has an important date in Basel in October. And this brings us back to the question: a win in his home-town is certainly something that will motivate him, even if it has no implications for his 2005 achievements or his overall career.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 05:32 PM
Ah! the gloryhound has arrived and I am not disappointed.

Pusch, it's his hometown as if he doesn't want to win the tournament there. It's like Muster he was disappointed when he never won Vienna and Roger will be the same if he never wins Basel.

Skyward
03-02-2005, 05:47 PM
it's gonna be a hell of a job to keep winning 1 slam a year for 13 years or so, but he's gonna make it, and on all surfaces !

As much as I want him to have a long career, I doubt he'd be playing at 36.

Puschkin
03-02-2005, 06:01 PM
Ah! the gloryhound has arrived and I am not disappointed.

Pusch, it's his hometown as if he doesn't want to win the tournament there. It's like Muster he was disappointed when he never won Vienna and Roger will be the same if he never wins Basel.


GWH, sometimes I simply don't get you ;) me a gloryhound? But if you say so ;)

All I am saying is that Basel carries a special motivation for Roger, more than Gstaad, even if it's a minor event in the eyes of many. As for Thomas Muster: Kitzbühel was certainly closer to his heart than Vienna and this he did.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 06:03 PM
Not you Pusch, it was meant for md and they know it as well.

Muster only won Kitz once but I am sorry he is not happy losing to Skoff in Vienna.

It'd be like Andy beating Roger in Basel.

TheMightyFed
03-02-2005, 06:04 PM
As much as I want him to have a long career, I doubt he'd playing at 36.
I mean 1 tpurney a year in average, so it's like he's done 4 years already, so that would be till 32-33.... hard, isn't it ?
The glory hound was for me I think Pushkin.

Skyward
03-02-2005, 06:13 PM
I mean 1 tpurney a year in average, so it's like he's done 4 years already, so that would be till 32-33.... hard, isn't it ?


Well, it's hard to win a slam every year. European guys are usually done by 30. Sampras' records look untouchable to me. I' d be very happy if Roger proves me wrong. :) For now I want to see him winning French Open.

Puschkin
03-02-2005, 06:22 PM
Muster only won Kitz once but I am sorry he is not happy losing to Skoff in Vienna.

It'd be like Andy beating Roger in Basel.


No, this was worse for Tom. It is like Heuberger or Wawrinka beating Roger in Basel, although Skoff was not without talent.

RogiFan88
03-02-2005, 06:38 PM
ROgi's already been beaten twice in Basel, once by Enqvist and also by Henman, when Rogi cried his eyes out... winning Basel w mean more to him than almost anything else. I w be happy if Rogi won Basel and RG...

RogiFan88
03-02-2005, 06:41 PM
I don't want Rogi to be the next Sampras and he doesn't have to be. Rogi's success will stand out on its own merit.

TheMightyFed
03-02-2005, 06:54 PM
I don't want Rogi to be the next Sampras and he doesn't have to be. Rogi's success will stand out on its own merit.
So imagine the good record at the end of Fed's career, what would it be for you?
For me: 6W in a row (to beat Borg), 3 RG (to equal Guga), 5 USO in a row, 4 AO + 6 masters cups+ one gold olympic medal
About 80 tournies in total
no DC alas, unless Wawrinka is taking steroids from 2005
Sounds good ! ;) ;)

Skyward
03-02-2005, 07:05 PM
5 USO in a row

You must be kidding. The USO seeding commitee will never let it happen. ;)

RonE
03-02-2005, 07:07 PM
So imagine the good record at the end of Fed's career, what would it be for you?
For me: 6W in a row (to beat Borg), 3 RG (to equal Guga), 5 USO in a row, 4 AO + 6 masters cups+ one gold olympic medal
About 80 tournies in total
no DC alas, unless Wawrinka is taking steroids from 2005
Sounds good ! ;) ;)

:eek:

It would be awesome if what you say happened but let's be realistic: 18 Grand Slams????!!!!!!!!!! :cuckoo:

TheMightyFed
03-02-2005, 07:22 PM
:eek:

