Will Federer retire if and when he gets to 14 GS titles? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Federer retire if and when he gets to 14 GS titles?

hasanahmad
09-11-2006, 07:40 AM
Do you think he will retire by 2008/09 - estimated time by which he might have his 14th GS title (after 12 GS tournaments at end of 2009)

bokehlicious
09-11-2006, 07:56 AM
Nope, he'll go further for 16-20 slams to ensure his GOAT spot forever :p

Safin_Lova
09-11-2006, 08:01 AM
I don't think he will retire. He is too proud. He will continue playing until he becomes like Agassi (too old, tired and injured to win anymore). My guess is that he will win 20 slams, maybe even 25! As long as Nadal is around he won't win the French Open.

swissfed
09-11-2006, 08:15 AM
Well, Mirka is there, so Roger will continue winning Grand Slams ....

atpSUPERMAN
09-11-2006, 08:17 AM
If he does Nadal is sure to beat it.

Jaffas85
09-11-2006, 08:55 AM
Federer will end up winning somewhere between 16 - 20 grand slam titles and will prolly win the French Open about twice by the time his career is over.

kronus12
09-11-2006, 10:08 AM
Federer is the most dominant player in the world. Roddick got his mojo back.
Nadal has shown again his weakness on american hardcourt.
Fed mention in one of his interview he would retire by 35.
And Superman please stop being a delusional no way is mud baller nadal going to catch up to fed he will be lucky to win another two slams.
Injuries already catching up with him his style of play will only hinder his career. He's already withdrawn from the china open. So what does that tell you.

Art&Soul
09-11-2006, 10:13 AM
If he does Nadal is sure to beat it.
Beat what? 14 GS titles? :haha: :haha:

Guybrush
09-11-2006, 12:00 PM
Beat what? 14 GS titles? :haha: :haha:

14 RG's :haha:

njorker
09-11-2006, 01:52 PM
At the rate he's going, he will have 14 GS in 3-4 years and he isn't even 30 by then. :eek: I think he will keep winning, even when he surpasses the record 14 GS and just retire at a certain age. It's sad to think (but also very admirable) about how dominant he is that very few players can win GS when he's playing. :sad:

TennisGrandSlam
09-11-2006, 02:09 PM
http://cimg.163.com/sport/0501/16/aopen1.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/s/p/2006-01-29/U397P6T12D2020119F44DT20060129215254.jpg

Final : Federer 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2 Baghdatis



http://cimg2.163.com/sports/2006/5/25/20060525193104fbda2.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/t/p/2006-06-12/U397P6T12D2271423F44DT20060612055642.jpg

Final : Federer 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7(4-7) Nadal



http://cimg2.163.com/sports/2006/6/26/20060626170219d1c96.jpg

http://cimg2.163.com/photo/0005/2006-07-10/2LKN0KI604FQ0005.jpghttp://cimg2.163.com/photo/0005/2006-07-10/2LKN0KE504FQ0005.jpg

Final : Federer 6-0, 7-6(7-5), 6-7(2-7), 6-3 Nadal



http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/up/2006-08-28/U1752P6T64D23032F1091DT20060828230145.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/t/p/2006-09-11/U1535P6T12D2450436F44DT20060911111229.jpg

Final : Federer 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 Roddick



I am satisfied with his performance of this year! :cool:

Getting 14 or more GS? I can only say, "Good luck Roger!"

Pfloyd
09-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Federer will probably win something like 16, 17 GS. I do believe Nadal to be able to win something like 8 or 9 GS, if he dosent get injured.

oz_boz
09-11-2006, 02:15 PM
Not if he has a reasonable chance of winning another.

Rogiman
09-11-2006, 02:28 PM
http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/s/p/2006-01-29/U397P6T12D2020119F44DT20060129215254.jpg
This photo shows what makes Baghy so great, I hope to see him in many more Slam finals.

TennisGrandSlam
09-11-2006, 02:31 PM
This photo shows what makes Baghy so great, I hope to see him in many more Slam finals.

He is the only smiling runner-up.

