Can Federer beat Connors 105 tournys record? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can Federer beat Connors 105 tournys record?

marcRD
10-09-2006, 09:17 PM
Can he do it? Some say it is impossible, I belive it is close to impossible. I think the word impossible is overused in general, The consistency of Roger Federers last 3 years has been amazing and unmatched in tennis history. 8 grand slams in 3 years is a record by far, so is 10+master series in 3 years and he is +30titles in 3 years which is close to a record. What is incredible is that these 3 years has almost been all the same quality with a slight improvement the last year. 10 straight GS semifinals, 6 straight GS finals...

This year he played 17 staraight finals, his ranking has improved since last year, which was an improvement from the end of 2004. This year he will probably end with +8000 points.

This is not only admiration about the statistics, I am trying to point out that Federer is actualy improving for every year. He has improved in clay to the point that no one in the world can beat him besides Nadal. On other surfaces he is praticaly invincible. In 2004 he used to lose against avarage players in early rounds, not anymore. What else is impressive is that he never gets injured.

Now, if he could keep the consistency for another 4 years and not get injured he could beat Connors 105 tournament record!

I am not saying he will do it, neither that his chanses are great, but that it is a possiblity.

Lets say he ends this season with 45 tournaments.

Next 4 years, could be just as good if not better. He could win 40-45 tournaments in these years and be close to 90 just turning 29 years old.

Then it is all up to his longevity, Agassi was world nr1 when he was 31-32 years old. Federer does have the passion and discipline to do the same, he just needs the luck to keep away from injury.

If I could beat on 10 to 1 on Federer winning +105, I would do it. I give him about a 20% chanse to do it. What do you say?

oz_boz
10-09-2006, 09:25 PM
...
If I could beat on 10 to 1 on Federer winning +105, I would do it. I give him about a 20% chanse to do it. What do you say?

Don't do it even if you get 1000:1. He will not get close to 105.

BTW you have some very remarkable ways of expressing odds. You say it is almost impossible for Fed to surpass Connors, but you still give him a 20% chance of making it.

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 09:26 PM
Can he do it? Some say it is impossible, I belive it is close to impossible. I think the word impossible is overused in general, The consistency of Roger Federers last 3 years has been amazing and unmatched in tennis history. 8 grand slams in 3 years is a record by far, so is 10+master series in 3 years and he is +30titles in 3 years which is close to a record. What is incredible is that these 3 years has almost been all the same quality with a slight improvement the last year. 10 straight GS semifinals, 6 straight GS finals...

This year he played 17 staraight finals, his ranking has improved since last year, which was an improvement from the end of 2004. This year he will probably end with +8000 points.

This is not only admiration about the statistics, I am trying to point out that Federer is actualy improving for every year. He has improved in clay to the point that no one in the world can beat him besides Nadal. On other surfaces he is praticaly invincible. In 2004 he used to lose against avarage players in early rounds, not anymore. What else is impressive is that he never gets injured.

Now, if he could keep the consistency for another 4 years and not get injured he could beat Connors 105 tournament record!

I am not saying he will do it, neither that his chanses are great, but that it is a possiblity.

Lets say he ends this season with 45 tournaments.

Next 4 years, could be just as good if not better. He could win 40-45 tournaments in these years and be close to 90 just turning 29 years old.

Then it is all up to his longevity, Agassi was world nr1 when he was 31-32 years old. Federer does have the passion and discipline to do the same, he just needs the luck to keep away from injury.

If I could beat on 10 to 1 on Federer winning +105, I would do it. I give him about a 20% chanse to do it. What do you say?
:wavey:
Connors was a greedy nutcase, but Federer is smart;)
Connors loved MM tourneys, but Federer prefers Slams & AMS/TMC:p
Connors won many events that were only 16-man draws, not fair:o
Connors was still winning ATP events at age 37yrs, Fed will retire at 32-34:angel:

......What Connors did is still remarkable:worship: ,however it`s a different World now & old Jimbo`s record looks safe;) .
Fed will probably win 75-90 titles:) ~that`s more than Sampras~~~ & Roger will also have more than Sampras in another category;)

Dancing Hero
10-09-2006, 09:54 PM
Won't reach Connors' overall total, but already surpassed him in the GS.