It would be awesome if what you say happened but let's be realistic: 18 Grand Slams????!!!!!!!!!! :cuckoo:
agree but not that crazy after all, if a major injury does not occur: for me 6W are the most reachable, he's already in his garden there and Pete's 7 titles is a huge motivation, whatever people could say... 3 FO, the hard piece as he still has to win one, and the likes of Nadal and Coria will be major obstacles, but if he gets comfortable once there, everything's possible, he's got the versatility for it as we all know (some posters on this board are going to be crazy to read that but ok ;) )... 5 USO, this is feasible on hard, with a bit of luck for sure... and 4 AO, meaning 3 more till the end of his career, largely possible with the ups and sowns of Safin among other things...
He enjoys so much Masters cups because he wants to show he's the best among the best, so 6 would be ok, and he's craving for a gold medal after his two upsets, so 2008 games are the one...
that would certainly lead to at least 1 Grand Slam, and 7 years as number 1...
Respect... :worship: :worship:
80 tournies seem a good figure, it seems he wants to win a lot of them, but not more than 100 like Connors because he will focus on GS ;)
Ok, let's hope these predictions won't give him bad luck

rwn
03-02-2005, 09:03 PM
The problem with your prediction is: Roger has to stay as motivated as now for a lot of years. 2005 and 2006 are reasonably certain I think, but can he stay as motivated as Sampras was. Even the motivation of Sampras became less after 1997. But the talent is certainly there to win a lot of titles.

Action Jackson
03-03-2005, 06:22 AM
I mean 1 tpurney a year in average, so it's like he's done 4 years already, so that would be till 32-33.... hard, isn't it ?
The glory hound was for me I think Pushkin.

Are you going out with makro or something? He says Federer will win 20 Slams and you think he will win 18. Keep on dreaming.

Puschkin
03-03-2005, 07:51 AM
Are you going out with makro or something? He says Federer will win 20 Slams and you think he will win 18. Keep on dreaming.

The longer this goes on, the more I agree with GWH. It becomes unrealistic and it doesn't do anyone good. It is not good for yourself, because you may get disappointed and it is not good for your "hero" becasue if he thought along those lines it would detract him from the task at hand.

Action Jackson
03-03-2005, 07:53 AM
No, this was worse for Tom. It is like Heuberger or Wawrinka beating Roger in Basel, although Skoff was not without talent.

There is one major difference. Roger doesn't hate any of the guys on the Swiss team. Muster and Skoff weren't friends that's why it's worse.

TheMightyFed
03-03-2005, 09:08 AM
The longer this goes on, the more I agree with GWH. It becomes unrealistic and it doesn't do anyone good. It is not good for yourself, because you may get disappointed and it is not good for your "hero" becasue if he thought along those lines it would detract him from the task at hand.
It's just a bit of delirium, and a way to put things in perspective. I think that Sampras' achievement, though lacking of clay results, is gargantuan, and it's like a mountain for any talented player... you measure what it takes to be that consistent over so many years, and sometimes you just wonder... I agree it would be counter-productive for RF to focus on it, but at the end, Pete's out-of-this-world results are there and any "best ever" debate should take this into account. You are Fed and everybody says you're the best, maybe the best ever, and you look at this 10 slam difference (underlined by Agassi in AO, who himself quoted Sampras on Rafter)... keeps you humble for a while, which is good ! I won't be disappointed by Fed cos' I'm not an accountant, I loved Edberg's style and Becker's charisma, and they won "only" 6 slams each, so for me Roger is a kind of poet in his sport, and quite a good example of what a champion should be. 6 Slams would be enough already to secure him a postion in the game's history... especially if RG is one of the 2 remaining... ;)

SUKTUEN
03-03-2005, 02:47 PM
If Roger win 18 Grand Slam ~~~ :eek: :eek:

I will be crazy at that moment~!!!! :crazy: :banana: :banana: :banana:

yanchr
03-03-2005, 02:49 PM
So imagine the good record at the end of Fed's career, what would it be for you?
For me: 6W in a row (to beat Borg), 3 RG (to equal Guga), 5 USO in a row, 4 AO + 6 masters cups+ one gold olympic medal
About 80 tournies in total
no DC alas, unless Wawrinka is taking steroids from 2005
Sounds good ! ;) ;)
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: If Roger can't meet with your prediction when he retires, will that mean his career is disappointing for you :eek: :eek:

Even if you really think so, just keep it to yourself and never let us or Roger know ;)


Roger looks like focus on one match each time. Obviously the main goal he is aiming at now is to win every single match he plays. But I do think Roger cares about those records, at least his own ones, eg, the final winning streak as he said before, and he does keep a constant eye on it. He is not claiming himself loudly that he is going to be the greatest ever but to me from what he is doing now you can tell he has such a big motivation that he is actually moving ahead toward this goal, just maybe unconsciously.

