If... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If...

Polikarpov
09-15-2006, 03:34 AM
by the end of his carreer, Roger wins 12 grandslam titles with Roland Garros being one of them, does it equal or surpass Sampras' effort of winning 14 grandslam titles with the absence of Roland Garros?

Who will be the greater player if that's the case?

Johnny Groove
09-15-2006, 03:39 AM
If he wins RG, it will be because Rafa was injured :)

Dirk
09-15-2006, 03:40 AM
If he wins RG, it will be because Rafa was injured :)

Rafa is going to miss quite a few slams in his future due to injury.

PamV
09-15-2006, 04:46 AM
by the end of his carreer, Roger wins 12 grandslam titles with Roland Garros being one of them, does it equal or surpass Sampras' effort of winning 14 grandslam titles with the absence of Roland Garros?

Who will be the greater player if that's the case?

Maybe we should just save our energy and discuss this years from now when we see what happens?

deliveryman
09-15-2006, 06:13 AM
If he wins RG, it will be because Rafa was injured :)

Remember that little chat we had a while back about you turning every fucking thread about Rafa? :rolleyes: Congratulations, you have elevated the heights of Rafatardism to new levels.

Way to completely disregard the question asked by the thread starter, even though you were the very first one to post in the topic.

alas_8: That's a very good question, given how Roger has dominated the sport like no other, and has completed the career slam, with only 2 slams short of Pete's mark. I would give Federer the slight edge over Pete. Though, still below Laver.

Jaffas85
09-15-2006, 06:38 AM
I think Federer will end up winning the French Open prolly no more than twice by the end of his career and the first time he wins it will prolly be in the final against someone who isn't Nadal.

Making 3 consecutive finals may prove quite difficult on clay even for Nadal thus someone like Gasquet, Murray, Davydenko etc. could beat him somewhere along the way before Federer has to contend the final.

Federer may forfeit the 07' Australian Open title *by not playing at a ridiculously high level, like he usually does, but still playing like a top 5 level player* to possibly Nadal and play a restricted scheduale to focus entirely upon the Clay season in 2007.

We'll see.

Safin_Lova
09-15-2006, 07:09 AM
If he wins RG, it will be because Rafa was injured :)

:worship:
So true.

Safin_Lova
09-15-2006, 07:11 AM
by the end of his carreer, Roger wins 12 grandslam titles with Roland Garros being one of them, does it equal or surpass Sampras' effort of winning 14 grandslam titles with the absence of Roland Garros?

Who will be the greater player if that's the case?

I would consider Sampras the better player because Sampras had tougher competition.

MariaV
09-15-2006, 07:19 AM
I think it's safe to say that Fed will end up with more than 12 GS titles.

Jaffas85
09-15-2006, 07:21 AM
He'll win between 15 - 20 by the end of his career.

Until he's 30 he'll prolly win at least 2 a year with the U.S. Open and Wimbledon being his safest bets.

bokehlicious
09-15-2006, 07:48 AM
I would consider Sampras the better player because Sampras had tougher competition.

:yeah: Even if Roger ends by winning 25 slams (including 8 RG :p ) Pete will remain head and shoulders ahead, he had to fight his ass whereas Roger's playing against challenger-quality opponents. :rolleyes:

:retard: :retard: :retard:

oz_boz
09-15-2006, 08:27 AM
He'll win between 15 - 20 by the end of his career.

Until he's 30 he'll prolly win at least 2 a year with the U.S. Open and Wimbledon being his safest bets.

At least two a year? Until 30??? That is quite a lot to expect. His last three years are unparallelled in the Open era, and he probably can't go on like this forever.

Regarding Sampras' competition: the mid-70s generation was not exactly stunning, and Agassi won half of his slams 99 or later.