[Discussion] Will Roger win 100 ATP Singles Titles or more? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

[Discussion] Will Roger win 100 ATP Singles Titles or more?

TennisGrandSlam
02-05-2006, 01:44 PM
Jimmy Connors

NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 268
Consecutive NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 160
Year End NO. 1 (# of times) : 5 (1974-78)
Win-Loss : 1222-269
ATP Singles Titles (# of titles) : 109 (105, According to ATP)
NO. of Grand Slam (# of times) : 8 (AO 1974; WI 1974, 1982; UO 1974, 196, 1978, 1982-83)


Ivan Lendl

NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 270
Consecutive NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 154
Year End NO. 1 (# of times) : 4 (1985-87, 1989)
Win-Loss : 1070-238
ATP Singles Titles (# of titles) : 94 (near to 100, 2nd most ever)
NO. of Grand Slam (# of times) : 8 (AO 1989, 1990; RG 1984, 1986-87; UO 1985-87)


**********************************************


Roger Federer (active player)

NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 105, running
Consecutive NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 105, running
Year End NO. 1 (# of times) : 2 (2004-05), running
Win-Loss : 403-120, running
ATP Singles Titles (# of titles) : 35, running
NO. of Grand Slam (# of times) : 7 (AO 2004, 2006; WI 2003-05; UO 2004-05), running

CmonAussie
02-07-2006, 07:02 AM
:wavey: Impressive stats from Connors & Lendl but their eras were quite different. For instance many of the WCT titles that Connors won only required him to win four matches. These days even the weakest ATP events still require a player to win atleast five matches on the trot. Also Connors didn`t have enough respect for AO or FO~ as he rarely competed in those two :rolleyes: .Whereas Connors was chasing overall titles for the prizemoney Federer is a different kettle of fish. I think Roger realises that most great players are only remembered for how many Slams they win. Thankfully Federer respects all-four Slams :worship: & he`ll do whatever he can to win as many as possible, even if that means foresaking a few other regular ATP events :cool: .

Having said all that I still think Federer is on course to break the title tallies of Sampras [64] & Agassi [60].When it`s all said & done I imagine Roger will have somewhere between 70~80 titles.Probably 12-15 Slams & 22-27 TMS crowns etc. :worship: :worship:

Jimmy Connors

NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 268
Consecutive NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 160
Year End NO. 1 (# of times) : 5 (1974-78)
Win-Loss : 1222-269
ATP Singles Titles (# of titles) : 109 (105, According to ATP)
NO. of Grand Slam (# of times) : 8 (AO 1974; WI 1974, 1982; UO 1974, 196, 1978, 1982-83)


Ivan Lendl

NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 270
Consecutive NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 154
Year End NO. 1 (# of times) : 4 (1985-87, 1989)
Win-Loss : 1070-238
ATP Singles Titles (# of titles) : 94 (near to 100, 2nd most ever)
NO. of Grand Slam (# of times) : 8 (AO 1989, 1990; RG 1984, 1986-87; UO 1985-87)


**********************************************


Roger Federer (active player)

NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 105, running
Consecutive NO. 1 (# of weeks) : 105, running
Year End NO. 1 (# of times) : 2 (2004-05), running
Win-Loss : 403-120, running
ATP Singles Titles (# of titles) : 35, running
NO. of Grand Slam (# of times) : 7 (AO 2004, 2006; WI 2003-05; UO 2004-05), running

TheMightyFed
02-07-2006, 08:40 AM
No he won't do it and it would even be better because he must preserve himself for slams. Connors is not in the race for best ever, so what's the point of having so many titles ? Lendl is probably more remembered for his stunning 19 slam finals than his 94 titles, though in his case there is no asterisk like for Connors and the WCT.

bokehlicious
02-07-2006, 08:43 AM
Winning over 100 ATP tournies is simply impossible nowadays... Connors played a lot of Mickey mouse tournaments in which there was no top ranked players at all... It was tennis middle age.

Dirk
02-07-2006, 10:13 AM
I think Roger could hit the 60 mark but 70 would be hard for me believe that could happen.

Sjengster
02-07-2006, 10:36 AM
This is one record I'm really not going to lose sleep over. I would be perfectly happy with a half-century, assuming a slow down in form and titles per year over the next few years.