Johnny Groove
10-09-2006, 09:59 PM
Conners won mostly MM events, some with only a 4 man draw :rolleyes:

cmurray
10-09-2006, 10:01 PM
Federer probably won't break that mark, but it isn't because he can't. I think he's smarter than that. It is no good for him to play too much tennis, so he plays the big ones. I think the records Rogi will break will be more important than connors' 105 wins.

neenah
10-09-2006, 10:02 PM
Conners won mostly MM events, some with only a 4 man draw :rolleyes:

Yes, so even if Fed can't beat this record, he has broken/will break enough other records that mean more.

neenah
10-09-2006, 10:03 PM
Federer probably won't break that mark, but it isn't because he can't. I think he's smarter than that. It is no good for him to play too much tennis, so he plays the big ones. I think the records Rogi will break will be more important than connors' 105 wins.

That's what I was trying to say, except you said it better :lol:

Adler
10-09-2006, 10:14 PM
The answer is NO. Cmonaussie has already written why

Regenbogen
10-09-2006, 10:15 PM
He probably won't play enough tournaments to do that, I think there's a slight possibility he'll break it though. I'd bet on 1000/1 odds :lol:

rofe
10-09-2006, 10:25 PM
No.

All_Slam_Andre
10-09-2006, 10:30 PM
Absolutely no chance, but to be fair this isn't that important a record. I can't really say it any better than cmurray did a few posts earlier.

Merton
10-10-2006, 12:18 AM
He will not even break Lendl's record. (94) By the way, extrapolation is not a good method to make probabilistic statements for this case. The fact that Roger has won 30 tournaments in the last 3 years (32 if we go from Vienna 2003) does not mean that he is likely to win 40 tournaments in the next 4 years.

A better way to approach the question is to take all slam winners of the last 30 years and examine the time span between their first and last title.

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 12:29 AM
Put it this way: if he reaches 80 I'll cut off my own Johnson :o

Merton
10-10-2006, 12:36 AM
Put it this way: if he reaches 80 I'll cut off my own Johnson :o

He is at the median of his tennis life (barring injuries), but the first half is almost always more productive than the second half. He has 42 now, my guess is that your Johnson is safe but it is good that you will not formally put it down in a contract:scared:

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 12:43 AM
He is at the median of his tennis life (barring injuries), but the first half is almost always more productive than the second half. He has 42 now, my guess is that your Johnson is safe but it is good that you will not formally put it down in a contract:scared:I'm pretty sure I'm safe, and median never means much anyway ;)

Boris Franz Ecker
10-10-2006, 12:54 AM
He could do it easily if he'd play the same categorie of tournaments Connors mainly played in the 70ies.
Connors had his private north american mickey mouse tour, weak opponents, small draws, no problems-> >10 titles a year easily.
If Federer would do so, that would mean playing in Poertschach, Bastad, Umag, Houston, etc... instead of Rome, Hamburg, Montreal.
It would still be more difficult than the Connors private tour, but Federer shouldn't have problems to add 5-6 titles a year.
Does he really want this? no, not at the moment.
But if he has around 100 titles and is an old man who bettered all other records, he might try it.
If he goes on playing the AMS-series it will be very difficult to win 100 titles.

J. Corwin
10-10-2006, 12:54 AM
Mirka will become pregnant before that happens. :p

Deivid23
10-10-2006, 01:00 AM
If I could beat on 10 to 1 on Federer winning +105, I would do it. I give him about a 20% chanse to do it. What do you say?


I say u r nuts

CmonAussie
10-10-2006, 01:07 AM
Put it this way: if he reaches 80 I'll cut off my own Johnson :o
Rogiman mate:sad: ~~ sorry to say but that Johnson of yours is coming off:eek: :o

TennisGrandSlam
10-10-2006, 03:10 AM
So, Jimmy Connors is great, but not in 1977 :mad:

TennisGrandSlam
10-10-2006, 03:17 AM
4 Slam
9 AMS
TMS
5 non-Mandatory tournaments (small tournaments )

ATP race is based on the 19 tournament above.