Dexter_1986
09-11-2006, 02:43 PM
There's no doubt that he will surpass Pete... and I don't think he will retire after that.

Go Roger! Win all what's there to win! :bounce: :cool:

silverarrows
09-11-2006, 03:11 PM
I think he can win around 20-22 GS with two FO. :cool:

Apemant
09-11-2006, 03:44 PM
He is the only smiling runner-up.

Nothing against his personality, but the reason why he is the only smiling runner-up is because being a runner-up was actually an acomplishment for him (at that stage). All 3 other RUPs have tasted the feeling of actually winning a GS, so being a RUP has zero appeal to them.

shaoyu
09-11-2006, 05:36 PM
I think he can win around 20-22 GS with two FO. :cool:

Over a year ago makro made a post saying he thought roger would win 22 grand slams. He got attacked and ridiculed by numerous people. People have yet to start abusing this one. I guess one year can make a lot of difference. :)

atheneglaukopis
09-11-2006, 06:28 PM
Retiring at fourteen would be depriving him of his chance to actually pass Sampras.

t0x
09-11-2006, 06:37 PM
I think he'll retire with 15/16.

I just really hope one of them is RG...

Ceri
09-11-2006, 06:46 PM
Retiring at fourteen would be depriving him of his chance to actually pass Sampras.
yep, exactly - if he wins two slams minimum for the next few years and stays in good shape he'll easily surpass pete, which he'll want to do obviously. maybe then he'll go into doubles!

ABandt
09-11-2006, 07:07 PM
I don't think he'll retire but I think once he passes that mark...if he's gotten a FO by then which he more than likely will...he'll focuses more on Wimby than any of the other Slams...and will more than likely cut down the rest of his schedule considerably.

LOL at the doubles comment...I can actually see him thinking...okay I've done all I can do in the singles side of things...let's see if I can dominate doubles for a while. Hey it's worked for Martina...why not Roger...

~Amy

Allez
09-11-2006, 07:14 PM
You mean IF and When he gets to 14 slams ? Don't see why he would want to do that unless he can't play anymore.

lordmanji
09-11-2006, 07:26 PM
history is so unfair. i imagine many of the other greats of tennis would have alot more titles if the aussie open was actually considered worthwhile. in johnny macs book, he talks of how players skipped it cause it was at the time near xmas. and then agassi skipped it his first years on tour. jim connors wasnt allowed to play the uso one year because he played for world team tennis and laver couldn't play for like 5 years at the majors because he turned pro.
i think an argument could be made that roger has more chances and motivation to rack up the grand slams because now the aussie is considered a slam and not just a tokyo open or masters series. thanks to the aussies new status, he has one more chance per year to add a slam. you do the math.
also, w/ better dieting, trainers, scheduling - connors had 105 singles titles -that fed has, he can last longer while playing at a high level. its not a stretch to believe that as players evolve, the greats become greater.

shaoyu
09-11-2006, 09:22 PM
history is so unfair. i imagine many of the other greats of tennis would have alot more titles if the aussie open was actually considered worthwhile. in johnny macs book, he talks of how players skipped it cause it was at the time near xmas. and then agassi skipped it his first years on tour. jim connors wasnt allowed to play the uso one year because he played for world team tennis and laver couldn't play for like 5 years at the majors because he turned pro.
i think an argument could be made that roger has more chances and motivation to rack up the grand slams because now the aussie is considered a slam and not just a tokyo open or masters series. thanks to the aussies new status, he has one more chance per year to add a slam. you do the math.
also, w/ better dieting, trainers, scheduling - connors had 105 singles titles -that fed has, he can last longer while playing at a high level. its not a stretch to believe that as players evolve, the greats become greater.

Are you just complaining this to Federer while Sampras also enjoyed this 'unfairness'? If you are talking unfair how about at a time when tennis did not have much money to attract the best athletes of the world thus making a domination far easier?

Johnny Groove
09-11-2006, 09:26 PM
Injuries already catching up with him his style of play will only hinder his career. He's already withdrawn from the china open. So what does that tell you.