RogiFan88
02-07-2006, 02:13 PM
ditto, Sjengst

SUKTUEN
02-07-2006, 04:18 PM
how many is he now?

bokehlicious
02-07-2006, 08:38 PM
how many is he now?

Currently 35 singles ATP titles

LCeh
02-07-2006, 08:47 PM
No. I think it's impossible.

MisterQ
02-07-2006, 08:54 PM
No he won't do it and it would even be better because he must preserve himself for slams. Connors is not in the race for best ever, so what's the point of having so many titles ? Lendl is probably more remembered for his stunning 19 slam finals than his 94 titles, though in his case there is no asterisk like for Connors and the WCT.

Perhaps not, but with Connors in a GS tie with Lendl, Agassi and Rosewall, surely his large number of titles counts for something. ;)

As for Roger, if he keeps up the pace of his very best years (around 10 per year), he could theoretically have 100 titles by the age of 31 or so. But that seems really unlikely... no matter how talented he is, it will not always be so easy for him to snatch up titles left and right! He could certainly match Agassi and Sampras, however, barring injury or a lapse in form.

RonE
02-07-2006, 09:10 PM
Not a chance- there is a greater probability for Nadal to sprout wings and take to the air (i.e pigs will fly).

CmonAussie, long time no hear. Great to have you back :wavey:

CmonAussie
02-08-2006, 07:38 AM
Not a chance- there is a greater probability for Nadal to sprout wings and take to the air (i.e pigs will fly).

CmonAussie, long time no hear. Great to have you back :wavey:

:wavey: :cool:
Thanks RonE, yeah Roger Federer`s brilliance has converted me to the Dark Side~(don`t take me seriously ;)). Actually Hewitt`s long run of near misses, mostly at the hands of Fed left me depressed for a while. Then I thought if you can`t beat them you may as well join them. Of course how could anybody not love Roger :angel: ,even when he beats my guy 6-0,7-6,6-0 :eek: etc. all I can think is *Wowza this guys on a different planet*.Then he goes an make emotional speeches :sad: like the AO one & you realize what a sensitive soul he is! I mean Roger`s almost the perfect player :worship: to represent tennis & hopefully grow the sport`s popularity worldwide, so I think many people are being converted like me.

J. Corwin
02-08-2006, 09:56 AM
nah he won't...he'll be breaking more important records ;) I see him breaking the TMS title record currently held by Agassi. :)

Puschkin
02-08-2006, 11:07 AM
I sincerely hope he does not even think about it!

TennisGrandSlam
02-08-2006, 12:31 PM
Jimmy Connors :eek:

SINGLES CAREER TITLES (105):
1972--Albany, Cincinnati, Columbus, Jacksonville, London / Queen's Club; 1973--Baltimore, Boston, Columbus, Hampton, Johannesburg, Los Angeles, Paramus, Quebec, Roanoke, Salisbury, Salt Lake City;
1974--Australian Open, Birmingham, Hampton, Indianapolis, Johannesburg, Little Rock, London, Los Angeles, Roanoke, Salisbury, Salt Lake City, Tempe, US Open, Wimbledon;
1975--Bahamas, Bermuda, Birmingham, Boca Raton, Denver WCT, Hampton, Maui, North Conway, Salisbury;
1976--Birmingham, Cologne, Denver WCT, Hampton, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, North Conway, Palm Springs, Philadelphia WCT, US Open, Washington, Wembley;
1977--Birmingham WCT, Dallas WCT, Las Vegas, Masters, Maui, St. Louis WCT, Sydney Indoor;
1978--Birmingham, Denver, Indianapolis, Memphis, Philadelphia WCT, Rotterdam WTC, Stowe, Sydney Indoor, US Open, Washington;
1979--Birmingham, Hong Kong, Indianapolis, Memphis, Philadelphia, Stowe, Tulsa;
1980--Birmingham, Dallas WCT, North Conway, Philadelphia, Republic Of China, Tokyo Indoor;
1981--Brussels, La Quinta, Rotterdam, Wembley;
1982--Columbus, Las Vegas, London / Queen's Club, Los Angeles, Monterrey, US Open, Wimbledon;
1983--Las Vegas, London / Queen's Club, Memphis, US Open;
1984--Boca West, La Quinta, Los Angeles, Memphis, Tokyo Indoor;
1988--Toulouse, Washington;
1989--Tel Aviv, Toulouse

FINALIST (49):
1971--Columbus, Los Angeles;
1972--Baltimore, Indianapolis, Washington;
1973--Bretton Woods, Omaha;
1974--Omaha, South Orange;
1975--Australian Open, London, New York, Stockholm, US Open, Wimbledon;
1976--La Costa, Salisbury;
1977--Indianapolis, Pepsi Grand Slam, Philadelphia WCT, Toronto Indoor WCT, US Open, Wimbledon;
1978--Pepsi Grand Slam, Wimbledon;
1979--Las Vegas, Pepsi Grand Slam, Tokyo Indoor;
1980--Memphis, San Jose;
1981--Hamburg;
1982--Milan, Philadelphia, Rotterdam, San Francisco;
1983--Wembley;
1984--Dallas WCT, Wimbledon;
1985--Chicago, Fort Myers;
1986--Cincinnati, Fort Myers, London / Queen's Club, San Francisco;
1987--London / Queen's Club, Memphis, Orlando;
1988--Key Biscayne, Milan

NYCtennisfan
02-09-2006, 01:46 AM
Having said all that I still think Federer is on course to break the title tallies of Sampras [64] & Agassi [60].When it`s all said & done I imagine Roger will have somewhere between 70~80 titles.Probably 12-15 Slams & 22-27 TMS crowns etc.


Exactly. This is the peak of Fed's career. He may win double digit titles this year but I highly doubt it will happen with him again. Why? When it has been done i.e. Connors, Vilas, Nastase, JMAC, Lendl, Borg, etc, it is only done once or twice. Only Nastase and Connors along with Fed have ever won double digit titles in consecutive years. NOBODY has done it three straight years. It will be really, really difficult to get more than 70 or 75 after the peak years are done.

Another thing to add: Connors won a lot of tournaments when the tour was split. Some players played the ATP tour and others the WCT tour. It was like having the top 10 split in half so a lot of tournaments that Connors won were with very weak fields where the majority of the field could literally not even hit the ball with Connors. That's not to say that Connors wasn't the best player at the time because he was but his numbers are a bit inflated.

Lendl was just a beat and played and played and played.

CmonAussie
02-09-2006, 07:26 AM
:wavey:
Yeah I doubt Federer will be able to maintain his run of winning double-digit titles every year. Lets assume he can do it for one more year [ie.2006],then he`ll have around 43-45 titles. If he can average 5-7 titles per year for the next four years[2007-2010] then that would take him up to 63-73 titles ;) ,then he may be able to nab a couple more as he approaches his 30th birthday & beyond[if he has Andre`s :worship: gym regime]. That`s how I came up with the 70-80 title figure,but who knows I may be totally not in the ballpark :cool: .Atleast I can say he`ll have 50+ & less than 100 titles, but 50-99 is too broad a range right :cool: ?

Exactly. This is the peak of Fed's career. He may win double digit titles this year but I highly doubt it will happen with him again. Why? When it has been done i.e. Connors, Vilas, Nastase, JMAC, Lendl, Borg, etc, it is only done once or twice. Only Nastase and Connors along with Fed have ever won double digit titles in consecutive years. NOBODY has done it three straight years. It will be really, really difficult to get more than 70 or 75 after the peak years are done.

Another thing to add: Connors won a lot of tournaments when the tour was split. Some players played the ATP tour and others the WCT tour. It was like having the top 10 split in half so a lot of tournaments that Connors won were with very weak fields where the majority of the field could literally not even hit the ball with Connors. That's not to say that Connors wasn't the best player at the time because he was but his numbers are a bit inflated.

Lendl was just a beat and played and played and played.