Firstly, it is impossible for Federer to win all AMS, his selection for tournaments to play is careful, he will not allow himself to play much more small tournaments.

I think Roger Federer targets at 8-9 titles (of course with at least 1-2 Slam and 2-3 AMS) per years in future 3-4 years.

Action Jackson
10-10-2006, 03:19 AM
I say someone has been taking ice, crack, cocaine and marijuana at the same time and that someone is called marcRD.

Eviscerator
10-10-2006, 03:25 AM
I have not read the other replies, but another factor you are leaving out besides injury is the competition he will be facing in the future. Right now few players can beat him when he is on his game. However everyone will be gunning for him, and players will strive to improve their games to meet and exceed Federer. It will not be an easy task considering how naturally talented Federer is, but he will not dominate like this every year.

Is it possible? The answer of course is yes, but I would not put my money on it.

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 03:41 AM
if he's got about 6 years at full strength left and keeps up the pace he's been setting of about 10-11 titles a year... then he'd be knocking on the door :)

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 03:45 AM
if he's got about 6 years at full strength left and keeps up the pace he's been setting of about 10-11 titles a year... then he'd be knocking on the door :)

Yes, but how on earth is it possible to keep up that sort of pace? One or more factors that have gone his way won't in the coming years, that's almost guaranteed. I'd estimate 70 at maximum, and that's probably a little optimistic; probably the best target to aim for is overtaking Sampras (64), which assuming another five years of title-winning form would require an average of 4-5 titles a year. There are so many more important records that he has broken and can still target, and the Slam count is one of them.

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 03:54 AM
I think Fed can set a Lendl like pace
... he won tons of his events past 25 y.o.

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 03:59 AM
Lendl was a title-winning machine long before he became a Slam champion, though. By way of comparison, Federer's 41st title was his ninth Slam; Lendl's 41st title was his first.

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:07 AM
lol that is unbelievable.... Lendl had 40 titles at one time in his life and none were a slam, no wonder ppl gave the guy such a hard time in the early part of his career for not winning a slam.

at least he figured the old slams out eventually.

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:09 AM
thats a question..
who has the most all time titles without having won a slam?

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:11 AM
Winning a first Slam aged 24 must be one of the latest breakthroughs by any all-time great, perhaps the latest? And that may explain why he was still so consistent and challenging for Slams at the age of 30, with the 1991 AO being his last Slam final. Mind you, that's talking about big titles, he obviously had the facility to rack up smaller victories right from the start. He won his first seven titles in one year, 1980, as a 20-year old.

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:12 AM
thats a question..
who has the most all time titles without having won a slam?

That's what my stickied title thread in the Statistics forum is for you know, how else did I dig up that stat on Lendl? :p

CmonAussie
10-10-2006, 04:14 AM
thats a question..
who has the most all time titles without having won a slam?

Enquist ~ 19-titles:sad:
Rios ~ 18-titles:eek:

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:14 AM
i was reading that thread earlier tonight... i noticed you didnt have Laver in there with his 39 open era titles :p

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:17 AM
i was reading that thread earlier tonight... i noticed you didnt have Laver in there with his 39 open era titles :p

Yes, and TennisGrandSlam is hauling me over the coals for it in BIG PRINT as well. ;) The reason why is that his career straddles pre and post-Open Era tennis, therefore I'd be underselling him a little if I just put the recognised ones down. I mean there wouldn't be 11 Slams in there, for a start, and only one Grand Slam....

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:17 AM
Enquist ~ 19-titles:sad:
Rios ~ 18-titles:eek:

Guess again, mate. ;)

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:17 AM
i think its some of those guys on 25 titles.... Clerc and Gottfried.

CmonAussie
10-10-2006, 04:19 AM
Guess again, mate. ;)
:cool: ~okie dokies I only know about recent records:o

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:20 AM
Gottfried it is, and I'm willing to bet he also holds the record for most match wins without a Slam title as well. It's something like 625/75 victories, not bad for a guy who only made one Slam final at RG in 77 and was drubbed by Vilas.

