Federer - What would define a good 2006?

Purple Rainbow
11-21-2005, 10:21 PM
We had the thread last year, discussing what would be considered a good year for Federer and when 2005 would be considered a failure.

Here's my suggestion for what Federer should consider a good enough year in 2006.

-Win 2 slams, or 1 if it is the French Open.
-Win at least 8 titles.
-Remain number 1 for the season.

This is of course barren any major injuries. Nadal put up a huge chase for the #1 rank, but still failed by nearly 400 Race points. I think none of the youngsters at this point is ready to take over Federer just yet.

What do you all think?

11-21-2005, 10:28 PM
-2 grand slams; many will consider Wimbledon to be more important although the French Open is more important.
-3 master titles; at least one on clay, one on cement and one indoors.
-5 other titles.
-the year end masters.
-ending year ranked number 1

11-21-2005, 10:33 PM
You are too demanding.

One Grand Slam and ending the year as number one is enough.

11-21-2005, 10:51 PM
win the french and defend wimby for a 4th title.

and end the year as number 1. that would be a good 2006 even if he doesn't win 11 titles or go 82-3 or whatever.

take note, that back in the 90's i think only muster won double digit titles. even sampras averages only 5-6 and that was already considered a great season back then.

fed just raised the bar...

11-21-2005, 11:22 PM
Losing less than 4 matches. :p

El Legenda
11-21-2005, 11:25 PM
100-0 4GS 9TMS

11-21-2005, 11:52 PM
100-0 4GS 9TMS

plus masterscup

11-22-2005, 12:21 AM
Winning five matches, because we know that he's going to be a mental, emotional, and physical wreck after this Masters Cup, and he'll be hanging around the Challengers and Futures tournaments, barely scrapping some wins. :sad:

11-22-2005, 12:30 AM
Win Wimbledon.

11-22-2005, 01:12 AM
plus davis cup :p
plus masterscup

11-22-2005, 02:07 AM
I think Federer is starting to enter Sampras territory, where a year is going to be judged very simply by his number of major victories. To his credit, Federer places importance on lesser tournaments as well, but tennis seems to remember legacies more by the number of Grand Slams earned than by temporary streaks (no matter how impressive) that are created along the way.

To me personally, Federer's 2005 was a more impressive year than 2004, but compare three majors and a TMC title to just 2 majors, and as time passes, I think 2004 might end up being seen as the better year. We'll see what next year brings, but in his post match interview after the TMC final, Roger mentioned the Australian, RG and Wimbledon as his primary goals next year. Wimbledon will always be one of his goals, and until he wins RG, I hope (and think) he'll make it a priority as well. I guess we'll see whether or not he ever duplicates a year like this one, but he's been on top for a while now, and so far it seems that the best way to beat Federer is to be naturally gifted and just play extremely well against him. And if that keeps up, it's hard not to see him snagging another major or two next year.

11-22-2005, 02:28 AM
1 slam if it is the FO otherwise I am going to be disappointed with any number less than 2. :p

Seriously, I just hope he is careful about his health and I am sure he will be. I think it is legacy creation time so he should concentrate on slams even though his own opinion is contrary to that.

11-22-2005, 02:38 AM
AO, FO and the #1 ending ranking and of course he's healthy

11-22-2005, 03:11 AM
Not being forced into early retirement because some unhinged MTF posters think he's finito after losing one final in 2-1/2 years.

11-22-2005, 03:12 AM
At least 2 GSs including the French Open and Wimbledon:yeah: 3 TMS, #1 at the end of the year and TMC:worship: That would be incredibly awesome:banana:! Anf of course: STAY HEALTHY: that's the most important thing:)

11-22-2005, 06:57 AM
Here's my suggestion for what Federer should consider a good enough year in 2006.

-Win 2 slams, or 1 if it is the French Open.
-Win at least 8 titles.
-Remain number 1 for the season.

What do you all think?

Reasonable, even if it is less than 8 titles :) .

I will add, whatever makes him happy and satisfied. ;)

11-22-2005, 07:18 AM
i guess, *Winning 2 GS or one if that would be another Wimbledon Or ( his first Roland Garros :angel: ).
*keeping the titles of at least 3 masters series.
*if he ends the year as number one, even if he lost it for some time through out the season.

I will add, whatever makes him happy and satisfied ;) posted by Mandoura
agree :yeah:

11-22-2005, 12:36 PM
plus davis cup :p

Fed couldn't care less about Davis Cup, at least in this moment of his career. He just puts in the necessary effort to keep Switzerland in the World Group. I don't even think he'll be playing the 1st round tie against Australia next year, so there's a great possibility that Swiss plays again the relegation play-offs in September.

11-22-2005, 01:00 PM
I think he can defend

Indian Wells TMS
Hamburg TMS

Also, winning Australian Open

Striking for Roland Garros is his hope!

Australian Open + Dubai + Indian Wells TMS + Hamburg TMS + Roland Garros + Halle + Wimbledon + Bangkok (8 titles is OK)

11-22-2005, 01:07 PM
definding Wimlbedon what make it a good year for me :D

11-22-2005, 01:15 PM
well here's Roger himself;

"Obviously, number one is going to be a huge priority for me, to try to maintain that ranking," said the Swiss, who sprained his right ankle in training last month.

"Wimbledon will, my whole career, stay a huge goal. Maybe I can give myself another chance at the French Open, you know. So I think those are my three goals."

nicely said Federer......now nail all three :)


11-22-2005, 02:14 PM
If he had to choose between 1st Roland Garros and 4th Wimbledon, which one would he rather win next year?

Surely he's got to win RG one year or people will always have small doubts about his "greatness".

11-22-2005, 03:03 PM
a great year for him or any1 is to win at least 1 GS & finish no.1 which i can see him do it

11-22-2005, 03:34 PM
As the man in my av sued to say- "Win 1 grand slam and you have had a great year. Win 2 and you have had a phenomenal year".

Federer to win 1 slam (any slam) would be a good year. It would be a great year if that 1 slam also happened to be the French Open.

2 or more slams needless to say is huge.

11-22-2005, 04:18 PM
Winning one slam is not a good year for Federer. At this moment he's the huge favorite for all slams except RG and of course he'll be judged by his own standards, which he set during the last two years. Winning only one slam is passable, winning two is good, winning three is truly great and winning three including RG is exceptional.

11-22-2005, 04:23 PM
IMO a good season for Roger in 2006 would be to remain in the number 1 entry position the most of the weeks ( It isn't necessary all the weeks )

I don't care too much about the number of titles .

11-22-2005, 04:29 PM
1. Dumping Mirka
2. Getting Lindsay ... Lohan :tape: (that way you'll be known in U.S. )
3. Going wild with Lindsay, Paris, Tara and all the whoredome on E! (that way you'll be even more known in U.S. ) :yeah: :aparty: :drink: :smoke: while drunk you can say "i love Rafa" ;)

11-22-2005, 04:45 PM
all 4 slams every masters series and dont play the masters cup

11-22-2005, 06:11 PM
1. Dumping Mirka
2. Getting Lindsay ... Lohan :tape: (that way you'll be known in U.S. )
3. Going wild with Lindsay, Paris, Tara and all the whoredome on E! (that way you'll be even more known in U.S. ) :yeah: :aparty: :drink: :smoke: while drunk you can say "i love Rafa" ;)

You are a sick puppy, but a funny one!!! ;)

11-23-2005, 05:51 PM
I'm not lying. He's in serious danger :scared: