Why I think Roger will beat Pete's GS record (assuming he stays healthy) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why I think Roger will beat Pete's GS record (assuming he stays healthy)

JennyS
09-15-2005, 08:21 PM
I think that if Roger can stay healthy for the next several years, he will pass Pete's all-time record in the next 3-4 years and the reason is because I think he's going to have a much more balanced Grand Slam title haul ala Steffi Graff, who won at least 4 of every major.

12 of Pete's 14 Slams came at Wimby and the US Open. Roger has shown that even if he regards Wimby as the top major, he seems to be equally prepared for all four. The way he went down to Australia to get used to the conditions when he could have been sitting on his couch and relaxing shows that he really wants to win everything he enters.

I think it's a safe bet that Roger will win more than a combined 2 majors from AO and RG. If he can win 3-4 Aussies, and 1-2 French Opens that means he won't have to win as many Wimby's as USO's to pass Pete's record.

PamV
09-15-2005, 08:25 PM
I think that if Roger can stay healthy for the next several years, he will pass Pete's all-time record in the next 3-4 years and the reason is because I think he's going to have a much more balanced Grand Slam title haul ala Steffi Graff, who won at least 4 of every major.

12 of Pete's 14 Slams came at Wimby and the US Open. Roger has shown that even if he regards Wimby as the top major, he seems to be equally prepared for all four. The way he went down to Australia to get used to the conditions when he could have been sitting on his couch and relaxing shows that he really wants to win everything he enters.

I think it's a safe bet that Roger will win more than a combined 2 majors from AO and RG. If he can win 3-4 Aussies, and 1-2 French Opens that means he won't have to win as many Wimby's as USO's to pass Pete's record.

I think he'd have a good chance of winning RG if Nadal wasn't in the way. What about him?

JonnyC21
09-15-2005, 10:53 PM
I've always thought Roger Federer was something special when I saw him beat Ivanisevic as a raw 18 year old in London in 2000. I think he can still improve his game to a scary degree over the next couple of years by bringing his serve, net play and smash up to Sampras standard which will make him untouchable at Wimbledon.

It all depend on injury though, his forehand, although fluid is whipped with such an extreme grip that it is hard to see how it can take such a pounding year after year without some sort of damage. His movement will also be a factor as he grows older, when Sampras started to lose his movement he started to lose his dominance as well and relied on his serve to a huge extent. No matter what happens in the next few years, I will be severely shocked if Federer does not rack up over 10 Grandslam titles with the Roland Garros crown among them.

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 11:16 PM
Hi Jonny, welcome to the forum.

IMMORTALCHAMP
09-16-2005, 12:30 AM
I can't see Federer winning Roland Garros ever. And I see a couple of young guys coming up that have more talent than Federer, so I'm not sure if Fed will get Sampras' slam record.

Tennis Fool
09-16-2005, 01:04 AM
I think that if Roger can stay healthy for the next several years, he will pass Pete's all-time record in the next 3-4 years and the reason is because I think he's going to have a much more balanced Grand Slam title haul ala Steffi Graff, who won at least 4 of every major.
Monica's 1991-1993 run is a better example than Steffi, who was able to win all those majors because of Monica's stabbing.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-16-2005, 01:05 AM
To win RG Fed has to get by Nadal and I don't think he can do that on clay.

Tennis Fool
09-16-2005, 01:07 AM
I can't see Federer winning Roland Garros ever. And I see a couple of young guys coming up that have more talent than Federer, so I'm not sure if Fed will get Sampras' slam record.
French guys? :devil:

MATTHIAS
09-16-2005, 07:06 AM
i think the big question is if he is able to win RG
Nadal seems to be the man to beat in Paris
but we will see, Nadal can not allways have such a incredible season like this year, and then Roger need to use his chance

TheMightyFed
09-16-2005, 07:35 AM
I've always thought Roger Federer was something special when I saw him beat Ivanisevic as a raw 18 year old in London in 2000. I think he can still improve his game to a scary degree over the next couple of years by bringing his serve, net play and smash up to Sampras standard which will make him untouchable at Wimbledon.