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:24 AM
notice how ATP has Johnny Mac's titles at 76 then you click on 'career titles/finals' and it says 77.

same kind of mistakes with borg and nastase as well.
damn site.

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:30 AM
I almost gave up on that site completely when they started listing walkovers as victories in head-to-head records, thankfully they've stopped doing that. And I'm pretty sure they count matches from the 70s that are simply listed as DEF in head-to-heads as well, but there's no score, so surely DEF is another way of saying W/O instead of implying that someone was kicked out midway through a match? A lot of them seemed to happen to Connors, so you could certainly believe he was getting defaulted regularly....

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:40 AM
im glad they changed that WO one, but they still dont count challengers hth :lol: well they do - but not as an official win, and you have to scroll down for them.. end up missing it half the time.
i dont wanna scroll.

i also like the career matches win/loss for doubles as well :)
will be interesting to read who has played the most ATP singles and doubles matches combined ever, J.Mac?

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 04:43 AM
and the old codger still hasnt had enough - playing doubles this week in Stockholm with Bjorkman eheh

Sjengster
10-10-2006, 04:49 AM
I doubt even Kafelnikov can beat a total of 1683 matches played across all competitions. Actually, that doesn't count mixed doubles either, where Mac also won a couple of Slams.... but it's not that surprising an achievement if, as his contemporaries say, he used doubles as a substitute for practice.

Corey Feldman
10-10-2006, 05:06 AM
Mac and Kafel must have played 150 matches a year in their prime.. for many a year.

yet thesedays you see ppl shocked if fed plays around +80 matches a year and think he plays to much :o

NYCtennisfan
10-10-2006, 05:07 AM
Andre Agassi mentioned last year that the game of tennis is a lot harder on the body now than it was say 20 years ago or even 10 years ago since the game demands so much more of the body now than it did before.

Players simply can't play as much as they did before winning MM events everywhere. Players like Vilas and Lendl would often go 8 or 9 weeks in a row playing tournaments on different continents since the schedule was all screwed up. YOu can't do that now and nobody would want to. The prize money available now means you don't have to play all those little tournaments that won't affect your ranking in any case.

Federer will probably win around 70 titles or so before all is said and done.

TennisGrandSlam
10-10-2006, 05:37 AM
I almost gave up on that site completely when they started listing walkovers as victories in head-to-head records, thankfully they've stopped doing that. And I'm pretty sure they count matches from the 70s that are simply listed as DEF in head-to-heads as well, but there's no score, so surely DEF is another way of saying W/O instead of implying that someone was kicked out midway through a match? A lot of them seemed to happen to Connors, so you could certainly believe he was getting defaulted regularly....

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=50139&page=2

Wheat means by WT


also what means by DEF or WEA?

also, ATP use ret. for midway retiring, and W/O for retirement before match

W/O and WEA - don't count as loss, but or ret. DEF

Fed-Express
10-10-2006, 06:57 AM
There is no way he will come even near that mark.

CmonAussie
10-10-2006, 08:03 AM
There is no way he will come even near that mark.
:wavey:
Your right~ he won`t come near it & he doesn`t have to;) !
All the fans really expect from Fed is a sweet number 15~ that`s all the legacy he requires & I`m sure Tiger Woods feels the same ~ though for him 19 is the number:angel:

Fed-Express
10-10-2006, 08:23 AM
I agree, 15 is the magic number for Roger, the number that counts above all others. Let' hope that he will be able to pull it off in 2008 or 2009.

buzz
10-10-2006, 09:08 AM
Wel, if federer is some freak of nature both physically and mentally (wich sometimes seems so..) he might continue winning 4 titles a year from 2012 to 2016. that would be 5X4=20, Then he would need 43 titles from now untill 2011 that is 43/5= 8.6 titles a year. VERY HARD!!!!

But I mean weard things do happen, like agassi reaching the US final when 35 years old and a little injured.

I think the chances are in the order of 1/100 (not 1/1000 in my opinion)

stebs
10-10-2006, 10:32 AM
Maybe 2 more this year. - 45
8 in '07 and '08 - 61
6 in '09 and '10 - 73
4 in '11 and '12 - 81
2 in '13 and '14 - 85

That is at the very best.