Dirk
02-09-2006, 10:29 AM
:wavey: :cool:
Thanks RonE, yeah Roger Federer`s brilliance has converted me to the Dark Side~(don`t take me seriously ;)). Actually Hewitt`s long run of near misses, mostly at the hands of Fed left me depressed for a while. Then I thought if you can`t beat them you may as well join them. Of course how could anybody not love Roger :angel: ,even when he beats my guy 6-0,7-6,6-0 :eek: etc. all I can think is *Wowza this guys on a different planet*.Then he goes an make emotional speeches :sad: like the AO one & you realize what a sensitive soul he is! I mean Roger`s almost the perfect player :worship: to represent tennis & hopefully grow the sport`s popularity worldwide, so I think many people are being converted like me.

AUSSIE :hug: I hope we see you more often. Now if we could only get Adam and some Fed haters and former lovers to get on board.

stebs
02-09-2006, 10:12 PM
Only Nastase and Connors along with Fed have ever won double digit titles in consecutive years. NOBODY has done it three straight years.


I think Roger has a very good chance to set a record here. He already has two titles this year. It isn't exactly hard to imagine him winning eight more. I think if he does this will be the last year he does it but I still think he might well this year.


Dubai Duty Free Men's Open

Pacific Life Open

NASDAQ-100 Open

Masters Series Monte Carlo

Telecom Italia Masters Roma

Masters Series Hamburg

Roland Garros

Gerry Weber Open

Wimbledon

Masters Series Canada

Western & Southern Financial Group Masters

US Open

AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships

Masters Series Madrid

Davidoff Swiss Indoors

BNP Paribas Masters

Tennis Masters Cup



This is Rogers schedule for the rest of the year. 17 tournaments. Roger does not need to win half of them to make 10 for the year. He will probably pull out of one or two I'd expect though.

makro120
02-10-2006, 12:49 AM
Nobody cares about my opinion, but yes I think he can do it. Without serious injuries and if he loves tennis so much that he wont stop playing until he is really old, which I think he does he will possibly break Connors record. It is not impossible, that is all I am saying. He is only 24 years old, if he plays another 10 years and keep winning double digit numbers of titles for another 5 years this is how many he could win:

24-28 years: 50-55 titles
29-34 years: 20-25 titles
+35 titles
total career titles: 105-115 titles

Does it really sound impossible?

I dont think it is impossible, but not probable because of injuries and young hungry challengers will make life difficult for Roger.

World Beater
02-10-2006, 04:48 AM
Nobody cares about my opinion, but yes I think he can do it. Without serious injuries and if he loves tennis so much that he wont stop playing until he is really old, which I think he does he will possibly break Connors record. It is not impossible, that is all I am saying. He is only 24 years old, if he plays another 10 years and keep winning double digit numbers of titles for another 5 years this is how many he could win:

24-28 years: 50-55 titles
29-34 years: 20-25 titles
+35 titles
total career titles: 105-115 titles

Does it really sound impossible?

I dont think it is impossible, but not probable because of injuries and young hungry challengers will make life difficult for Roger.

this is the fed forum...we always care for your opinions. you are one of the true few that believes in roger's ability from start to finish. Anything is possible for federer...

NYCtennisfan
02-10-2006, 04:48 AM
Nobody cares about my opinion, but yes I think he can do it. Without serious injuries and if he loves tennis so much that he wont stop playing until he is really old, which I think he does he will possibly break Connors record. It is not impossible, that is all I am saying. He is only 24 years old, if he plays another 10 years and keep winning double digit numbers of titles for another 5 years this is how many he could win:

24-28 years: 50-55 titles
29-34 years: 20-25 titles
+35 titles
total career titles: 105-115 titles

Does it really sound impossible?

I dont think it is impossible, but not probable because of injuries and young hungry challengers will make life difficult for Roger.
__________________

You are the eternal optimist my friend, but there is just NO way. On top of that, if he keeps winning this many tournaments, he is going to have nothing left in about 3 years. He needs to save himself so he can be competitive in slams for the next 5-6 years and go for Pete's record.

NYCtennisfan
02-10-2006, 04:50 AM
I think Roger has a very good chance to set a record here. He already has two titles this year. It isn't exactly hard to imagine him winning eight more. I think if he does this will be the last year he does it but I still think he might well this year.