O yes, Rafa has withdrawn from a tournament across the world from where he is. He is obviously deteriorating and wont last past 08 :rolleyes:

Corey Feldman
09-11-2006, 09:32 PM
No, and i think he really wants to win the Olympics as well... remembe how thrilled he was when he found out London got the 2012 Olympics, he wants to win that - at Wimbledon.
he said that would be a nice way to retire.
and even then he'll be 31, with hopefully more years to play :D

Corey Feldman
09-11-2006, 09:35 PM
I also got the feeling from him sometimes that he isnt that bothered about catching Sampras's record as most others are... he just wants as many as he can get, and a French.

World Beater
09-11-2006, 10:19 PM
This photo shows what makes Baghy so great, I hope to see him in many more Slam finals.

exactly. love baggy :worship:

extra respect to baggy cos when his supporters got rowdy, he calmed them down.

nadal has the pouty face...federer has the look at a funeral.

roddick is ok too.

R.Federer
09-11-2006, 10:40 PM
Roger wasn't even able to fake a smile for the RUP in Paris :sad:

ABandt
09-11-2006, 10:42 PM
That picture of Nadal cracks me up everytime I look at it...I'm not a Nadal fan but his pouty four year old expression in it almost makes me like him. He looks three seconds away from scuffing his foot in the grass.

Andy's expression is more of a glazed over, been hit by a bus, I can't believe he did this to me again like expression.

I'll forgive Roger because runner up at a grand slam is not a postion he's accostomed too he usually goes out in an earlier round or wins them and he was probably just pissed off at himself more than anything.

~Amy

megadeth
09-11-2006, 11:06 PM
fed said he'll retire after the 2012 olympics in london right?

PamV
09-12-2006, 12:49 AM
I don't think he will retire. He is too proud. He will continue playing until he becomes like Agassi (too old, tired and injured to win anymore). My guess is that he will win 20 slams, maybe even 25! As long as Nadal is around he won't win the French Open.

I don't think he'd play until until he's stiff and unable to move! Roger is proud like Sampras (both Leos) and he will want to retire with dignity intact. I don't think he'd retire at 14 majors.......if he still has more in the tank. Obviously he'd go for as many as he can get to build his legacy. He would probably hope to some day win a French if the opportunity is there.

roddick#1tome
09-12-2006, 05:11 AM
no i bet on him to equal graf's cause 3 everyear, and if has a cakewalk draw, 1 french

Mimi
09-12-2006, 06:21 AM
who will be foolish to retire when you have a chance to pass the most slams records :rolleyes:

atheneglaukopis
09-12-2006, 06:32 AM
no i bet on him to equal graf's cause 3 everyear, and if has a cakewalk draw, 1 frenchDoes he need a cakewalk draw? He made the finals against decent draws at two clay Masters events and Roland Garros this year, and it just comes down to Nadal, at least as long as they remain the one and two seeds.

CmonAussie
09-12-2006, 06:35 AM
history is so unfair. i imagine many of the other greats of tennis would have alot more titles if the aussie open was actually considered worthwhile. in johnny macs book, he talks of how players skipped it cause it was at the time near xmas. and then agassi skipped it his first years on tour. jim connors wasnt allowed to play the uso one year because he played for world team tennis and laver couldn't play for like 5 years at the majors because he turned pro.
i think an argument could be made that roger has more chances and motivation to rack up the grand slams because now the aussie is considered a slam and not just a tokyo open or masters series. thanks to the aussies new status, he has one more chance per year to add a slam. you do the math.
also, w/ better dieting, trainers, scheduling - connors had 105 singles titles -that fed has, he can last longer while playing at a high level. its not a stretch to believe that as players evolve, the greats become greater.
:wavey:
The Aussie Open was considered a major by the mojority of great players for the majority of the last 70-years. Bjorn Borg was the main offender :o & McEnroe didn`t play as much as he should have but he still came 5-times.