I don't think it's totally bad to care about those records or set a goal to surpass all the greats before. It depends on how you look at them and care about them. You should find a balance between chasing after the records and playing your own game one match after another. For Roger, I believe he can cope with it well.

I love his artful game while I also enjoy the feeling of victory. Sometimes you can't be as that greedy as would like to have them both. But now Roger successfully brings the two together in him in such a consistent fashion which is simply a bonus for me. So if the records come, it'll be awesome, if not, just enjoy his game, I'll also not get much disappointed.

SUKTUEN
03-03-2005, 02:52 PM
So if the records come, it'll be awesome, if not, just enjoy his game, I'll also not get much disappointed.

Yes~~~ If Roger can win 18 Grand Slam I will crazy~ :bounce:

But if he cannot I still Love him so much as now~~ :hug: :bigclap:

fightclubber
03-03-2005, 02:57 PM
So imagine the good record at the end of Fed's career, what would it be for you?
For me: 6W in a row (to beat Borg), 3 RG (to equal Guga), 5 USO in a row, 4 AO + 6 masters cups+ one gold olympic medal
About 80 tournies in total
no DC alas, unless Wawrinka is taking steroids from 2005
Sounds good ! ;) ;)


Ohh
I cannot even think about it. To me, its a lots of pressure, I imagine those numbers will pressure everyone.
I realluy like to live the moment.
I get very excited each tournament, suffering screaming.... cursing... or laughing.
The truth is I hope he can win lots of gran slams, but will be hard even if he keeps this rythm. As he said in Rotterdam, in one interview.... Theres a bunch of players that want the same as I want... so.-.. let´s see ( not quoting but that was the idea)
I wich Roger be health and win each tournamet, step but step....
Focus only on Gran slams will be a huge mistakes. No one will garantee you´ll win them if you play only them in a year. All has to be with the mental and physical condition of the other partners as well as Roger.
He might not loose his motivation, but others can try to aproach him and their willings may let our Roger fail from time to time.
At last. I will always support him, winner , looser, retire, off court. He seems a wonderfull person and I like his style over everything. He is a swam on court, a pleassure for my eyes

SUKTUEN
03-03-2005, 03:07 PM
Roger will be fine~~

He always know how to forget the pressure~~ :devil:

MisterQ
03-03-2005, 03:15 PM
The only one of those achievements that I could see Roger thinking hard about at the moment is the career grand slam. After all, he's only one RG away. I could see that motivating him to concentrate a bit more on his clay skills, and take RG very seriously.

All of the other achievements are just so far away at this point, it is crazy to be entertaining them right now! He should just keep playing well, and then perhaps he will suddenly find himself in the position to equal one of those other accomplishments.

Remember, Agassi never set out at first to win the career grand slam. In fact, he hated grass for many years. He just happened to win his first three majors at three different events, so suddenly he was in the running for the career GS. Likewise there is no way Borg set out at first to win RG/Wimby back to back so many times, or Laver decided at the beginning of 1969, "I think I'll try to win the Grand Slam this year." lol No, you just do things one step at a time, and then maybe you will find yourself within spitting distance of one of these big achievements.