Dubai Duty Free Men's Open

Pacific Life Open

NASDAQ-100 Open

Masters Series Monte Carlo

Telecom Italia Masters Roma

Masters Series Hamburg

Roland Garros

Gerry Weber Open

Wimbledon

Masters Series Canada

Western & Southern Financial Group Masters

US Open

AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships

Masters Series Madrid

Davidoff Swiss Indoors

BNP Paribas Masters

Tennis Masters Cup



This is Rogers schedule for the rest of the year. 17 tournaments. Roger does not need to win half of them to make 10 for the year. He will probably pull out of one or two I'd expect though.

I do think he will do it again this year with a nice round total of 10. In any case, his back-to-back double-digit title years is already more impressive than Illie's or Jimmy's because of the non-unified tour of those days.

SUKTUEN
02-10-2006, 05:53 AM
No. I think it's impossible.

is sampras won 64 titles ?

makro120
02-10-2006, 01:32 PM
this is the fed forum...we always care for your opinions. you are one of the true few that believes in roger's ability from start to finish. Anything is possible for federer...

Sorry, didnt mean you dont care about my opinions. I just dont think many people actualy take it seriously, not even in the Fed forums. I belive however it is possible, as you said anything is possible for Federer. If I would do a serious predict of how many titles Federer will win before his career is over I would say 90-100, but Connors record is not out of reach for Federer.

LCeh
02-10-2006, 10:10 PM
Sorry to disagree with you Makro, but like others have said, I think it's almost impossible for Roger to keep this rate up. What he has done in the past 2 years have been exceptional, and I don't expect him to continue winning tournaments like this, and neither do I want him to, because I believe winning so many tournaments will eventually take something out of him. I think he should start concentrating on slams instead, because the pressure of having to win every single match you play will get to him sooner or later, so he should take that pressure off by not caring AS MUCH about smaller tournaments as he does now.

stebs
02-11-2006, 12:03 AM
he should take that pressure off by not caring AS MUCH about smaller tournaments as he does now.

I'm not so sure. He plays very few small tournaments, only the amount which he can enter into his ranking. He might as well try and win them don't you think?

LCeh
02-11-2006, 12:25 AM
Oh, he should try and win them, definitely. But he shouldn't put too much pressure on himself to win them, ie it's ok if he doesn't win them. Right now I think he is going into all of the tournaments thinking that "I MUST win them", but I think if he goes into smaller tournaments thinking that it's OK if he doesn't win them, then he can play those matches with a more relaxed mind, which should help him in the long run.

WF4EVER
02-11-2006, 02:04 AM
He'll never win 100 tournaments and he doesn't need to IMO. I think he should concentrate on stacking up the Slams and TMS, because for as many tournaments as these two men, Lendl and Connors, have won, they only have 8 Slams each. Roger is one Slam away from tying their record and reasonably within reach of surpassing them both.

Only a lunatic would aspire to win 100 tournaments in thi sday and age. No matter how good he is.

SUKTUEN
02-11-2006, 05:25 PM
I think it is no need to compare the number of titles, If Roger Win more Grand Slam than Sampras, it is have a more big Meaning :D

Daniel
02-14-2006, 02:46 AM
I dont think Roger will win 100 titles.
50 is ok for me

SUKTUEN
02-14-2006, 04:26 PM
I dont think Roger will win 100 titles.
50 is ok for me
I think 70~~~ :D

Fedex
02-15-2006, 11:49 PM
NO, nor do I want Federer to even attempt to win 100. A player's greatness is not measured on how many titles they win, but how many slams they win. If Federer only won 7 more titles in his career, but all 7 were grand slams, I am sure many would consider him the greatest of all time.
Also Connors won most of those titles at a time when the tour was weak and split. I think Lendl's 94 career titles is a far more impressive accomplishment, seeing as his competition was better for most of his titles. Despite Connors 105 'titles' most would not consider him the greatest (or even close) of all time.
I think Roger will win 60-70 overall titles, and 10+ grand slams. I would be happy with that.

Fedex
02-15-2006, 11:50 PM
:wavey: Impressive stats from Connors & Lendl but their eras were quite different. For instance many of the WCT titles that Connors won only required him to win four matches. These days even the weakest ATP events still require a player to win atleast five matches on the trot. Also Connors didn`t have enough respect for AO or FO~ as he rarely competed in those two :rolleyes: .Whereas Connors was chasing overall titles for the prizemoney Federer is a different kettle of fish. I think Roger realises that most great players are only remembered for how many Slams they win. Thankfully Federer respects all-four Slams :worship: & he`ll do whatever he can to win as many as possible, even if that means foresaking a few other regular ATP events :cool: .