If you think the Aussie Open wasn`t a Slam before Federer`s era then just ask the following if they would volunteer to give up their AO titles :confused: *Budge, Laver, Rosewell, Newcombe, Ashe, Connors, Vilas, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Courier, Sampras, Agassi... ;) !!! Quite sure that none of those guys are going to put their AO trophies in the same basket as the Tokyo Open :p

stebs
09-12-2006, 09:52 AM
http://cimg.163.com/sport/0501/16/aopen1.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/s/p/2006-01-29/U397P6T12D2020119F44DT20060129215254.jpg

Final : Federer 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2 Baghdatis



http://cimg2.163.com/sports/2006/5/25/20060525193104fbda2.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/t/p/2006-06-12/U397P6T12D2271423F44DT20060612055642.jpg

Final : Federer 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7(4-7) Nadal



http://cimg2.163.com/sports/2006/6/26/20060626170219d1c96.jpg

http://cimg2.163.com/photo/0005/2006-07-10/2LKN0KI604FQ0005.jpghttp://cimg2.163.com/photo/0005/2006-07-10/2LKN0KE504FQ0005.jpg

Final : Federer 6-0, 7-6(7-5), 6-7(2-7), 6-3 Nadal



http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/up/2006-08-28/U1752P6T64D23032F1091DT20060828230145.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/ty/t/p/2006-09-11/U1535P6T12D2450436F44DT20060911111229.jpg

Final : Federer 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 Roddick



I am satisfied with his performance of this year! :cool:

Getting 14 or more GS? I can only say, "Good luck Roger!"


Baggy is the only loser to be smiling and Rafa is the only winner who doesn't smile. :p

All_Slam_Andre
09-12-2006, 10:03 AM
:lol: Why would Federer retire if he had just equalled the most important record in tennis. Surely he would want to surpass it.

Samuel
09-12-2006, 11:06 AM
Federer once mentioned in an interview that he would like, if possible, and if he stayed healthy until then, play until the olympics 2012. That s his aim. I think what happens afterwards is jus too far away for himself to tell. ;)

All_Slam_Andre
09-12-2006, 11:20 AM
:wavey:
The Aussie Open was considered a major by the mojority of great players for the majority of the last 70-years. Bjorn Borg was the main offender :o & McEnroe didn`t play as much as he should have but he still came 5-times.

If you think the Aussie Open wasn`t a Slam before Federer`s era then just ask the following if they would volunteer to give up their AO titles :confused: *Budge, Laver, Rosewell, Newcombe, Ashe, Connors, Vilas, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Courier, Sampras, Agassi... ;) !!! Quite sure that none of those guys are going to put their AO trophies in the same basket as the Tokyo Open :p

I agree with that. In the open era the only great players who haven't won the title are Borg and McEnroe. Any player who has won the Australian Open definately values their title highly.

Rogiman
09-12-2006, 12:22 PM
I don't think he'll equal Sampras' record, although I hope to be surprised.

So many here seem to think of Slam titles as numbers, let's see: 3 every year, 2 years! :unsure:

I'll be perfectly happy (and I suspect so will Roger) if he wins one Slam a year for the next 3 years or so :shrug:

One can never know if he'll win a Slam again, Wilander and McEnroe were in the height of their powers in 88 and 84 respectively, and never won another Slam afterwards...

oz_boz
09-12-2006, 01:11 PM
I don't think he'll equal Sampras' record, although I hope to be surprised.

So many here seem to think of Slam titles as numbers, let's see: 3 every year, 2 years! :unsure:

I'll be perfectly happy (and I suspect so will Roger) if he wins one Slam a year for the next 3 years or so :shrug:

One can never know if he'll win a Slam again, Wilander and McEnroe were in the height of their powers in 88 and 84 respectively, and never won another Slam afterwards...

Well said. Add Borg to champions who had a quick descent.

I'd sure love to see Roger surpass Sampras. But for that, he needs six more slams. That is at least one per year until he is thirty. With the next generation knocking in the door - Nadal more than that - and his own generation not already counted out, that seems highly unlikely. He can't go on like this forever, it has to end some day.