SUKTUEN
03-03-2005, 03:20 PM
I really want Roger win RG and Wimby in one year~!!!! :D

but if I must choose one~~ I vhoose Wimby~~ ;)

Nocko
03-04-2005, 05:07 AM
Well, I think he will have a hard time this year becouse he might be trying something to improve himself. He looks hit harder, hit rising balls more often than before. These 2 months he dosen't (or can't ,becouse of his new speed)show his variety as much as before. But I'm looking forward to see what he get in near future. Is that only my oppinion? I never watched him on cley, actually I never watched him before last W exept another W'02's final.( I had no chance!) Please let me know what you think about it. Anyway, I believe he will achieve career grand slam at least. :yeah:


:wavey: :wavey: Nice to meet you, I'm Nocko. ;) :wavey: :wavey:

SUKTUEN
03-04-2005, 06:42 AM
Yes/, Nocoko~~

Roger is prastice the net for RG!!!

^Sue^
03-04-2005, 01:16 PM
The reason is he wanna to be the greatest player of all not only being the world no 1 player forever and also winning all grand slams in total of 100 and 500 titles.

TheMightyFed
03-04-2005, 01:58 PM
Yes/, Nocoko~~

Roger is prastice the net for RG!!!
Suktuen, I love your refreshing posts, and you really seem to be a true Roger fan, do you like other players as well ? ;)

SUKTUEN
03-05-2005, 08:26 AM
Suktuen, I love your refreshing posts, and you really seem to be a true Roger fan, do you like other players as well ? ;)

Oh ~`Oh ,oh~~~ I love Andy Roddick as well~~~( little voice) :dance:

But I Love Roger THE BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!! ( loud voice~!!!!!) :bounce: :bounce:

Nocko
03-05-2005, 11:13 AM
Oh ~`Oh ,oh~~~ I love Andy Roddick as well~~~( little voice) :dance:

But I Love Roger THE BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!! ( loud voice~!!!!!) :bounce: :bounce:


Yeah!!SUKTUEN, Andy is also lovery in your drawings!! ;)

Nocko
03-05-2005, 11:45 AM
Yes/, Nocoko~~

Roger is prastice the net for RG!!!



Yes, I agree with you!!! and I like it. He is so elegant at the net. :hearts: and I think he also tries to grow up his speed and quickness because the next genelation --Nadal, Verdich, etc...--have so much speed even now. Is that wrong?? You know Rogi much more than me. :worship: He takes a long view of his tennis. genius!!! :bigclap:

SUKTUEN
03-05-2005, 02:52 PM
Nocko You love Roddick too????????

So great!! This kind Roger Fans are very few~~ :hug: :hug:

But I say again Roger is my best love~~~ :devil:

Nocko
03-05-2005, 04:14 PM
:bigclap: :inlove: Nocko You love Roddick too????????

So great!! This kind Roger Fans are very few~~ :hug: :hug:

But I say again Roger is my best love~~~ :devil:


SUKTUEN, I LIke Andy's parsonality. He looks childish a little, and I can't hate him.He looks so honesty, heartwarming. but talking about his tennis....that isn't real tennis yet.(Sorry,SUKTUEN :worship: ) Maybe in near future....??? He improved his tennis so much. Anyway he is cute,too. Bu~~~t, I love Roger as his tennis, his parsonarity, even his defects(is this right word? I don't know exact word).
:bigclap: :bigclap: Roger,Roger,Roger~~~Roger is the best!!!!! :bigclap: :bigclap:

SUKTUEN
03-05-2005, 04:21 PM
Andy's power is so strong, and he is cute too~~ :hearts:

Roger is the best of course~~~ :bounce:

TheMightyFed
03-21-2005, 05:45 AM
Rog has just answered to this question in IW:

Q. What records are out there that impress you?

ROGER FEDERER: I mean, like what Borg did at Wimbledon, how many times Pete finished No. 1 in the world, yeah. The best of the best, so.

Q. Are there any that you'd like to have a chance to chase?

ROGER FEDERER: No, not really, no.

Q. Does Andre's record of winning all four slams on four different surfaces, how impressive is that? Is that something you'd like to achieve?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I think the way he did it was quite amazing. You know, he never thought he will win Wimbledon with his game, because by then you had the big servers. I think it was his first Grand Slam he won, so that's unbelievable. And in the end where everybody thought it was over, he came back and won the French, being down two sets to love. Kind of maybe a little bit of a surprise to him as well that he actually won all four. But he did well by doing it.

Billabong
03-21-2005, 01:24 PM
A mix of Sampras and Agassi's achievements;)!