Having said all that I still think Federer is on course to break the title tallies of Sampras [64] & Agassi [60].When it`s all said & done I imagine Roger will have somewhere between 70~80 titles.Probably 12-15 Slams & 22-27 TMS crowns etc. :worship: :worship:
Hello, CmonAussie. :wavey: :D Its been a long time since I've last heard from you. Its good to see you back. :)

Fedex
02-16-2006, 12:18 AM
He is only 24 years old, if he plays another 10 years and keep winning double digit numbers of titles for another 5 years this is how many he could win:
.
There are two problems with you're theory there.
1. He's not going to average 10 titles per. year for the next 5 years
2. Honestly, can anyone see Federer playing for another 10 years?

CmonAussie
02-16-2006, 12:22 AM
Hello, CmonAussie. :wavey: :D Its been a long time since I've last heard from you. Its good to see you back. :)
:wavey:
Thanks mate ;) . Yeah it`s refreshing that we don`t have to argue about Hewitt`s prospects of further glory :cool: ,instead we can focus on how far the great Federer will go down in history :worship: :) -don`t you thinks so!?!

CmonAussie
02-16-2006, 12:32 AM
NO, nor do I want Federer to even attempt to win 100. A player's greatness is not measured on how many titles they win, but how many slams they win. If Federer only won 7 more titles in his career, but all 7 were grand slams, I am sure many would consider him the greatest of all time.
Also Connors won most of those titles at a time when the tour was weak and split. I think Lendl's 94 career titles is a far more impressive accomplishment, seeing as his competition was better for most of his titles. Despite Connors 105 'titles' most would not consider him the greatest (or even close) of all time.
I think Roger will win 60-70 overall titles, and 10+ grand slams. I would be happy with that.
;)
After some further thought I think I agree with your predictions for Fed`s career. Seriously doubt Roger will be aiming for 100 titles & even 80 would be a stretch. My current thinking is this...


Federer will win atleast 65-titles :worship: ,though the overall number isn`t important I just think Roger`s competitive instinct will tell him that he wants to win atleast one more than Sampras [64]. So I guess Federer will keep playing pro tennis until he reaches that mark- even if he does so by claiming smaller titles. Once he passes Sampras`s mark then the motivation will drop a little so I doubt he`ll win more than 70.

Roger has atleast 11-Slams in him- he only needs four more to reach that, so that would be the minimum I guess.Again Sampras`s record will be Fed`s main goal so he may reach 15-16 but no more. I guess that makes his range from 11~16 Slams :worship: :worship: !

In line with my view that Fed is a competitive guy then I think he`ll want to break Agassi`s TMS title tally record,BTW how many does Andrea have 17? or 18? Anyway I guess Roger is in line to pick up close to 20-TMS crowns & probably 5-TMC too :worship: .Sounds like a perfect career right,^well it`s all realistic to my thinking :angel: .

Fedex
02-16-2006, 01:46 AM
Oh, that would be a perfect career, Aussie. It would be among the great achievements in modern sports history; right up there with Hank Aaron's HR record, MJ's titles and other amazing accomplishments, Gretzky's god-like statistics. :) :yeah: :worship:

SUKTUEN
02-16-2006, 04:13 PM
ho

Action Jackson
02-16-2006, 04:20 PM
Win all Slams at least once and he is a solid chance to win at least 2 a year for the next few years and the 100 titles is irrelevant really.

The choice is easy most Slam titles or most titles? Even now he has done very well, but there is a lot more to come and anywhere between 10 and 15 Slams barring injury is attainable.

SUKTUEN
02-16-2006, 05:06 PM
I don't think he can

stebs
02-16-2006, 07:52 PM
;)
After some further thought I think I agree with your predictions for Fed`s career. Seriously doubt Roger will be aiming for 100 titles & even 80 would be a stretch. My current thinking is this...