I would guess he would end up with between 55 and 70.

victory1
10-10-2006, 02:04 PM
It's impossible, Conner played until he was 50!:D :p

buzz
10-10-2006, 04:50 PM
Maybe 2 more this year. - 45
8 in '07 and '08 - 61
6 in '09 and '10 - 73
4 in '11 and '12 - 81
2 in '13 and '14 - 85

That is at the very best.

I would guess he would end up with between 55 and 70.

I don't think 8 in '07 and '08 is 'the very best' roger could do after he won 11 three years in a row. 11 are a lot of titles but why can't federer do that again??? Do you think Nadal is going to defeat him more than 4 times next year or will there be others??

Its not that i think he's defenitly going to get more than 16 in the next two years combined but he has a good chance

rofe
10-10-2006, 04:56 PM
Mac and Kafel must have played 150 matches a year in their prime.. for many a year.

yet thesedays you see ppl shocked if fed plays around +80 matches a year and think he plays to much :o

That could very well be due to a more physically demanding game nowadays.

A_Skywalker
10-10-2006, 05:16 PM
No , he cant

marcRD
10-10-2006, 05:35 PM
Maybe 2 more this year. - 45
8 in '07 and '08 - 61
6 in '09 and '10 - 73
4 in '11 and '12 - 81
2 in '13 and '14 - 85

That is at the very best.

I would guess he would end up with between 55 and 70.

This could is the very best Federer can do in my opinion:

3 more in 06: 45
12 in 07 (is going to be his best year I think):57
11 in 08 and 09: 79
9 in 10: 88
6 in 11 (30 years old): 94
3-4 in 12-15: enought to beat the record

I also want to say I think this record is completely worthless, what makes it so fun is that it is the most difficult record out there to beat, even impossible some people think. I think it is fun some people think it is impossible, as I see nothing impossible in Federer keeping away from injuries and still owning the rest of the tour for another 4 years. Nothing impossible with Federer having an Agassi type of aging in tennis. That is all which is required for him to have a shot at beating the record.

Merton
10-10-2006, 06:30 PM
This could is the very best Federer can do in my opinion:

3 more in 06: 45
12 in 07 (is going to be his best year I think):57
11 in 08 and 09: 79
9 in 10: 88
6 in 11 (30 years old): 94
3-4 in 12-15: enought to beat the record

I also want to say I think this record is completely worthless, what makes it so fun is that it is the most difficult record out there to beat, even impossible some people think. I think it is fun some people think it is impossible, as I see nothing impossible in Federer keeping away from injuries and still owning the rest of the tour for another 4 years. Nothing impossible with Federer having an Agassi type of aging in tennis. That is all which is required for him to have a shot at beating the record.

The odds of your prediction are only slightly better than "Dear Leader" delivering the State of the Union Address in 2013.

Eden
10-10-2006, 06:40 PM
15 is the magic number for Roger, the number that counts above all others. Let' hope that he will be able to pull it off in 2008 or 2009.

:yeah:

It isn't necessary that Roger achieves every record other players have made. I think it is pretty sure where he sets his priorities :)

Connors record will last for a long time. At the moment I don't see any player who will be able to break it.

TennisGrandSlam
10-11-2006, 03:21 AM
It's impossible, Conner played until he was 50!:D :p

In fact, for 1970s, there were over 100 ATP tennis tournaments in the world per year. Now only less than 70.

Fedex
10-11-2006, 06:16 AM
No and nor should it be a priority. Winning slams and AMS events is what really counts, and that is what Federer should focus on.

predator
10-11-2006, 10:03 AM
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

no comments.

Bagelicious
10-11-2006, 03:31 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

no comments.

As insightful and interesting as your other posts on this forum. Maybe you should lurk for a while before contributing any more, especially when it comes to starting *******threads*******.

ON TOPIC: I'm not sure I can add anything to the thread debate that hasn't already been mentioned by others - the circumstances under which that record was set are very different from those today, different enough that it's not that relevant a record.

Not a bad thread, though a little too optimistic. :p