It all depend on injury though, his forehand, although fluid is whipped with such an extreme grip that it is hard to see how it can take such a pounding year after year without some sort of damage. His movement will also be a factor as he grows older, when Sampras started to lose his movement he started to lose his dominance as well and relied on his serve to a huge extent. No matter what happens in the next few years, I will be severely shocked if Federer does not rack up over 10 Grandslam titles with the Roland Garros crown among them.
Good analysis, footwork and wrist will be the key in Fed longevity...
I think he'll learn a lot from this year semi-final in RG, and if there is one guy who can take a challenge or a tournament seriously and elevate his game when it matters, it's Federer. Now that Nadal is the official clay king, Federer will be the underdorg against him in RG, which will put off some pressure from Fed shoulders. It's a capital point IMO. Federer will win RG and integrate the Laver/Borg/Sampras elite group.

ezekiel
09-16-2005, 09:37 AM
He has his work cut out for him at RG because Nadal is so dedicated it will be very hard to replace him save for injury, not to mention the whole spanish/argentine army of clay courters

TheMightyFed
09-16-2005, 09:41 AM
He has his work cut out for him at RG because Nadal is so dedicated it will be very hard to replace him save for injury, not to mention the whole spanish/argentine army of clay courters
I mean every year people say that the claycourters will beat him, but he's repeteadly beaten Gaudio, Coria, Gonzalez and other Spanish/Argentines on clay... the real threat today is Nadal and his lefty topspin, and the mental barrier that RG could represent, but with 5 titles including 3 masters series, Fed has proven he can beat the best on clay, period.

Experimentee
09-16-2005, 04:50 PM
He's only had 2 great years on tour. Whenever someone has 2 great years people assume they will keep it up for the rest of their career and break records, but that is almost never the case. It depends on a lot of things, like injuries, loss of form, new players coming up. Thats why players like Pete, who kept up Slam wins for many years, should be respected, as most players cant keep up dominance for long.

jacobhiggins
09-16-2005, 04:57 PM
Yeah but Federer is different, it took Pete 14 slams for some to consider him the best ever, Federer was already being proclaimed the best when he was 23. I think he will beat Petes record !

RonE
09-16-2005, 05:12 PM
Wayyyyy too early to make that kind of statement. So many things could happen. All he needs is to get injured or lose half a step with his footwork and that would be enough to allow other players to derail him.

The next 3-4 years are key as he will need to maximise his ability as long as his body is still in it's peak years. Come back around 2008 by then we will know if he has a good chance of surpassing Pete's record.

LLeytonRules
09-16-2005, 05:32 PM
People are really high on Nadal in terms of the french open, yes he won it but i need to see him win it back to back, i thought Roger played Nadal very well this year in that french open, its not like Nadal blew him out.

Whistleway
09-16-2005, 06:05 PM
4 or 5 years is a lifetime in tennis. Several things would and will happen. Lets not jump the gun.

ys
09-16-2005, 08:05 PM
I think it is a very close call at this point. But if I'd have to bet .. I'd bet against that.

Federer is 10 years younger than Pete. And at this point he is one Slam behind from where Pete was 10 years ago.. I think that Roger has more chance to win RG than Pete did, but I still have to think that he will be mostly cut off from that Slam by the horde of claycourt specialists who can't do much on other surfaces but very efficient on this one. He is likely to dominate grass just as much ss Pete did. But can he get 7+ hardcourt Slams? I doubt it. And , at this point his career hasn't been affected by injuries in any extent.. At some point it will no longer be so..

ys
09-16-2005, 08:08 PM
People are really high on Nadal in terms of the french open, yes he won it but i need to see him win it back to back, i thought Roger played Nadal very well this year in that french open, its not like Nadal blew him out.

No, but that's what it is.. Roger has no answer for Nadal's high-kicking forehand on clay. He just doesn't. His huge technical arsenal simply doesn't have anything that would neutralize Nadal's forehand on clay. It could be even a problem on slow hardcourts like Melbourne or Miami.

jacobhiggins
09-16-2005, 08:13 PM
The have only played eachother 3 times, Nadal and Federer, that is not a lot. If Federer can learn how to beat his former nemisis's i'm sure he can learn how to defeat Nadal.

ys
09-16-2005, 08:17 PM
The have only played eachother 3 times, Nadal and Federer, that is not a lot. If Federer can learn how to beat his former nemisis's i'm sure he can learn how to defeat Nadal.

Consider Sampras on clay.. No matter how good he is, clay neutralizes his strengthes too much. Federer is different, but not much different.