Federer will win atleast 65-titles :worship: ,though the overall number isn`t important I just think Roger`s competitive instinct will tell him that he wants to win atleast one more than Sampras [64]. So I guess Federer will keep playing pro tennis until he reaches that mark- even if he does so by claiming smaller titles. Once he passes Sampras`s mark then the motivation will drop a little so I doubt he`ll win more than 70.

Roger has atleast 11-Slams in him- he only needs four more to reach that, so that would be the minimum I guess.Again Sampras`s record will be Fed`s main goal so he may reach 15-16 but no more. I guess that makes his range from 11~16 Slams :worship: :worship: !

In line with my view that Fed is a competitive guy then I think he`ll want to break Agassi`s TMS title tally record,BTW how many does Andrea have 17? or 18? Anyway I guess Roger is in line to pick up close to 20-TMS crowns & probably 5-TMC too :worship: .Sounds like a perfect career right,^well it`s all realistic to my thinking :angel: .


:) I like the sound of that career

MisterQ
02-16-2006, 10:55 PM
;)
After some further thought I think I agree with your predictions for Fed`s career. Seriously doubt Roger will be aiming for 100 titles & even 80 would be a stretch. My current thinking is this...


Federer will win atleast 65-titles :worship: ,though the overall number isn`t important I just think Roger`s competitive instinct will tell him that he wants to win atleast one more than Sampras [64]. So I guess Federer will keep playing pro tennis until he reaches that mark- even if he does so by claiming smaller titles. Once he passes Sampras`s mark then the motivation will drop a little so I doubt he`ll win more than 70.

Roger has atleast 11-Slams in him- he only needs four more to reach that, so that would be the minimum I guess.Again Sampras`s record will be Fed`s main goal so he may reach 15-16 but no more. I guess that makes his range from 11~16 Slams :worship: :worship: !

In line with my view that Fed is a competitive guy then I think he`ll want to break Agassi`s TMS title tally record,BTW how many does Andrea have 17? or 18? Anyway I guess Roger is in line to pick up close to 20-TMS crowns & probably 5-TMC too :worship: .Sounds like a perfect career right,^well it`s all realistic to my thinking :angel: .

Andre has 17 TMS titles.

I'm not sure it's going to be all that easy to match that. They get harder to win after a while. ;) 6 matches in a short span of time. But Fed is capable if things work out for him.

stebs
02-17-2006, 02:26 PM
Andre has 17 TMS titles.

I'm not sure it's going to be all that easy to match that. They get harder to win after a while. ;) 6 matches in a short span of time. But Fed is capable if things work out for him.

I agree with you, in all honesty I think it is more likely that Roger will break 14 slams than break 17 TMS

SUKTUEN
02-18-2006, 10:08 AM
14 GS is much better :devil:

World Beater
02-19-2006, 07:08 AM
I agree with you, in all honesty I think it is more likely that Roger will break 14 slams than break 17 TMS

not really. i think 3 tms wins per year for another three years is not a stretch.

SUKTUEN
02-19-2006, 01:20 PM
Win 3 title TMS in 1 year is not very diffcult to Roger

makro120
02-20-2006, 02:09 AM
I agree the record is irrelevant. However I like the idea of breaking the "impossible record" and no record is more impossible than this one in tennis.

rofe
02-20-2006, 04:46 AM
I hope he never tries to do this. Ultimately, history looks at your GS record and if he tries this his GS run will suffer.

PaulieM
02-20-2006, 05:45 AM
14 GS is much better :devil:
15 is even better :p

Oriental_Rain
02-20-2006, 07:10 AM
well isnt that all WE hope for?

SUKTUEN
02-20-2006, 04:18 PM
and win the Olypincs too

Fedex
03-04-2006, 01:10 PM
Win all Slams at least once and he is a solid chance to win at least 2 a year for the next few years and the 100 titles is irrelevant really.

The choice is easy most Slam titles or most titles? Even now he has done very well, but there is a lot more to come and anywhere between 10 and 15 Slams barring injury is attainable.
I think people fail to realize that in sports, you slow down with age. Roger's not going to get any better than he is right now. Unless he 'juices up', like that cheating scumbag, Barry Bonds. :)

SUKTUEN
03-05-2006, 10:38 AM
he need more thinking of to play with a left handed